DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-21; claims 1-9, and 11-21 are currently pending.
The Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn as the co-pending application 17/485,221 is now abandoned.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore this action is made NON-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comment
Claims 11-12, and 20, do not have proper support from Continuation in Part application number 17/485,221. Therefore the priority date for these claims will be from Provisional 63/342,022 with an effective filing date of 05/13/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“The one or more computer-readable media” should be “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khadloya (Pub. No. US20190303684A1).
Regarding claim 17, Khadloya discloses A system, comprising: memory to store one or more images; (Khadloya ¶79; storing images is disclosed.) and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors to: (Khadloya ¶197; a machine with processors and memory ) identify a set of package candidates from an image of the one or more images; (Khadloya ¶145 and Fig. 10 element 1010; background subtraction is performed to detect objects (considered to result in the set of package candidates).) separately from identifying the set of package candidates, identifying, by the computing device, a set of object candidates from the image (Khadloya ¶145 and Fig. 10 element 1020; adaptive motion is performed to detect objects (considered to result in the set of object candidates.)) determine an analysis frame from the image based at least in part on the set of package candidates and set of object candidates; (Khadloya ¶146 and Fig. 10; both the adaptive motion block (object candidates) and background subtraction block (package candidates) are used to segment and parse the frame data (the analysis frame)) execute a shared classifier on the analysis frame, the shared classifier to predict identification of packages and objects within the analysis frame; and (Khadloya ¶146-147; the segmented/parsed frame is passed to a classifier which identifies the presence of human, vehicles or parcels in the parsed frame data.) output a prediction of the identification of either a package or an object based at least in part on the execution of the shared classifier. (Khadloya ¶146-147 and 153; likelihood of regions with humans, vehicles or parcels to block 1050 is disclosed. Additionally outputs can be indicated to a user via dashboard.)
Claims 1 is the corresponding method claim to claim 17 respectively and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 13 is the corresponding computer-readable medium claim to claim 17 respectively and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 9, Khadloya discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. Khadloya further discloses wherein identifying the set of object candidates comprises identifying the one or more object candidates based at least in part on motion identified from the image. (Khadloya ¶145; adaptive motion block analyzes two frames in series to determine objects in motion.)
Regarding claim 21, Khadloya discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. Khadloya further discloses wherein the image comprises the set of package candidates and the set of object candidates. (Khadloya ¶145; . background subtraction is performed to detect objects (considered to result in the set of package candidates). Adaptive motion is performed to detect objects (considered to result in the set of object candidates.). ¶146 parts of the image are identified with human, vehicles or parcels)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 8, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya (Pub. No. US20190303684A1) in view of Rigney (Patent No. US6985172B1).
Regarding claim 18, Khadloya discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 17, as described above. Khadloya further discloses wherein to identify the set of package candidates from the image includes to identify a difference between the image and a canonical image of the one or more images, (Khadloya ¶145 frames are processed to remove background information (i.e. subtract out the background).)
Khadloya discloses the creation of a background model, but not explicitly wherein the image is from a video, wherein the canonical image represents one or more frames of the video before the image, and wherein to determine the difference includes to identify a set of pixels of the image that are different from corresponding pixels in the canonical image.
Rigney, however, discloses wherein the image is from a video, wherein the canonical image represents one or more frames of the video before the image, and wherein to determine the difference includes to identify a set of pixels of the image that are different from corresponding pixels in the canonical image. (Rigney C6 L 35-49; computing a reference image from a video is disclosed. C7 L14-19 the reference image (canonical image) can be past history image to compute the temporal difference.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Khadloya with the teachings of Rigney by including computing a reference (background) image by using past history in order to minimize processing time (Rigney C7 L14-19).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Khadloya and Rigney discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 18, as described above. They further disclose wherein the one or more processors are further to: average amounts of change in subgroups of the set of pixels; (Rigney C9 L34-49; statistical features (from C7 L 20-24 includes mean) are generated as part of the model. Features associated with regions of the scene are also encoded, which include motion. Therefore a mean within the subregion is disclosed.) identify a portion of the subgroups having averaged amounts of changes that are below a threshold amount of change, wherein pixels with the portion of the subgroups comprise low density pixels; and remove the low density pixels from the set of pixels. (Rigney C8 L 29-39 and Fig. 7; pixels are grouped and small or narrow groups are removed as noise, using a spatial filter. Thresholding can be considered a subset of filtering and is thus taught.)
Claims 2 and 5 are the corresponding method claims to claims 18-19 respectively and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 14 and 16 are the corresponding computer-readable medium claims to claims 18-19 respectively and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Khadloya and Rigney discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 2, as described above. They further disclose wherein identifying the set of package candidates includes modifying the set of pixels based at least in part on previous frames of the video before the image to form a modified set of pixels, the modified set of pixels being smaller than the set of pixels. (Rigney C8 L 6-20; a threshold can be applied to the difference image to remove cyclic motions in the video feed, see also Fig. 6 the result 25 is a low-level detected motion image.)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Khadloya and Rigney discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 14, as described above. Additional limitations are similar to claim 6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Khadloya and Rigney discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 6, as described above. They further disclose further comprising: applying temporal averaging to the set of pixels; (Rigney C7 L20-24 the mean temporal difference is taught.) identifying high frequency pixels from the set of pixels based at least in part on the temporal averaging indicating that the high frequency pixels have been unstable within the previous frames; and (Rigney C8 L 6-20; a threshold can be applied to the difference image to remove cyclic motions in the video feed, see also Fig. 6 the result 25 is a low-level detected motion image.) removing the high frequency pixels from the set of pixels based at least in part on the temporal averaging indicating that the high frequency pixels have been unstable within the previous frames. (Rigney C7 Lines 20-37 a threshold can be based off of a median or a mean.)
Claim(s) 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya (Pub. No. US20190303684A1).
Regarding claim 20, Khadloya discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 17, as described above. Although not necessarily in the same embodiment, Khadloya further discloses wherein the prediction includes a first package predicted within the current image, wherein the analysis frame is a first analysis frame, and wherein the one or more processors are further to: identify another set of package candidates from a first image of the one or more images, the first image captured prior to the current image; (Khadloya ¶109 and 116; object tracking across multiple frames (could be preceding frame) is disclosed. Utilizing tracking with object detection is disclosed. ¶143-145 indicates frame processing for a series of frames including calculation of parsed frame data.) determine a second analysis frame from the first image based on the other set of package candidates from the first image; (Khadloya ¶109 and 116; object tracking across multiple frames is disclosed. Bounding boxes containing objects to be compared is disclosed. Utilizing tracking with object detection is disclosed. ¶143-146 indicates frame processing for a series of frames including calculation of parsed frame data.) and compare the first package predicted from the current image with a second package predicted from the first image to determine whether the first package and the second package are a same package. (Khadloya ¶109 and 116; comparing bounding boxes of objects between frames is disclosed. Utilizing tracking with object detection is disclosed. ¶143-145 indicates frame processing for a series of frames.)
Although not explicitly stated within the same embodiment, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method disclosed for each incoming frame in sequence including the step execute the shared classifier on the second analysis frame (Khadloya ¶147 classification is performed) Sequential processing of frames is implied and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the method to be iteratively repeated given the mention of real-time streaming system (¶9) and that subsequent information is analyzed in order to detect when an event occurs (see claim 5).
Claim 11 is the corresponding method claim to claim 20 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Khadloya discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 11, as described above. Khadloya further discloses wherein comparing the first package and the second package comprises comparing a location of the first package and a location of the second package. (Khadloya ¶109; utilizing optical flow is disclosed, which uses pixel location that are similar between images.)
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya (Pub. No. US20190303684A1) in view of Rigney (Patent No. US6985172B1) and Jabbar (from applicant’s admitted prior art).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Khadloya and Rigney discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 2, as described above. They further disclose wherein determining the difference between the image and the canonical image includes determining distances within a color space (Khadloya 115, claim 14; the object detector using the difference in the YUV color space is disclosed.)
The combination of Khadloya and Rigney does not explicitly disclose using Delta E for related pixels within the image and the canonical image, and wherein the set of pixels that are identified as being different is based at least in part on the determined distances within the color space.
Jabbar, however, disclose determining distances within a color space using Delta E for related pixels within the image and the canonical image, and wherein the set of pixels that are identified as being different is based at least in part on the determined distances within the color space. (Jabbar Section III. The Proposed Method ¶2 found on p. 2 and equation (1); Delta E is used for object tracking.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the combination of Khadloya and Rigney with the teachings of Jabbar by including the use of Delta E because Delta E basically calculates the Euclidean color distance between two pixels, giving a single value to compare pixels rather than having to compare 3 color space dimensions separately.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Khadloya, Rigney, and Jabbar disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 3, as described above. They further disclose wherein the color space is a LAB color space. (Jabbar equation (1) found on p. 2; the LAB color space is being used for the difference. Wherein it would have been obvious to use the LAB color space in order to use Delta E because it provides a single values to compare pixels with.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Khadloya (Pub. No. US20190303684A1) in view of Rigney (Patent No. US6985172B1) and Piovano (Pub. No. US20190362177A1).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Khadloya and Rigney discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 6, as described above. They further disclose further comprising: identifying a subset of disjointed pixels from the modified set of pixels; (Rigney C8 L29-39; pixels are grouped spatially and small or narrow groups are removed as noise.)
The combination of Khadloya and Rigney does not explicitly disclose generating a bounding box around the subset of disjointed pixels; and adding additional pixels to the modified set of pixels to fill the bounding box, wherein the modified set of pixels with the additional pixels is used in the executing of the shared classifier.
However, discloses generating a bounding box around the subset of disjointed pixels; (Piovano ¶30; bounding boxes that identify salient regions is disclosed.) and adding additional pixels to the modified set of pixels to fill the bounding box, (Piovano ¶31, bounding boxes are extracted using a flood- fill process.) wherein the modified set of pixels with the additional pixels is used in the executing of the shared classifier. (Piovano ¶36; using the bounding boxes in image classification is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the combination of Khadloya and Rigney with the teachings of Piovano by including bounding boxes around groups of difference pixels in order to provide better visualization for users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qain (Pub. No. US 20220083782A1) Methods and systems, including computer programs encoded on a storage medium, are described for implementing item monitoring using a doorbell camera. A system generates an input video stream that has image frames corresponding to detection of activity at a property. Timing information is generated for the video stream and includes a timestamp for each image frame of the stream. Using the timing information, the system processes a pre-event image frame that precedes detection of the activity and a post-event image frame that coincides with detection of the activity. An image score is computed with respect to placement of a candidate item at the property in response to processing the pre-event and post-event image frames. The image score is used to determine that a first item was delivered to the property or that a second item was removed after being delivered to the property.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-5805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5. Examiner’s email is Meredith.taylor@uspto.gov.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/MEREDITH TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights