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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… predetermined time may include for example, a time of two minutes, five, minutes, or ten minutes, although longer or shorter periods of time may be used …” in paragraph 33) serves as a glossary for the claim term “predetermined time”.
The specification (e.g., see “… at least one external device 320 may be configured to perform one or more operations or to assist in performing one or more operations of a management server. For example, at least one external device 320 may be configured to receive information from one or more sensor device 100 …” in paragraph 38) serves as a glossary for the claim term “management”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the specification discloses minimum time no motion is detected by the sensor device is greater than zero or a predetermined or dynamically determined time period has elapsed (e.g., see “… minimum time no motion is detected by the sensor device (e.g., using a PIR sensor thereof) is greater than zero (or a predetermined or dynamically determined time period has elapsed) …” in paragraph 6), there does not appear to be any disclosure of the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor, the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time” in the application as filed. Similarly, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitations “the predetermined period of time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by a motion sensor” and “the obtaining the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time” in the application as filed.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “minimum” in claim(s) 1, 8, 15, and 18 is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, 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. The specification does not appear disclose any criteria for distinguishing “minimum” no motion time from a no motion time that is not minimum.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halstead et al. (US 2020/0394883).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Halstead et al. disclose a sensor device for monitoring a space, comprising:
(a) a first sensor configured to capture baseline data and current data associated with the space (e.g., see “… thermal imaging sensor (TIS) … One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27 and 33);
(b) a second sensor configured to detect motion within the space (e.g., see “… passive infrared (PIR) sensor … TIS is triggered by the PIR sensor when the PIR sensor senses a certain amount of … motion …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27 and 36); and
(c) a processor configured to cause the first sensor to capture the baseline data based at least in part upon a predetermined time period having elapsed since detected motion by the second sensor, the processor is further configured to cause the first sensor to capture of the current data and to perform a comparison operation on the current data and the baseline data, the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor, the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time (e.g., “… With use of a PIR sensor, the TIS can activate upon a trigger from the PIR sensor and observe the environment for a certain period of time (e.g., a certain number of seconds). Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” paragraph 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6, wherein start collecting of “previous TIS data” activated upon a previous trigger by PIR motion sensor can be labeled as a previous start time, wherein start collecting of “TIS data” activated upon next trigger by the PIR motion sensor can be labeled as a current start time, wherein a difference between the previous start time and the current start time can be labeled as a predetermined time period that can also be labeled as a minimum no motion time, and wherein “TIS data” can be labeled as the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Halstead et al. also disclose that the first sensor is a thermal imager (e.g., see “… thermal imaging sensor (TIS) …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Halstead et al. also disclose that the second sensor is a Passive Infrared (PIR) sensor (e.g., see “… passive infrared (PIR) sensor …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Halstead et al. also disclose that the first sensor is a thermal imager and the second sensor is a PIR sensor (e.g., see “… thermal imaging sensor (TIS) … passive infrared (PIR) sensor …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Halstead et al. also disclose that the comparison operation is configured to perform people counting to determine a number of people within the space (e.g., “… Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraph 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Halstead et al. also disclose that the comparison operation includes comparing a reference background image as the baseline data to the current data (e.g., “… One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion … Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraphs 33 and 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 6, Halstead et al. also disclose that the reference background image is a baseline background thermal image captured by the first sensor (e.g., “… One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion … Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraphs 33 and 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6), and wherein the second sensor is a Passive Infrared (PIR) sensor (e.g., see “… passive infrared (PIR) sensor …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 8 in so far as understood, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Halstead et al. disclose a system for monitoring a space, comprising:
(a) a management system (e.g., see “… security hub system 104 (SHS 104) can implement the data processing described herein …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 43);
(b) a network (e.g., see “… system 100 is also shown including one or more local area networks and/or wide area networks 112 (LAN/WAN network(s) 112) which are shown communicatively coupling the security cameras, computing devices, and additional sensing devices depicted in FIG. 1 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 46); and
(c) a sensor device, comprising:
(ca) a first sensor configured to capture baseline data and current data associated with the space (e.g., see “… thermal imaging sensor (TIS) … One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27 and 33);
(cb) a second sensor configured to detect motion within the space (e.g., see “… passive infrared (PIR) sensor … TIS is triggered by the PIR sensor when the PIR sensor senses a certain amount of … motion …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27 and 36); and
