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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to the 112(a) rejection see the rejection below which also responds to Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1, 13, and 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
classifying the monitored subject into one of a plurality of motion categories based on the detected dynamic speed, wherein the plurality of motion categories comprise: a high-speed motion category, a low-speed motion category, and an intermediate-speed motion category;
generating a collection period by applying a scaling coefficient corresponding to the motion category to a base collection period; and
collecting personnel images of the monitored subject according to the generated collection period to perform remote monitoring,
wherein: a scaling coefficient associated with the high-speed motion category generates a shorter collection period than the base collection period, a scaling coefficient associated with the low-speed motion category generates a longer collection period than the base collection period, and a scaling coefficient associated with the intermediate-speed motion category generates a collection period between the shorter and longer collection periods.
No concrete example and no specifics are provided as to how these steps are performed. More specifically, the instant specification fails to disclose any value or ranges of values for the low-speed, intermediate-speed or high-speed motion categories or the implicit first, second or third predetermined speed thresholds which separate these speed categories.
Furthermore, no specific values or ranges of values are disclosed for any of the three scaling coefficients associated with the three speed categories. As such, the specifically fails to adequately disclose the claimed collecting personnel images step according to generated collection period (that applies the scaling coefficients to the base collection period). Indeed, the instant specification merely mentions, in a single paragraph [0111] that the predetermined time period for the smart camera to collect a person’s image is 1 ms and fails to provide any concrete examples or specific disclosure for the speed ranges or associated scaling coefficient ranges.
In the Reply filed 23 March 2026 Applicant argues that “However, it is well-established that written description does not require disclosure of specific numerical examples unless such values are critical to operability.” No citation to any authority such as the MPEP or recognized case law is cited for this statement. Moreover, the speed ranges and associated scaling coefficients lie at the very heart of the claimed invention and are critical to operability.
Applicant further argues that thresholds and coefficients “are implementation-dependent parameters that may be determined through routine experimentation or environment-specific calibration.” No Declaration or evidence is offered to support this assertion.
Furthermore, this assertion lacks factual credibility as the mere mention of a single collection period (1 ms) and a rough sketch of low, high, and intermediate motion categories and their associated but undisclosed scaling coefficients for their respective collection periods fails to provide the level of detail necessary to provide an adequate written description of the invention. Consider also that cameras are capable a very wide range of collection periods (e.g. from slow-motion cameras (e.g. taking pictures every 0.001 sec) to time-lapse cameras (taking pictures every day) covers many orders of magnitude) but the specification fails to provide guidance on any collection period or collection period range that may pertain to any speed category. Note also that humans are also capable of a wide range of speeds. Without even a basic guide or any specifics on these factors (e.g. speed ranges or thresholds for the low-speed, intermediate-speed or high-speed motion categories and the three scaling coefficients associated with these three speed ranges), the specification does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
In summary, the claims contain subject matter (see above) which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “high-speed, “low-speed” and “intermediate-speed” in claims 1, 13, and 20 are relative terms each of which individually renders and also collectively renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed, “low-speed” and “intermediate-speed” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See also the related 112(s) rejection above in which no values or guidance is provided in the instant specification as to possible values or ranges for these terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borel (WO 2017/ 046704 A1) and Emmanuel {S. Emmanuel, Peng Zhang and A. Sugama, "Spatial and temporal sampling control for visual surveillance application," 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Singapore, 2008, pp. 903-908, doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811395}.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Borel discloses a remote monitoring method {see abstract, [0076] and cites below including a remote healthcare worker using the video summary report from a remote video camera to perform remote care of a patient}, comprising:
obtaining, by a smart camera, a plurality of environmental images including a monitored subject {see Figs. 1, 2 including smart phone 206, camera 100 [0077], Fig. 3 including steps 302, 304, [0030]-[0031], [0067]};
determining whether the monitored subject is in a dynamic state by detecting
when the monitored subject is determined to be in the dynamic state, detecting a dynamic speed of the monitored subject {Fig. 3, buffer/tag step 314 detects speed of motion and type of motion (e.g. walking, running which are different low-speed and intermediate/high speed motion categories, [0063], [0073]};
classifying the monitored subject into one of a plurality of motion categories based on the detected dynamic speed, wherein the plurality of motion categories comprise: a high-speed motion category, a low-speed motion category, and an intermediate-speed motion category
{see the tags that are used to indicate classifications of various category attributes of the monitored subject including no motion, motion, direction of motion and speed of motion, and type of motion (e.g. walking, running which are different intermediate-speed and high speed motion categories), Fig. 3, buffer/tag step 314 includes tags for each frame/group of frames indicating whether (“monitored subject”) motion is present, amount of the motion speed of the motion, and type of motion wherein the tags are used to select which image frames are sent to the server 204 or used to create a summary, [0031]-[0032] ,[0039]-[0041], [0050], [0052], [0063], [0069], [0073]-[0077]};
generating a collection period by applying a scaling coefficient corresponding to the motion category to a base collection period {see above cites including [0090], [0063], [0073], [0113]-[0115] in which generates a collection period (normal playback speed) by applying a scaling coefficient (e.g. hyperlapse video in which normal frame rate is increased by scaling coefficient of 8 for motion events while another scaling coefficient is used to for low motion category (no-motion) in which the normal frame rate is scaled to 1 frame every 6 minutes. See also [0019] discussing different time lapse speeds (different scaling coefficients of the collection period).
