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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to claim print quality, Applicant argues: “Applicant has attempted to improve the quality of the amendments in the current Response. Specifically, the claims are presented in 13 point font and bold type.”
Examiner notes that the objection was for submitting pixelated text likely resulting from using color text. Examiner has recommended turning off or reconfiguring tracked changes to not output color text and graphics. Applicant’s use of bold text simply makes bold pixelations that still present errors in document processing and force the Examiner to squint and type the amendments by hand. Examiner again recommends adjusting settings of tracked changes to remove color print.
Regarding section 112(f), Applicant argues: “The Examiner has indicated that the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. l 12(f) and, as such, construes the limitation to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the Examiner's invocation of 35 U.S.C. l 12(f) is simply improper. The term "presence detector" is not a nonce having no structural meaning but, instead has understood structural meaning to those skilled in the art particularly, as it must, it is read in the context of the invention and the Specification. See MPEP 2181. Specifically, a presence detector is understood to be any of a variety of devices that detect the presence of something by virtual of a detectable feature of that something. … In the presence case, the Specification cites an example of such a structure, i.e., PIR detector 53. A PIR detector, …”
Examiner notes that explaining that a functional term is understood to be any variety of devices that implement that function supports the construction under 112(f), because the functional term does not a name of a particular structure in the art. Further, Applicant’s citation of a structural embodiment in the Specification further indicates Applicant’s intention to rely on section 112(f) for definiteness.
Regarding section 112(a), Applicant argues: “Specifically, the Examiner's contention that the Specification does not support the structure of the presence detector that operates for the entirety of the claimed function is simply inaccurate. For example, paragraph [0024] of the present application clearly states that PIR detector 53 is activated by motion of an infrared-emitting body, such as an individual passing within the field-of-view width 56. Further, it is well known in the art that a PIR detector is an electronic sensor that measures infrared light radiating from objects in its field of view, commonly used to detect human motion for security alarms and automatic lighting. Hence, the claimed function of the first presence detector as "configured to selectively monitor activity in one of either the first activity zone set or the second activity zone set at a time" is clearly described in the as-filed Specification …”
Examiner notes that the cited portion of the Specification do not mention configurability to selectively monitor activity in one of either the first activity zone set or the second activity zone set at a time. The description that a PIR can monitor within its own field of view does not support that the field of view can be partitioned, selectively altered, or otherwise configured in the claimed manner.
Applicant argues: “the Examiner provides no explanation of how a presence detector associated with camera 120 can selectively monitor activity in one of either the first activity zone set 220 or the second activity zone set 230 at a time, as required by claim 1.”
Examiner notes that Specification also offers no support of explanation for this feature, as noted above. Prior art achieves selectivity by configuring presence detectors into groups that selectively monitor different zones, which closely corresponds to embodiments in the Specification. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Further, claim 1 requires the first activity zone set to be a first subset of the first field-of-view and the second activity zone set to be a second subset of the first field-of-view. As seen in FIG. 2 of the Gordon '784 patent reproduced above, the activity zone of auxiliary sensor 122a is not a subset of field-of-view of camera 120.”
Examiner notes that Gordon indicates that multiple sensors can be configured to cover different “activity zones” within the field of view of the camera. See Gordon Figs. 1-2 and reasons for rejection below.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: “In addition, claim 1 specifically requires a user interface associated with the camera that is configured to allow a user to define the first and second activity zone sets within the first field-of-view. There is simply no teaching in the Gordon '784 patent any structure that allows a user to define the first and second activity zone sets within the first field-of-view. The arrangement of claim 1 allows a user to simply and easily define the first and second activity zone sets in the field-of-view of the camera. This can be done, for example, by presenting the user with an image from the camera, for example, on a display screen, and allowing the user to draw the activity zone sets on that image. See, Specification, paragraph [0032] .”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e presenting the user with an image from the camera, for example, on a display screen, and allowing the user to draw the activity zone sets on that image) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specification and prior art support other embodiments of the claimed feature which are cited in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant repeats the same arguments for Claims 11 and 20, which are addressed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are objected to under 37 CFR 41.106(a) because of the following informalities: The Claim amendments are in poor quality which renders them illegible to document processing. In papers, including affidavits, created for the proceeding: (i) Markings must be in black ink or must otherwise provide an equivalently permanent, dark, high-contrast image on the paper. The quality of printing must be equivalent to the quality produced by a laser printer. Either a proportional or monospaced font may be used, but the proportional font must be 12-point or larger and a monospaced font must not contain more than 4 characters per centimeter (10 characters per inch). Case names must be underlined or italicized.