(cc) a processor configured to cause the first sensor to capture the baseline data based at least in part upon a predetermined time period having elapsed since detected motion by the second sensor, the processor is further configured to cause the first sensor to capture of the current data, to perform a comparison operation on the current data and the baseline data (e.g., “… With use of a PIR sensor, the TIS can activate upon a trigger from the PIR sensor and observe the environment for a certain period of time (e.g., a certain number of seconds). Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraph 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6), and to perform at least one operation based on the comparison, and to cause transmitting of at least one set of information relating to the at least one operation via the network for use by the management system (e.g., see “… One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion … Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room … … security hub system 104 (SHS 104) can implement the data processing described herein … system 100 is also shown including one or more local area networks and/or wide area networks 112 (LAN/WAN network(s) 112) which are shown communicatively coupling the security cameras, computing devices, and additional sensing devices depicted in FIG. 1 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 43, and 46, and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6), the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor, the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time (e.g., “… With use of a PIR sensor, the TIS can activate upon a trigger from the PIR sensor and observe the environment for a certain period of time (e.g., a certain number of seconds). Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” paragraph 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6, wherein start collecting of “previous TIS data” activated upon a previous trigger by PIR motion sensor can be labeled as a previous start time, wherein start collecting of “TIS data” activated upon next trigger by the PIR motion sensor can be labeled as a current start time, wherein a difference between the previous start time and the current start time can be labeled as a predetermined time period that can also be labeled as a minimum no motion time, and wherein “TIS data” can be labeled as the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, Halstead et al. also disclose that the first sensor is a thermal imager (e.g., see “… thermal imaging sensor (TIS) …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 8, Halstead et al. also disclose that the second sensor is a Passive Infrared (PIR) sensor (e.g., see “… passive infrared (PIR) sensor …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 8, Halstead et al. also disclose that the first sensor is a thermal imager and the second sensor is a PIR sensor (e.g., see “… thermal imaging sensor (TIS) … passive infrared (PIR) sensor …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 8, Halstead et al. also disclose that the comparison operation is configured to perform people counting to determine a number of people within the space (e.g., “… Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraph 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 8, Halstead et al. also disclose that the comparison operation includes comparing a reference background image as the baseline data to the current data (e.g., “… One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion … Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraphs 33 and 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 13, Halstead et al. also disclose that the reference background image is a baseline background thermal image captured by the first sensor (e.g., “… One possible implementation for simply detecting changes is to subtract the current heat map from a previous heat map (or a heat map derived from a set of previous maps) to detect developing heat blobs, hotspots, or motion … Computer vision (CV) algorithms … can include algorithms that can distinguish a human … CV algorithms can include algorithms that can identify unexpected situations, such as multiple persons in a room …” in paragraphs 33 and 34 and see “… compare TIS data to previous TIS data …” in Fig. 6), and wherein the second sensor is a Passive Infrared (PIR) sensor (e.g., see “… passive infrared (PIR) sensor …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
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 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.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covaro (US 2013/0107245) in view of Halstead et al. (US 2020/0394883).
In regard to claim 15 in so far as understood, Covaro discloses a method for providing improved people counting, comprising:
(a) obtaining baseline data relating to a space (e.g., “… use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison …” in paragraph 32);
(b) selectively replacing the baseline data with new baseline data based at least in part upon determining that the space has been unoccupied for a predetermined period of time, the predetermined period of time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space (e.g., “… system 100 may make multiple scans over time and use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans … system 100 may update the reference image whenever the area is 110 is determined to be unoccupied …” in paragraph 32, wherein start collecting of one of “the subsequent scans” can be labeled as a previous start time, wherein start collecting of next one of “the subsequent scans” can be labeled as a current start time, and wherein a difference between the previous start time and the current start time can be labeled as a predetermined time period that can also be labeled as a minimum no motion time);
(c) obtaining current data relating to the space, the obtaining the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time (e.g., the next one of “… the subsequent scans …” in paragraph 32 and wherein the next one of “… the subsequent scans …”can be labeled as the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time);
(d) comparing the current data to the baseline data (e.g., “… reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans …” in paragraph 32); and
(e) determining a number of people within the space based at least in part upon the comparison between the current data to the baseline data (e.g., “… sensor 140 may include one or more sensing elements (see FIG. 4) that detect radiation, such as thermal radiation … a first image 310 and a second image 320 of the area 110 obtained by scanning the coverage area 110 with one of the sensors 140 at a first and second time, respectively … system 100 may compare the first image 310 with the second image 320 and determine any differences between the images 310 and 320 … system 100 may make multiple scans over time and use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans … system 100 may update the reference image whenever the area is 110 is determined to be unoccupied … system 100 may provide an ability to accurately count the occupants 120 …” in paragraphs 23, 29, 31, 32, and 40).
