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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 33 of claim 17 currently reads “identified by real-0time audio data” and should read “identified by real-time audio data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The term “substantially real-time” in claims 1, 8, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 manner in which the “image data”, ”audio data”, and ”audio-visual data” are captured and more importantly the degree of “real-time” is indefinite with the use of “substantially”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ambient environment" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operational pattern" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the step of color manipulating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the ambient environment" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the operational pattern" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the ambient environment" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the operational pattern" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,954,900. Please see chart below for comparison between independent claim 1 of the instant patent application and independent claim 1 of the US Patent.
Instant Patent Application
US Patent No. 11,954,900
Notes
1. A method for extrinsic visual monitoring of an operational status of an automation system on a premises, the method comprising the steps of:
1. A method for extrinsic visual monitoring of an operational status of a home automation system on a premises, the method comprising the steps of:
patent application is for a home automation system while instant application more broadly claims an automation system
processing image data captured by at least one digital camera and stored in at least one image store, the image data representative of nominal operation of the automation system collected during an initial training period, the processing executed by at least one computer processor, the at least one computer processor applying a machine vision process to extrapolate operational indicators from the ambient environment of the premises representative of nominal operation of the automation system;
processing image data representative of nominal operation of the home automation system with a computer processor, the computer processor applying a machine vision process to extrapolate operational indicators from the ambient environment of the premises representative of nominal operation of the home automation system;
instant application specifies how the image data is collected and where it was stored….does not make the instant patent application patentably distinct
training an unsupervised machine learning model by the at least one processor with the operational indicators to build a model of normalcy and detect expectation violations in the operational pattern of the automation system;
training an unsupervised machine learning model with the operational indicators to build a model of normalcy and detect expectation violations in the operational pattern of the home automation system;
no significant difference
concluding the initial training period when a stopping criterion for the unsupervised machine learning model is met;
concluding the initial training period when a stopping criterion for the unsupervised machine learning model is met;
no difference
initiating expectation violation monitoring of the automation system with the at least one processor responsive to the conclusion of the initial training period, the at least one digital camera capturing substantially real-time image data and saving to the at least one image store, the real-time image data is processed by the model to confirm nominal operation and to detect expectation violations;
initiating expectation violation monitoring of the home automation system responsive to the conclusion of the initial training period, a digital camera capturing substantially real-time image data to an image store which is processed by the model to confirm nominal operation and to detect expectation violations;
no significant difference
responsive to detecting an expectation violation, generating a contrastive collage with the at least one processor comprising images retrieved from the at least one image store, the retrieved images including a first nominal operation image and a second anomaly image of the expectation violation; and
responsive to detecting an expectation violation, generating a contrastive collage comprising images retrieved from the image store, the retrieved images including a first nominal operation image and a second anomaly image of the expectation violation; and
no significant difference
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the contrastive collage to an end user of the automation system wherein the context of the expectation violation is visually conveyed to the end user by the contrastive collage.
transmitting the contrastive collage to an end user of the home automation system wherein the context of the expectation violation is visually conveyed to the end user by the contrastive collage.
no significant difference
Note: Independent claims 8 and 17, similar to independent claim 1, are also similarly compared to independent claims 8 and 17 of the US Patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant patent application and the US Patent No. 11,954,900 teach monitoring an automation system. The US Patent more distinctly claims a home automation system, accordingly the instant application is a more broad invention and thus not patentably distinct from the US Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable with resolution to the above 35 U.S.C. 112 and Double Patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1
Jones (US PGPub 2023/0111754) discloses a method for extrinsic visual monitoring of an operational status (operation of one or more machines; see paragraph 0031, line 5) of an automation system (system 100, see Fig. 1/system 602, see Fig. 2) on a premises (factory), the method comprising the steps of:
processing image data (video 102, see Fig. 1) captured by at least one digital camera (one or more imaging devices 608a and 608b, see Fig. 6/camera) and stored in at least one image store (storage 718, see Fig. 7), the image data representative of nominal operation (normal operation of the one or more machines performing the task; see paragraph 0031, lines 5-6) of the automation system collected during an initial training period (see paragraph 0031, lines 1-6), the processing executed by at least one computer processor (processor 714, see Fig. 4), the at least one computer processor applying a machine vision process to extrapolate operational indicators (motion feature vector; see paragraph 0032, line 12) from the ambient environment (working environment 600, see Fig. 6) of the premises representative of nominal operation of the automation system (see paragraph 0032, lines 10-17);
training an unsupervised machine learning model (model; see paragraph 0006, line 2) by the at least one processor with the operational indicators to build a model of normalcy (normal video/training video; see paragraph 0006, line 3) and detect expectation violations (anomaly; see paragraph 0005, line 5) in the operational pattern (predetermined patterns of motion; see paragraph 0007, line 10) of the automation system (see paragraph 0006, lines 1-11; paragraph 0031, lines 1-8; and paragraph 0066, lines 1-7); and
initiating expectation violation monitoring of the automation system with the at least one processor responsive to the conclusion of the initial training period, the at least one digital camera capturing substantially real-time image data and saving to the at least one image store, the real-time image data is processed by the model to confirm nominal operation and to detect expectation violations (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-10 and paragraph 0077, lines 1-8);
Cook et al. [Cook] (US PGPub 2017/0109656) also teaches a method for monitoring an automated system using images; training a model; and using that model for comparison to detect anomalies in the automated system (see Figs. 5 and 6).
However, Jones and Cook fail to specifically disclose the method further comprising the steps of:
concluding the initial training period when a stopping criterion for the unsupervised machine learning model is met;
responsive to detecting an expectation violation, generating a contrastive collage with the at least one processor comprising images retrieved from the at least one image store, the retrieved images including a first nominal operation image and a second anomaly image of the expectation violation; and
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the contrastive collage to an end user of the automation system wherein the context of the expectation violation is visually conveyed to the end user by the contrastive collage.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 (and the claims which depend upon it) would be in condition for allowance with resolution to the above 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection and the above Double Patenting rejection.
Similarly, independent claims 8 and 17 (and the claims which depend upon them) would be in condition for allowance with resolution to the above 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection and the above Double Patenting rejection. Though independent claims 8 and 17 capture audio data and audio-visual data, respectively, instead of image data (as independent claim 1 does); independent claims 8 and 17 still lack the same teachings cited above in regards to independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115