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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/8/2025 have been considered but they 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 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 of this title, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Vrabete (US 20170076168) in view of MESSER et al. (US 2020/0105111).
With respect to claim 1, Vrabete teaches capturing, at an edge device, an image, the image including at least object, the image captured at a first resolution (para.[0042]: edge computing device 104 may capture one or more still and/or video images of the object using the camera(s) 150);
storing the image at the first resolution in the edge device (implicit para. [0042], [0045], [0017]: data storage device 146);
converting the image to a second resolution, the second resolution being lower than the first resolution (para. [0044]: creates a thumbnail image of the unrecognized object. As described above, the thumbnail image may be cropped, reduced in resolution, reduced in framerate, or otherwise modified to reduce the storage space, bandwidth, and/or energy required to transmit the thumbnail image from the edge computing device 104 to the server computing device 102);
sending the converted image to a backend object recognition system (para [0204], the video stream uploaded for cloud storage is at a lower quality (e.g., lower resolution));
receiving a set of candidate object recognition matches; and performing, at the edge device, facial recognition based on the stored image captured at the first resolution and the set of candidate facial recognition matches (para.[0045]: the edge computing device 104 receives an updated reduced object recognition database 212 from the server computing device 102); and
performing, at the edge device, object recognition based on the stored image captured at the first resolution and the set of candidate object recognition matches (par.[0045]: after receiving the updated reduced object recognition database 212, the edge computing device 104 may be capable of recognizing the previously unrecognized object).
Vrabete does not teach facial recognition
MESSER et al. teach object recognition and one of the example is facial recognition (para [0218]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize face in the method of Vrabete
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to regard it as one of normal design option to include facial recognition feature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine MESSER et al. with Vrabete et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Vrabete teaches detecting an amount of bandwidth available on an uplink between the edge device and the backend facial recognition system; and selecting the second resolution based on the available uplink bandwidth (para [0037]).
With respect to claim 3, MESSER et al. teach detecting an amount of bandwidth available on a downlink between the backend facial recognition system and the edge device; and selecting the second resolution based on the available downlink bandwidth (para. [0236] –[0237]).
With respect to claim 4, MESSER et al. teach detecting an amount of bandwidth available on an uplink between the edge device and the backend facial recognition system; detecting the amount of bandwidth on a downlink between the backend facial recognition system and the edge device; and selecting the second resolution based on the available uplink and downlink bandwidth (para. [0236] –[0237]).
With respect to claim 5, Vrabete teaches that the image is at least one frame of a video (para [0042]).
With respect to claim 6, Vrabete teaches that the set of candidate facial recognition matches is a set of facial templates (para [0042]).
With respect to claim 7, Vrabete teaches that the edge device is a body worn camera that is wirelessly coupled to the backend facial recognition system(para. [0013] and [0017]).
Claim 8 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected same reason as claim 2 above.
Claim 10 is rejected same reason as claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is rejected same reason as claim 4 above.
Claim 12 is rejected as same reason as claim 5 above.
Claim 13 is rejected as same reason as claim 6 above.
Claim 14 is rejected as same reason as claim 7 above.
Claim 15 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected same reason as claim 2 above.
Claim 17 is rejected same reason as claim 3 above.
Claim 18 is rejected same reason as claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is rejected as same reason as claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is rejected as same reason as claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667