While Covaro also discloses (paragraph 23) that “… Each sensor 140 may be a sensor that detects objects. For example, the sensor 140 may include an infrared sensor … sensor 140 may include one or more sensing elements …”, the method of Covaro lacks an explicit description of details of the “… one or more sensing elements …” such as detecting motion within the space by a motion sensor. However, “… one or more sensing elements …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… camera system includes both a PIR sensor and a TIS (e.g., the TIS is downstream of the PIR sensor and powered up by the trigger caused by the PIR sensor) …” in paragraph 29 of Halstead et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “camera system includes both a PIR sensor and a TIS”, in order for TIS “powered up by the trigger caused by the PIR sensor” to save energy) for the unspecified sensor of Covaro and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such detected motion within the space by a motion sensor) as the unspecified sensor of Covaro.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 15, Covaro also discloses that the comparing the current data to the baseline data includes comparing a baseline background thermal image to the current data (e.g., “… sensor 140 may include one or more sensing elements (see FIG. 4) that detect radiation, such as thermal radiation … a first image 310 and a second image 320 of the area 110 obtained by scanning the coverage area 110 with one of the sensors 140 at a first and second time, respectively … system 100 may make multiple scans over time and use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans …” in paragraphs 23, 29, and 32).
In regard to claim 18 in so far as understood, Covaro discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon sequences of instructions which when executed by a processor (e.g., “… memory 420 may hold the programs and processes that implement the logic described above for execution with the processor 410 … all or part of the system 100 and its logic and data structures may be stored on, distributed across, or read from other machine-readable media. The media may include hard disks, floppy disks, CD-ROMs …” in paragraphs 46 and 54) cause the processor to:
(a) obtain baseline data relating to a space (e.g., “… use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison …” in paragraph 32);
(b) selectively replace the baseline data with new baseline data based at least in part upon determining that the space has been unoccupied for a predetermined period of time, the predetermined period of time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space (e.g., “… system 100 may make multiple scans over time and use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans … system 100 may update the reference image whenever the area is 110 is determined to be unoccupied …” in paragraph 32, wherein start collecting of one of “the subsequent scans” can be labeled as a previous start time, wherein start collecting of next one of “the subsequent scans” can be labeled as a current start time, and wherein a difference between the previous start time and the current start time can be labeled as a predetermined time period that can also be labeled as a minimum no motion time);
(c) obtain current data relating to the space, the obtaining the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time (e.g., the next one of “… the subsequent scans …” in paragraph 32 and wherein the next one of “… the subsequent scans …”can be labeled as the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time);
(d) compare the current data to the baseline data (e.g., “… reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans …” in paragraph 32); and
(e) determine a number of people within the space based at least in part upon the comparison between the current data to the baseline data (e.g., “… sensor 140 may include one or more sensing elements (see FIG. 4) that detect radiation, such as thermal radiation … a first image 310 and a second image 320 of the area 110 obtained by scanning the coverage area 110 with one of the sensors 140 at a first and second time, respectively … system 100 may compare the first image 310 with the second image 320 and determine any differences between the images 310 and 320 … system 100 may make multiple scans over time and use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans … system 100 may update the reference image whenever the area is 110 is determined to be unoccupied … system 100 may provide an ability to accurately count the occupants 120 …” in paragraphs 23, 29, 31, 32, and 40).
While Covaro also discloses (paragraph 23) that “… Each sensor 140 may be a sensor that detects objects. For example, the sensor 140 may include an infrared sensor … sensor 140 may include one or more sensing elements …”, the medium of Covaro lacks an explicit description of details of the “… one or more sensing elements …” such as detecting motion within the space by a motion sensor. However, “… one or more sensing elements …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… camera system includes both a PIR sensor and a TIS (e.g., the TIS is downstream of the PIR sensor and powered up by the trigger caused by the PIR sensor) …” in paragraph 29 of Halstead et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “camera system includes both a PIR sensor and a TIS”, in order for TIS “powered up by the trigger caused by the PIR sensor” to save energy) for the unspecified sensor of Covaro and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such detected motion within the space by a motion sensor) as the unspecified sensor of Covaro.
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 18 Covaro also discloses that the comparing the current data to the baseline data includes comparing a baseline background thermal image to the current data (e.g., “… sensor 140 may include one or more sensing elements (see FIG. 4) that detect radiation, such as thermal radiation … a first image 310 and a second image 320 of the area 110 obtained by scanning the coverage area 110 with one of the sensors 140 at a first and second time, respectively … system 100 may make multiple scans over time and use the first image 310 as the reference image for comparison with each of the subsequent scans …” in paragraphs 23, 29, and 32).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covaro in view of Halstead et al. as applied to claim(s) 15 and 18 above, and further in view of George et al. (US 2018/0285650).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15, the method of Covaro lacks an explicit description of details of the “… programs and processes …” such as performing one or more of a correction or a stabilization operation on the current data. However, “… programs and processes …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… a pixel mask may be used to modify or adjust one or more thermal intensity values of a thermal image. In such an instance, a pixel mask may modify the thermal intensity values associated with non-occupant activity to be zero or equal to an equivalent background value. In some instances, the reference image is corrected using a pixel mask. In other instances, however, the second thermal image or both images may be corrected using a pixel mask. With the thermal intensity values corrected, the images may be compared to determine a change in occupancy with a less likelihood of an error due to non-occupant activity …” in paragraph 53 of George et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional program (e.g., comprising details such as “reference image is corrected using a pixel mask. In other instances, however, the second thermal image or both images may be corrected using a pixel mask”, in order “to determine a change in occupancy with a less likelihood of an error”) for the unspecified program of Covaro and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional program (e.g., comprising details such as performing one or more of a correction or a stabilization operation on the current data) as the unspecified program of Covaro.
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 18, the medium of Covaro lacks an explicit description of details of the “… programs and processes …” such as performing one or more of a correction or a stabilization operation on the current data. However, “… programs and processes …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… a pixel mask may be used to modify or adjust one or more thermal intensity values of a thermal image. In such an instance, a pixel mask may modify the thermal intensity values associated with non-occupant activity to be zero or equal to an equivalent background value. In some instances, the reference image is corrected using a pixel mask. In other instances, however, the second thermal image or both images may be corrected using a pixel mask. With the thermal intensity values corrected, the images may be compared to determine a change in occupancy with a less likelihood of an error due to non-occupant activity …” in paragraph 53 of George et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional program (e.g., comprising details such as “reference image is corrected using a pixel mask. In other instances, however, the second thermal image or both images may be corrected using a pixel mask”, in order “to determine a change in occupancy with a less likelihood of an error”) for the unspecified program of Covaro and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional program (e.g., comprising details such as performing one or more of a correction or a stabilization operation on the current data) as the unspecified program of Covaro.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 includes “the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor, the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time” and the rejection of claim 1 is improper because each and every element of the claim is not found in Halstead et al., nor are each and every element arranged exactly as in the claim, as required by MPEP § 2131. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained from the specification such as what is disclosed and whether what, if anything, is disclosed as critical. In this case, while the specification discloses minimum time no motion is detected by the sensor device is greater than zero or a predetermined or dynamically determined time period has elapsed (e.g., see “… minimum time no motion is detected by the sensor device (e.g., using a PIR sensor thereof) is greater than zero (or a predetermined or dynamically determined time period has elapsed) …” in paragraph 6), there does not appear to be any disclosure of the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor. Thus, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “the predetermined time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by the second sensor, the capturing the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time” in the application as filed. Similarly, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitations “the predetermined period of time being a minimum no motion time corresponding to an elapsed amount of time since detected motion within the space by a motion sensor” and “the obtaining the current data being associated with expiration of the minimum no motion time” in the application as filed. The disclosure of a “… greater than zero …” minimum no motion time (in paragraph 6) 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. Thus the specification does not appear disclose any criteria for distinguishing “minimum” no motion time from a no motion time that is not minimum. In so far as understood, a predetermined time period is labeled as a minimum no motion time such as time greater than zero. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claim.
Applicant argues that claim 8 is patentable at least for reasons similar to those set forth in urging the allowance of claim 1 and claims 2-7 and 9-14 respectively depend from independent claims 1 and 8, and thus are allowable at least by virtue of their dependencies therefrom. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0067801 teaches a thermal camera.
US 2013/0015355 teaches a passive infrared detector.
US 2017/0229073 teaches a passive infrared detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884