Applicant is reminded to submit its actions in clear dark print; future submissions of documents using pixelated or colored text, such as tracked changes, may be denied particularly where such submission is rendered illegible by the document processing.
The amended claim language appears pixelated and not properly recognized by the document processing, for example claim 11 appears as:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner suggests turning off or reconfiguring tracked changes not to output color text and graphics.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are similarly 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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to “detector a first presence detector that is associated with the camera and that is configured to selectively monitor activity in one of either the first activity zone set or the second activity zone set at a time”
with a generic term (detector) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
However, while Specification supports the “first presence detector” as a PIR detector, a microphone or ultrasonic sensors (see Paragraphs 7, 31), Specification does not support the structure of the presence detector that operates for the entirety of the claimed function as “configured to selectively monitor activity in one of either the first activity zone set or the second activity zone set at a time.” It is also indefinite from the claim language or the specification how a PIR or a microphone structure would necessarily be configured to perform the claimed function.
Examiner suggests clarifying this claim feature.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6, 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10657784 to Gordon (“Gordon”) in view of US 20180211301 to Davies (“Davies”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An electronic monitoring system comprising:
a camera having a first field-of-view and operating to generate image data of the first field-of-view, (“an image sensor, the image sensor having a first field-of-view (FOV)” Gordon, Column 22, lines 17-24.)
the first field-of-view including a first activity zone set defining a first subset of the first field-of-view and a s second activity zone set defining a second subset of the first field-of-view; (For example, see Gordon Figs. 1-2 where “Auxiliary motion sensors 122a and/or 122b may be positioned so as to have a field-of-view [activity zone] that at least partially overlaps with a field-of-view of the image sensor of camera,” as noted in Gordon, Column 6, lines 28-43, Column 22, lines 17-24. See similarly in Davies, Paragraph 34.)
a user interface associated with the camera, the user interface configured to allow a user to define the first and second activity zone sets within the first field-of-view; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this can involve configuring or assigning sets of sensors to monitor a zone that is partially “within the field-of-view 100b of the camera module 22.” See Specification, Paragraphs 31-33 and Fig. 6 element 104.
Prior art teaches this embodiment: “the central processing device and/or the camera devices may be effective to receive user requests ( e.g., from a user mobile device and/or from a companion application on a user mobile device)” Gordon, Column 4, lines 2-9 and similarly in Davies, Paragraph 47. “in some examples, first motion sensor(s) (or group of motion sensors) having a first field-of-view (or fields-of-view) may trigger video, image, and/or audio capture at a first time (e.g., a first time of day) and a second motion sensor (or group of motion sensors) having a second field-of-view (or fields-of-view) may trigger video, image, and/or audio capture at a second time (e.g., a second time of day). … The groups of one or more motion sensors [defining activity zones] used to trigger motion may be configurable by a user and/or based on device settings.” Gordon, Column 5, lines 13-29. Further note that “motion sensors 122a and/or 122b may be positioned so as to have a field-of-view that at least partially overlaps with a field-of-view of the image sensor” and thus they define activity zones as partial overlap within the “first … [notably] the field-of-view of auxiliary motion sensors 122a and/or 122b may differ from a central axis of the field-of-view of the image sensor of camera device 120,” Gordon, Column 6, lines 28-50 and Figs. 1-2. See similarly in Davies, Paragraphs 21-22.)
a first presence detector that is associated with the camera and that is configured to selectively monitor activity in one of either the first activity zone set or the second activity zone set at a time (See rejection and claim construction in section 112 above. As noted above, Specification supports the “first presence detector” as “a PIR detector, … a microphone or ultrasonic sensors, … or even other types of detectors” (see Specification, Paragraphs 7, 31). Gordon similarly describes that “the auxiliary motion sensor 122a and/or 122b may be PIR sensors, although any other type of motion sensor may be used.” See Gordon, Column 6, lines 35-37.
Regarding the functionality, note that the motion sensor 122a in Gordon, Fig. 2 can monitor activity in zones 230 and 222 at any given time. In another example, the presence detector could comprise two groups of sensors, each “selectively” configured to monitor its own activity zone such as zone one and zone two respectively as illustrated in “FIG. 1, auxiliary motion sensors 122a and 122b are shown,” where each sensor is selectable and each sensor monitors its zone at that time. See Gordon, Column 6, lines 30-31 and Fig. 1. This corresponds to the example embodiments in Specification, Paragraphs 31-33 and Fig. 6 element 104.)
a second presence detector having a second field-of-view and operating to generate a signal upon motion in the second field-of-view, (For example one or more auxiliary motion sensors can be used to monitor different field of views, such as “in FIG. 1, auxiliary motion sensors 122a and 122b are shown. Although FIG. 1 depicts two auxiliary motion sensors, more or fewer auxiliary motion sensors may be used in accordance with the various embodiments described herein.” See Gordon, Column 6, lines 30-35 and Fig. 1.)
the second field-of-view being non-coextensive with the first field-of-view; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “field of view being non-coextensive” embodies fields of view that are not identical but may partially overlap. See Specification, Paragraph 30. Prior art teaches this: “a first passive infrared (PIR) sensor and an image sensor, the image sensor having a first field-of-view (FOV) and the first PIR sensor having a second FOV;” Gordon, Column 22, lines 17-24 and Figs. 1-2. “Auxiliary motion sensors 122a and/or 122b may be positioned so as to have a field-of-view that at least partially overlaps with a field-of-view of the image sensor of camera device 120.” Gordon, Column 6, lines 40-43.)
an electronic processor operatively connected to the first and second presence detectors executing a stored program and receiving the image data from the camera and the motion signal from the first and second presence detectors, the electronic processor configured to: (“at least one processor communicatively [and thus operatively] coupled to the camera and the second PIR sensor, wherein the at least one processor is operable to: determine that the first PIR sensor detects motion during a first timeframe;” Gordon, Column 22, lines 25-29. As noted above, there may be multiple PIR sensors coupled to the processing system. See Gordon, Column 6, lines 31-36 and similarly in Column 10, lines 1-4.)
(a) receive a first signal from the first presence detector in response to activity in the first activity zone set; … (b) respond to the first signal received from the first presence detector (“if motion is detected in an environment monitored by a motion sensor such as a PIR sensor, … determine that the first PIR sensor detects [in response to activity] motion during a first timeframe; … determine that the second PIR sensor does not detect motion during the first timeframe;” thus the detected activity can be presence or absence of motion detection in a respective sensor zone within the camera field of view. Gordon, Column 22, lines 7-31 As noted in Column 12 lines 5-6, 25-30, and Fig. 3, the signals are received processed by the processor.)
to transmit an alert to a user; and (“For example, the camera device may stream the video to a mobile device of a user … and/or sending an indication or alert indicating that motion has been detected” Gordon, Column 3, lines 23-31.)
(c) respond to the signal from the second presence detector (“When an auxiliary motion sensor detects motion, the auxiliary motion sensor may transmit a signal indicating that motion has been detected. In some examples, the signal may further comprise a timestamp, indicating a time and/or a timeframe at which the motion was detected.” Gordon, Column 4, lines 50-54 and Column 22, lines 43-50.)
to cause the first presence detector to change from monitoring activity in the first activity zone set to monitoring activity in the second activity zone set; (See treatment of this functionality under section 112 above. Also note that prior art teaches similar features: For example, when sensor 112a is active, the system may track activity in the camera field of view that overlaps sensor 112a [first activity zone] and when 112b is active then track activity in the camera field of view that overlaps sensor 112b [second activity zone]: “determine that, during the predetermined first time of day, activation of the image sensor to capture second video data is triggered by detection of motion by the first PIR sensor while the second PIR sensor is not detecting motion; and activate the image sensor to capture the second video data in response to the first PIR sensor detecting motion during the first time of day.” Gordon, Column 22, lines 43-50. Thus, the activity zone, the zone / area of overlap between the camera and the processed motion sensors, changes based on the detecting sensor.
Also note an embodiment where “when auxiliary motion sensor 122a detects motion ( e.g., when motion sensor 262 is triggered), processor 260 may be effective to control low-power radio 266 to begin transmitting a signal … Upon receipt of the signal, camera device 120 may determine whether motion sensor 258 is similarly triggered.” See Gordon, Column 12, lines 4-15.
Examiner suggests elaborating on this feature.)
wherein in response to the changing from the first activity zone set to the second activity zone set, the electronic processor is configured to: … (a) receive a second signal from the first presence detector in response to activity in the second activity zone set; and (b) respond to the second signal received first presence detector (For example when using sensor 112b, “if motion is detected in an environment monitored by a motion sensor such as a PIR sensor, … determine that the first PIR sensor detects [in response to activity] motion during a first timeframe; … determine that the second PIR sensor does not detect motion during the first timeframe;” thus the detected activity can be presence or absence of motion detection in a respective sensor zone within the camera field of view. Gordon, Column 22, lines 7-31.
Also note an embodiment where “camera device 120 may use low-power radio 248 to communicate with one or more auxiliary motion sensors ( e.g., auxiliary motion sensors 122a, 122b, etc.),” which embodies an activity zone detector based on multiple motion sensors, their locations, fields of view, and other functionality. See Gordon, Column 11, lines 10-13 and similarly in Column 12, lines 4-15. Examiner suggests elaborating on this feature.)
to transmit an alert to the user.” (“For example, the camera device may stream the video to a mobile device of a user … and/or sending an indication or alert indicating that motion has been detected” Gordon, Column 3, lines 23-31.)
To the extent necessary, where Gordon does not recite the claimed features in a single example claim or embodiment, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features in the manner that effectively creates and monitors multiple detection zones based on overlap of sensors and camera views in order to respond to activities that are detected by each particular sensor or overlap of sensors. See Davies, Paragraphs 22, 34 which relates to features in Gordon Column 5, lines 25-29 and Column 6, lines 30-43.
Regarding Claim 2: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the second presence detector is a motion detector, and the signal is a motion signal.” (“determine that the first PIR sensor detects motion during a first timeframe; determine that the second PIR sensor does not detect motion during the first timeframe;” Gordon, Column 22, lines 28-35.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the electronic processor further operates to respond to an absence of a motion signal for a predetermined period of time to change from the second activity zone set to the first activity zone set.” (“determine that the second PIR sensor does not detect motion during the first timeframe;” which changes the activity zone to the overlap of camera and sensor fields of view that detect the motion. Gordon, Column 22, lines 28-35.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the motion detector is mounted for independent angulation in azimuth with respect to the camera.” (“motion sensors may have different or differing fields-of-view based on different viewing angles of the motion sensors and/or based on different view directions of the motion sensors” Gordon, Column 7, lines 1-8. Also note an example where “For example, camera device 120 may be positioned in an upper corner of a room and angled downward. Auxiliary motion sensor 122a, by contrast, may 10 be placed on a wall at a height that is above the height of the dog (e.g., 1 foot above the dog's height, or some other suitable distance above the dog's height) and angled upward” Gordon, Column 9, lines 8-15.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 2, further including
a second motion detector having a third field-of-view including an area outside of the first field-of-view and second field-of-view and operating to generate a motion signal upon motion in the third field-of-view, (“a second PIR sensor separate from the camera, the second PIR sensor having a third FOV different from the second FOV, wherein the third FOV partially overlaps with the second FOV;” Gordon, Column 22, lines 21-24.)
the second motion detector being mounted for independent angulation in azimuth with respect to the camera; and (“motion sensors may have different or differing fields-of-view based on different viewing angles of the motion sensors and/or based on different view directions of the motion sensors” Gordon, Column 7, lines 1-8. Also note an example where “For example, camera device 120 may be positioned in an upper corner of a room and angled downward. Auxiliary motion sensor 122a, by contrast, may 10 be placed on a wall at a height that is above the height of the dog (e.g., 1 foot above the dog's height, or some other suitable distance above the dog's height) and angled upward” Gordon, Column 9, lines 8-15.)
wherein the electronic processor operates further to respond to the second motion signal from the motion detector to cause the first presence detector to change from the second activity zone set to the first activity zone set.” (“determine that, during the predetermined first time of day, activation of the image sensor to capture second video data is triggered by detection of motion by the first PIR sensor while the second PIR sensor is not detecting motion; and activate the image sensor to capture the second video data in response to the first PIR sensor detecting motion during the first time of day.” Gordon, Column 22, lines 43-50. Thus, the activity zone, the area of overlap between the camera and the processed motion sensors, changes based on the activity (based on timestamp) of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 5, wherein the first and second motion detectors are mounted for independent angulation in elevation with respect to the camera and with respect to each other.” (“a camera including a first passive infrared (PIR) sensor and an image sensor, the image sensor having a first field-of-view (FOV) and the first PIR sensor having a second FOV; … a second PIR sensor separate from the camera, the second PIR sensor having a third FOV different from the second FOV, wherein the third FOV partially overlaps with the second FOV;” Gordon, Column 22, lines 21-24. Thus each device has a different mounting location and a different resulting field of view.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 5, further including a third motion detector having a fourth field-of-view fixed with respect to the camera first field-of-view.” (“the third motion sensor has a third field-of-view different from and overlapping with the first field-of-view and the second field-of-view;” Gordon, Column 24, lines 5-8.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the second field-of-view includes an area outside of the first field-of-view, and wherein the second activity zone set is closer to the second field-of-view than is the first activity zone set.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the second activity zone can be the area of the image where the second field of view (of the activity detector) partially overlaps the first field of view (of the camera), and thus it is the closes to the second field of view and has areas that overlap and that do not overlap the first field of view. See Specification, Figs. 4-5.
Prior Art teaches this as noted in Claim 1. As noted, “the image sensor having a first field-of-view (FOV) and the first PIR sensor having a second FOV; a second PIR sensor separate from the camera, the second PIR sensor having a third FOY different from the second FOV, wherein the third FOV partially overlaps with the second FOV;” Gordon, Column 22, lines 18-24. Thus the field of view of the second PIR partially overlaps the field of view of the camera (with areas that overlap and areas that are outside) and it is the closest to the second activity zone formed by the area of the overlap.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the electronic process further operates to allow a user to define multiple activity zones and to designate one or more of the multiple activity zones as the first activity zone set and one or more of the multiple activity zones as the second activity zone set.” (“The groups of one or more motion sensors [activity zone sets] used to trigger motion may be configurable by a user and/or based on device settings.” Gordon, Column 5, lines 27-29.)
Claims 11-19 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1-6, 8-10 respectively.
Claims 7, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10657784 to Gordon (“Gordon”) in view of US 20180211301 to Davies (“Davies”).
Regarding Claim 7: “The electronic monitoring system of claim 5,”
Gordon does not teach “wherein at least one of the first and second motion detectors further includes a floodlight controllable by the electronic motion signal of an associated motion detector.” As noted in Claims 1 and 5, motion sensors and their signals are used in detecting an intruder. See similarly in Davies, Paragraph 34.
Davies teaches the above claim feature in the context of camera and motion sensor integration and overlapping detection zones: “When an intruder 115 is detected in the private security area 102, the sensory alert relay 312 may be instructed to activate or otherwise tum on a light 310, siren 309, and/or other means of sensory alert” Davies, Paragraph 43.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Gordon to trigger a food light in response to a motion signal from one or more of the motion sensors as taught in Davies, in order “to announce to the intruder that they have been detected.” Davies, Paragraph 43.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1, 5, and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
