DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 12/5/2025, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1, and 8 have been amended. Claims 9-11, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, and 29 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8, 12-16, 18, 20, 22-24, 27, and 30-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 12/5/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Nater in view of Yankun and Frenkel
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 20, 22, 27 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nater et al.(USPubN 2020/0327682; hereinafter Nater et al.) in view of Yankun et al.(USPubN 2013/0070095; hereinafter Yankun) further in view of Frenkel(USPubN 2017/0237834).
As per claim 1, Nater teaches an identity-concealing motion detecting and portraying device, for privacy- preserving monitoring and/or surveillance by concealing the identity of detected moving subjects and their observed location and denying access to original video frames, said device comprising a first section comprising:
a. a video camera configured to collect video frame images of an area(“the video camera system 100 may include a video camera 110, a computer 120, a display device 130, an input device 140, and a storage device 160. The computer 120 may be, for example but not limited to, a computer, processor, microprocessor, controller, microcontroller, server, etc., and may communicate with the video camera 110 to receive video images. The computer 120 may also communicate with the external storage device 160 to store video data, for example, frames of video and other data, of the video captured by the video camera 110 as well as video data processed by the computer 120” in Para.[0029]);
b. a volatile memory, stored thereon a video buffer, said video camera configured to store a stream of said video frames in the video buffer(“The internal electronic media storage device 114 may be a solid state memory device known to those of skill in the art. Portions of the internal electronic media storage device 114 may provide nonvolatile storage for recorded video as well as one or more buffers for temporary storage of recorded video.” in Para.[0030]);
c. a processor configured, for each pair of successive video frames in the video buffer(“The video camera 110 may buffer motion video frames for a predetermined amount of time, for example, five seconds or another time period to permit selection of video frames from the buffered motion” in Para.[0049]), to
compute diff frames of the pair of successive video frames, wherein the diff frames are at least partially obscured from the original video frames (“determining by the one or more processors, based on the first analysis, a first difference of composition between the first set of video frames and the second set of video frames within the zone, according to certain embodiments … the difference in composition between the first and second sets of video frames in the first analysis may correspond to a detected object (e.g., package, person, animal, etc.) being present in the first set of video frames and the detected object not being present in the second set of video frame … the difference in composition between the first and second sets of video frames may correspond to a change in the content of pixels defining the first and second sets of video frames. More specifically, a change in composition may be determined as changes in raw pixel values of the frames, different statistics of pixels over some or all of the frames, different edges or other descriptors, for example, but not limited to, edges, histograms of gradients, image segmentation, or other image features related to the frames, etc., as described above” in Para.[0102], computing different edges can be interpreted as wherein the diff frames are at least partially obscured from the original video frames.);
a video analytics module configured to detect events computed from the diff frames, the video frames, or a combination thereof, wherein said events comprise presence of an intruder, a fire alert, a facial recognition, a fall, a violent activity, or any combination thereof(“When the video camera system 100 detects that an object (e.g., a package) has been removed from a defined zone, the video camera system 100 may perform additional functions or actions. In some cases, the computer 120 and/or the processor 112 of the video camera 110 may execute a facial recognition algorithm on the pre-roll static video frames and the post-roll static video frames or any other video frames captured by the video camera 110 to identify whether the person removing the object is a known person, for example a person authorized to remove the object, or an unknown person, for example a person not authorized to remove the object.” in Para.[0063], “Person detection may be an performed by an algorithm operating on the computer 120 and/or the processor 112 of the video camera 110. In some implementations, when a person is detected facial recognition may be performed to identify the person” in Para.[0068]); and
an alerting module configured to send alerts of said events to external devices(“When the video camera system 100 detects that an object has been added or removed from a defined zone, a notification to the user may be generated. Various notification methods, for example but not limited to, messages displayed on the user interface 150 or a wearable device, a text or other alert on a mobile communication device, sending a snapshot of an image, etc., registering the event in a timeline, providing audio cues via, for example but not limited to, Amazon Echo, Siri, etc., or other actions, may be provided to notify the user that the video camera system 100 has detected an added or removed object. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that other notification methods may be used without departing from the scope of the present disclosure” in Para.[0062], A wearable device and mobile communication device can be interpreted as external devices.);
Nater is silent about a second section arranged to receive the diff frames from the first section and output the diff frames as portrayed motion video and wherein the communication path said between said analytics module(s) and said alerting module includes a unidirectional waterfall data link.
Yankun teaches computer diff frames of the pair of successive video frames, wherein the diff frames are at least partially obscured from the original video frames; a second section arranged to receive the diff frames from the first section and output the diff frames as portrayed motion video(Abs, Fig. 4B and 4C, “FIG. 4B is an example of a combined image 420 generated by calculating difference images using the previous N-1 image. For N=5, the previous four images (N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4) are each subtracted from the fifth image to obtain four (N-1) difference images. Image frames N, N-1, N-2, N-3, and N-4 may be defined to be matrices |N|, |N-1|, |N-2|, |N-3|, and |N-4| containing grayscale intensities at corresponding pixel locations where N is the selected image frame for analysis” in Para.[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater with the above teachings of Yankun in order to improve the ability of the system to detect obstacles using inverse perspective transformation.
Frenkel teaches wherein the communication path said between said analytics module(s) and said alerting module includes a unidirectional waterfall data link(“portions of the network may be connected by one-way links. The term “one-way link” is used in the context of the present patent application and in the claims to refer to a communication link that is physically configured to carry signals in one direction and to be incapable of carrying signals in the opposite direction. One-way links may be implemented, for example, using Waterfall® systems, which are manufactured by Waterfall Security Solutions, Ltd. (Rosh HaAyin, Israel). The Waterfall system provides a physical one-way connection based on fiberoptic communication, using an underlying proprietary transfer protocol. When a transmitting computer is connected by a Waterfall system (or other one-way link) to a receiving computer, the receiving computer can receive data from the transmitting computer but has no physical means of sending any return communications to the transmitting computer.” in Para.[0003], “For these purposes, input interface 54 typically comprises a network interface controller (NIC), coupled to transmit and receive packets to and from network 26, along with a suitable communication controller for transmitting data over one-way link 56 and a suitable buffer memory and logic circuits (hardware or software-driven) connecting them. These functions may be carried out, for example, by a Waterfall unidirectional gateway” in Para.[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater and Yankun with the above teachings of Frenkel in order to improve data transfer security.
The Applicant is reminded that the preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
As per claim 2, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches wherein the processor is further configured to smooth edges of the portrayed motion in the diff frames, present a symbolic graphic illustration of a moving subject, or a combination thereof(“A change in composition may be determined as changes in raw pixel values of the frames, different statistics of pixels over some or all of the frames, different edges or other descriptors, for example, but not limited to, edges, histograms of gradients, or other image features related to the frames, etc. In some implementations, changes in depth imaging information, for example using an input sensor operable to sense depth of the pixels, may be determined” in Para.[0053]).
As per claim 3, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches further comprising a wireless communication module, configured to transmit any combination of a. real-time alerts of detected moving object or objects; b. said diff frames; and c. symbolic graphic illustrations of moving subjects(Para.[0042], “The action performed may include at least of: alert a user of the difference in composition between the first and second sets of video frames; send a corresponding video clip including the difference in composition between the first and second sets of video frames; trigger an alarm; open or unlock a door; turn on a remote video camera; trigger a launch of a security drone, or the like” in Para.[0007]).
As per claim 6, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches further configured to applying pixel acceleration motion detection, wherein each pixel value is replaced by its appropriate acceleration measure as estimated by taking the second derivative of the interpolation curve obtained from previous N frames(Para.[0105], [0106]).
As per claim 7, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches wherein said video camera is separate from the rest of the device and connected via a wired or wireless communication(Para.[0029], Fig. 1 and 2).
As per claim 8, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches wherein the video camera is static (“Video camera systems are in use for premises monitoring for homes and businesses to capture events that occur in and around the premises” in Para.[0025]).
As per claim 20, the limitations in the claim 20 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 22, the limitations in the claim 22 has been discussed in the rejection claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 27, the limitations in the claim 27 has been discussed in the rejection claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 30, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 8.
Nater and Yankun are silent about further comprising a step of providing a unidirectional waterfall data link along the communication path between said analytics module and send alerting module.
Frenkel teaches further comprising a step of providing a unidirectional waterfall data link along the communication path between said analytics module and send alerting module (Para.[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater and Yankun with the above teachings of Frenkel in order to improve enabling faster data rates and power consumption by transferring data as quickly as possible.
As per claim 33, Nater and Yankun teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches wherein the processor is further configured to automatically erase the pair of successive video frames from the volatile memory once the diff frames are produced(“buffer (e.g., temporarily store)” in Para.[0079]).
Nater in view of Yankun, Frenkel and Murakami
Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nater et al.(USPubN 2020/0327682; hereinafter Nater et al.) in view of Yankun et al.(USPubN 2013/0070095; hereinafter Yankun) further in view of Frenkel(USPubN 2017/0237834) further in view of Murakami et al.(USPubN 2008/0211968; hereinafter Murakami).
As per claim 4, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater teaches configured for setup enabling aiming the device to a desired field-of-view without revealing the location's actual image during said setup(“recording video frames of a scene that includes a zone defined as an area within a field-of-view of the video capture element” in Abs).
Nater, Yankun and Frenkel are silent about wherein for a pair of successive frames, the first frame is in its original position and the following frame is shifted afew pixels vertically and horizontally such that reference features are displayed for a location with no moving subjects in the field-of-view.
Murakami teaches wherein for a pair of successive frames, the first frame is in its original position and the following frame is shifted a few pixels vertically and horizontally such that reference features are displayed for a location with no moving subjects in the field-of-view(Para.[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater, Yankun and Frenkel with the above teachings of Murakami in order to improve moving image performance more.
As per claim 23, the limitations in the claim 23 has been discussed in the rejection claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
Nater in view of Yankun, Frenkel and Lu
Claims 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nater et al.(USPubN 2020/0327682; hereinafter Nater et al.) in view of Yankun et al.(USPubN 2013/0070095; hereinafter Yankun) further in view of Frenkel(USPubN 2017/0237834) further in view of Lu et al.(USPubN 2021/0152739; hereinafter Lu).
As per claim 5, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater, Yankun and Frenkel are silent about further configured to dynamically vary the frame rate of the analyzed video frames by constantly comparing motion estimation of the same video sequence applied simultaneously to pairs of frames spanning short and long time intervals, and adjusting the frame rate accordingly when comparably fast or slow motions are detected.
Lu teaches further configured to dynamically vary the frame rate of the analyzed video frames by constantly comparing motion estimation of the same video sequence applied simultaneously to pairs of frames spanning short and long time intervals, and adjusting the frame rate accordingly when comparably fast or slow motions are detected(Para.[0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater, Yankun and Frenkel with the above teachings of Lu in order to improve user experience for representation of captured media contents.
As per claim 24, the limitations in the claim 24 has been discussed in the rejection claims 5, 6, and 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
Nater in view of Yankun, Frenkel and Boykin
Claims 12, 13, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nater et al.(USPubN 2020/0327682; hereinafter Nater et al.) in view of Yankun et al.(USPubN 2013/0070095; hereinafter Yankun) further in view of Frenkel(USPubN 2017/0237834) further in view of Boykin et al.(USPubN 2018/0050800; hereinafter Boykin).
As per claim 12, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater, Yankun and Frenkel are silent about further comprising an audio enhancement device, comprising a. a microphone; b. an audio buffer configured to store an audio signal collected by the microphone; c. an audio stamp database, storing audio stamps of event sounds; and d. an audio analytics module configured to identify an audio event stored in said audio buffer by comparison with said audio stamps.
Boykin teaches further comprising an audio enhancement device, comprising a. a microphone; b. an audio buffer configured to store an audio signal collected by the microphone; c. an audio stamp database, storing audio stamps of event sounds; and d. an audio analytics module configured to identify an audio event stored in said audio buffer by comparison with said audio stamps (Para.[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater, Yankun and Frenkel with the above teachings of Boykin in order to improve detecting event accurately.
As per claim 13, Nater, Yankun and Frenkel teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Nater, Yankun and Frenkel are silent about wherein results of said audio analytics module is correlated with results of said video analytics module.
Boykin teaches wherein results of said audio analytics module is correlated with results of said video analytics module (Para.[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Nater, Yankun and Frenkel with the above teachings of Boykin in order to improve detecting event accurately.
As per claim 31, the limitations in the claim 31 has been discussed in the rejection claim 12 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 32, the limitations in the claim 32 has been discussed in the rejection claim 13 and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THAI Q TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484