It is noted that the BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) consistent with the specification of “collection period” includes the frame rate and/or playback speed as per [0111] in which the collection period is defined as collecting a person’s image every 1 ms which is more conventionally referred to as frame rate (1 image/msec is a frame rate or, equivalently, a playback or sampling rate of a video being recorded or played back.}; and
collecting personnel images of the monitored subject according to the generated collection period to perform remote monitoring {see above cites and explanations including generating video summaries which are collections of personnel images of the monitored subject according to the collection period to perform remote monitoring},
wherein: a scaling coefficient associated with the
by applying a scaling coefficient (e.g. hyperlapse video in which normal frame rate is increased by scaling coefficient of 8 for motion events while another scaling coefficient is used to for low motion category (no-motion) in which the normal frame rate is scaled to 1 frame every 6 minutes. As such, Borel discloses two speed ranges (low-speed and intermediate or high speed) motion categories and associated collection period scaling coefficients, but Borel does not clearly disclose three different speed ranges and associated collection period scaling coefficients.}
Emmanuel is a highly relevant and analogous reference from the same field of video surveillance and solves a similar problem of balancing frame rate and surveilled subject speed of motion. See title, abstract, and cites below.
Emmanuel also teaches:
determining whether the monitored subject is in a dynamic state by detecting luminance difference values between successive environmental images, when the monitored subject is determined to be in the dynamic state, detecting a dynamic speed of the monitored subject {Section II, luminance (Y) between successive frames is used to determine dynamic state and monitored subject speed};
generating a collection period by applying a scaling coefficient corresponding to the motion category to a base collection period; and collecting personnel images of the monitored subject according to the generated collection period to perform remote monitoring wherein: a scaling coefficient associated with the high-speed motion category generates a shorter collection period than the base collection period, a scaling coefficient associated with the low-speed motion category generates a longer collection period than the base collection period, and a scaling coefficient associated with the intermediate-speed motion category generates a collection period between the shorter and longer collection periods {See section III frame rate is adaptively adjusted based on detected speed of the subject, and IIIC including equation (15) that continuously scales the frame rate based on detected object speed including, for example, 15fps for no motion (low speed motion category); 20 fps for a 2m/s speed (intermediate motion category) and 30 fps for 3m/s speed (high speed motion category).
It 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 to have modified Borel which already classifies the monitored subject into one of a plurality of motion categories based on the detected dynamic speed, wherein the plurality of motion categories comprise: a high-speed motion category, a low-speed motion category, and an intermediate-speed motion category; generates a collection period by applying a scaling coefficient corresponding to the motion category to a base collection period; collects personnel images of the monitored subject according to the generated collection period to perform remote monitoring, wherein: a scaling coefficient associated with the low-speed motion category generates a longer collection period than the base collection period, and a scaling coefficient associated with the intermediate-speed motion category generates a collection period between the shorter and longer collection periods such that the motion categories and associated collection period scaling coefficients include a third category (high speed motion category) and associated collection period scaling coefficients as taught by Emmanuel because Emmanuel motivates doing so to enables data size reduction by adaptively controlling the temporal sampling based on detected object speed (see abstract, sections III-V, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Borel discloses detecting dynamic sate of the care recipient using image analysis in [0031], Borel is not relied upon to disclose using luminance difference features to detect/determine this dynamic state (aka motion).
Emmanuel demonstrates the conventional nature of using luminance to determine difference values between images and determining whether the monitored subject is in a dynamic state by detecting luminance difference values between successive environmental images.
It 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 to have modified Boren which already discloses detecting dynamic state of the care recipient using image analysis in [0031] such that Borel uses luminance to determine difference values between images determining whether the monitored subject is in a dynamic state by detecting luminance difference values between successive environmental images as taught by Emmanuel because Borel suggests doing so in [0031]; because there is a reasonable expectation of success; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
Claims 13 and 20
The rejection of device method claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of device claim 13 and computer readable medium claim 20 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. For the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claim 20 see Fig. 1, [0028] including program memory 107 and microprocessor 106.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kurane US 20090148152 A1 discloses controlling a frame rate of a camera based on the velocity of a subject in order the decease the amount of memory necessary to store the recorded images. See [0038]-[0039], [0102].
Bose US 20230260552 A1 discloses creating video summaries based on subject motion data. See [0087], [0150], fig. 20, [0286], and [0307] applications to monitoring a patient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights