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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 02/23/2026, filed with the office on 05/22/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 05/22/2026 and 07/17/2026 have been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-28, 30-38 and 40 are pending. Claims 21, 31 and 40 are amended. Claims 1-20, 29 and 39 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 21, 31 and 40, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “detecting motion of an object in a field of view of a surveillance device” in claims 21, 31 and 40.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: algorithms (flow charts) depicted in Fig. 3, schematics depicted on Fig. 1- camera 110, and applicant’s specification: ¶0030: “operations executed by the base station 114 via execution of the surveillance client 136 in response to events can include activation or deactivation of one or more of the devices 104, 106, 108, 110, and 112” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 21-27, 30-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 2021/0365707 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2023/0076396 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Mao teaches, A method comprising: (Mao, ¶0361: “the method comprising:”) defining a first set of bounding boxes of a first resolution (Mao, ¶0334: “4×4 boxes”) based on a first set of motion detection results, the first set of motion detection results being generated in response to detection of motion (Mao, ¶0103: “video analytics can operate as an Intelligent Video Motion Detector by detecting moving objects and by tracking moving objects”) based on an amount of difference between frames of a first set of pixel blocks of an image (Mao, ¶0218: “optical flow maps can include an optical flow vector for each pixel in a frame, where each vector indicates a movement of a pixel between the frames”) and a first threshold, (Mao, ¶0130: “the blob processing engine 418 can filter out one or more small blobs that are below a certain size threshold”; threshold is interpreted as minimum blob size). However, Mao does not explicitly teach, wherein pixel blocks of the first set of pixel blocks have a first uniform size; defining a second set of bounding boxes of a second resolution higher than the first resolution based on a second set of motion detection results, the second set of motion detection results being generated in response to detection of motion based on an amount of difference between frames of a second set of pixel blocks of the image and a second threshold different from the first threshold, wherein pixel blocks of the second set of pixel blocks have a second uniform size smaller than the first uniform size; and detecting motion of an object in a field of view of a surveillance device and represented in the image based on a combination of the first and second sets of bounding boxes.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Yoshida teaches, wherein pixel blocks of the first set of pixel blocks have a first uniform size; (Yoshida, ¶0056: “macroblock size of 8 pixels×8 pixels”) defining a second set of bounding boxes of a second resolution higher than the first resolution (Yoshida, ¶0038: “ach of small blocks (e.g. block of 16 pixels×16 pixels) smaller in size”) based on a second set of motion detection results, the second set of motion detection results being generated in response to detection of motion (Yoshida, ¶0098: “motion detector 310 to perform the motion vector detection processing for 16 blocks (shaded blocks) existing in the target area”) based on an amount of difference between frames of a second set of pixel blocks of the image (Yoshida, ¶0074: “each time executing the detection processing, a motion vector related value that changes in the same direction as the direction in which the magnitude of the motion vector changes”) and a second threshold different from the first threshold, (Yoshida, ¶0055: “The threshold value is set in consideration e.g. of: the size of an object image desired to detect the motion vector thereof in a captured image”) wherein pixel blocks of the second set of pixel blocks have a second uniform size smaller than the first uniform size; (Yoshida, ¶0072: “controller 180 sets the block size to a block size smaller than the current block size (S17), to execute the processes”) and detecting motion of an object in a field of view of a surveillance device (Yoshida, ¶0116: “The digital camera 100A of the third embodiment further includes an object detecting unit 320. The object detecting unit 320 detects a predetermined-object image, based on image data”) and represented in the image based on a combination of the first and second sets of bounding boxes. (Yoshida, ¶0117: “object detecting unit 320 to detect the predetermined-object image contained in the captured image represented by image data digitized by the AD converter 140, allowing output of a signal identifying a block containing the predetermined-object image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao using the teachings of Yoshida to introduce multiscale block-based object detection. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detecting moving target objects of different sizes in varying sized pixel blocks in the field of view of a surveillance camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Mao and Yoshida to obtain the invention in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21, further comprising: generating a motion mask based on image sensor data, (Mao, ¶0218: “optical flow maps (also referred to as motion vector maps) can be generated based on… the movement of points from a first frame to a second frame”) wherein the first set of pixel blocks is generated based on the motion mask (Mao, ¶0120: “the foreground mask can include a binary image containing the pixels making up the foreground objects (e.g., moving objects) in a scene and the pixels of the background”) and the second set of pixel blocks is generated based on the motion mask. (Mao, ¶0120: “the foreground mask can include a binary image containing the pixels making up the foreground objects (e.g., moving objects) in a scene and the pixels of the background”).
Regarding claim 23, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 22, wherein the motion mask is a greyscale representation of the image sensor data. (Mao, ¶0120: “the foreground pixels of the foreground mask can be a different color than that used for the background pixels… the background pixels can be black (e.g., pixel color value 0 in 8-bit grayscale or other suitable value) and the foreground pixels can be white (e.g., pixel color value 255 in 8-bit grayscale or other suitable value”).
Regarding claim 24, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21, further comprising: generating a first motion mask, wherein the first set of pixel blocks is generated based on the first motion mask; (Mao, ¶0120: “the foreground mask can include a binary image containing the pixels making up the foreground objects (e.g., moving objects) in a scene and the pixels of the background”) and generating a second motion mask, wherein the second set of pixel blocks is generated based on the second motion mask. (Mao, ¶0120: “the foreground mask can include a binary image containing the pixels making up the foreground objects (e.g., moving objects) in a scene and the pixels of the background”)
Regarding claim 25, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21, further comprising: combining the first set of bounding boxes and the second set of bounding boxes; and (Mao, ¶0130: “two or more bounding boxes may be merged together”) determining that a first bounding box in the first set of bounding boxes and a second bounding box in the second set of bounding boxes at least partially overlap, (Mao, ¶0138: “two bounding boxes are overlapped geometrically”) wherein the combination of the first and second sets of bounding boxes includes a combined box that encompasses the first bounding box and the second bounding box. (Mao, ¶0130: “a merging process to merge some connected components (represented as bounding boxes) into bigger bounding boxes”).
Regarding claim 26, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21, further comprising: combining the first set of bounding boxes and the second set of bounding boxes to produce a combined set of bounding boxes; determining that a first bounding box in the first set of bounding boxes does not overlap with the second set of bounding boxes; and adding the first bounding box in the combined set of bounding boxes. (Mao, ¶0130: “two or more bounding boxes may be merged together based on certain rules even when the foreground pixels of the two bounding boxes are totally disconnected.”)
Regarding claim 27, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21, further comprising: combining the first set of bounding boxes and the second set of bounding boxes to produce a combined set of bounding boxes; determining that a first bounding box in the second set of bounding boxes does not overlap with the first set of bounding boxes; (Mao, ¶0130: “the foreground pixels of the two bounding boxes are totally disconnected”) and discarding the first bounding box in the combined set of bounding boxes. (Mao, ¶0258: “remove false alarms (e.g., by minimizing a wrongly detected/tracked object bounding box”).
Regarding claim 30, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21, wherein the first set of bounding boxes includes one or more shapes created covering an area around least a portion of a detected object. (Mao, ¶0211: “Based on object detection and tracking, a bounding box 1014 is generated around the person in the subsequent frame”; see also, Fig. 46C).
Regarding claim 31, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 21. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 31 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 21. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim. Additionally, Mao teaches, A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations (Mao, ¶0344: “The storage device 4730 can include software services, servers, services, etc., that when the code that defines such software is executed by the processor 4710, it causes the system to perform a function”).
Regarding claim 32, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 22. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 32 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 22. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 33, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 23. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 33 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 23. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 34, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 24. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 34 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 24. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 35, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 25. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 35 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 25. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 36, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 26. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 36 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 26. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 37, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 37. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 37 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 27. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 40, it recites a machine-storage medium including instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 21. Therefore, the recited instructions of the machine-storage medium of claim 40 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of the method claim 21. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao and Yoshida presented in rejection of claim 21, apply to this claim. Additionally, Mao teaches, A non-transitory machine-readable medium embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising (Mao, ¶0007: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided that has stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to”).
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 2021/0365707 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2023/0076396 A1) and in further view of Amini et al. (US 2019/0259270 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Mao in view of Yoshida teaches, The method of claim 21. However, the combination of Mao and Yoshida does not explicitly teach, wherein image sensor data is received in response to motion detected by an infrared sensor.
In an analogous filed of endeavor, Amini teaches, wherein image sensor data is received in response to motion detected by an infrared sensor. (Amini, ¶0009: “the first sensor is an infrared (IR) sensor, the method further includes adjusting motion detection thresholds related to the IR sensor to change sensitivity of the IR sensor to motion occurring in the area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao in view of Yoshida using the teachings of Amini to introduce an infrared sensor. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of object tracking in poor lighting conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Mao, Yoshida and Amini to obtain the invention of claim 28.
Regarding claim 38, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 28. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 38 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 28. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Mao, Yoshida, and Amini presented in rejection of claim 28, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights