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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to the last office action, filed January 16, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 3-10, 14-15, and 19-20 have been amended; claims 2, 11-13, and 18 have been cancelled. By this amendment, claims 1, 3-10, 14-17, and 19-22 are now pending in this application.
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is hereby withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 14-17, and 19-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkley et al, (US-Patent 11,594,034) in view of Mukherjee (US- PGPUB 20200310433)
In regards to claim 1, Merkley discloses an information processing apparatus,
(see at least: col. 1, lines 34-36, “apparatus”), comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor, (see at least: Fig. 1, col. 16, lines 13-14, the local computing device 120 may include memory, and a processor), configured to execute the instructions, to:
acquire information detected based on an image captured by an imaging apparatus, (see at least: col. 19, lines 26-28, the security and automation system may include a device 255, which the device 255 may an example of aspects of a sensor unit 210 including a camera, [i.e., sensor unit 210 implicitly acquire image data]. Further, col. 20, lines 9-65, the sensor units 210 may transmit data to the system light data, video data, image data, audio data, motion data, and the like, and … system may process data to identify one or more parameters (e.g., characteristics of an entity, settings of the system, and the like), such as an event, [i.e., acquire information, “event”, detected based on an image captured by an imaging apparatus, “based on processing image data acquired by the sensor units 210 ]);
perform a first determination process comprising determining to output a warning in case where a type of an object detected at time of start and end of a first period is a person, (col. 21, line 62 through col. 22, line 2, the system may detect (at a first time) a person relatively distant from the home 250 or an object of interest (e.g., relatively far from a door or car of the home 250). The system may classify such a localization as relatively low risk, and the system may light the premises using a first setting (e.g., a floodlight on the car or lights within or outside the home turned on), [i.e., perform a first determination process of determining, “classify such a person localization as relatively low risk”, to output a warning when a type of an object detected at time of start and end of a first period is a person, “the system may light the premises using a first setting implicitly when the person is detected at first period of time”]), and
a second determination process comprising determining to output a warning in case where behavior of the person detected based on the image continues for a second period or longer, (col. 22, lines 2-10, the system may detect at a second time that the person is relatively closer to the home 250, and the system may classify the localization as relatively high risk, and initiate a strobe of the light using one or more various colors, begin a whistle sound, increase a wattage of the light, turn on sirens, send a drone to follow the person, etc.), [i.e., second determination process of determining, “detect at a second time that the person is relatively closer to the home 250”, to output a warning when behavior of the person detected for a second period, “initiate a strobe of the light using one or more various colors, begin a whistle sound, increase a wattage of the light, turn on sirens”]. Furthermore, Merkley discloses in different embodiment, (see Fig. 3), that the device 355 may detect a presence of a person 330, and may activate a light emitting source based on the detection of a trigger (e.g., a detected event, a detected object, or a detection of the person 330, (see Fig. 3, col. 24, line 14 through col. 25, line 5); and the device 355 may determine in some examples, that a person 330 has remained within the zone 305 for a duration that satisfies a threshold (e.g., the person 330 has remained on a premises for a time period longer than a duration of a timer initiated upon detection of the person 330). The device 355 may enable a strobe effect of the light, a motion of the visible light (e.g., sweeping back and forth), play a warning message or alarm sound, or a combination thereof, (see col. 26, lines 3-23), [i.e., a second determination process of determining, “detect a presence of a person 330”, to output a warning, “strobe effect of the light, a motion of the visible light (e.g., sweeping back and forth), play a warning message or alarm sound”, when behavior of the person, “the event of a person”, detected based on the image continues for a second period or longer, “the detected person 330 has remained within the zone 305 for a duration time period longer than duration threshold”]); and
output the warning based on a result of at least one of the first determination, or the second determination, (see at least: col. 26, lines 10-13, the device 355 may play a warning message or alarm sound, or a combination thereof, [implicitly based on determining person 330 has remained within the zone 305 for a longer duration]);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the first determination process in a case where the behavior of the person detected based on the image is first behavior, (see at least: col. 21, line 62 through col. 22, line 2, the system may detect (at a first time) a person relatively distant from the home 250 or an object of interest (e.g., relatively far from a door or car of the home 250), “i.e., first behavior corresponds to a person relatively distant from the home 250 ”); and execute the second determination process in a case where the behavior of the person detected based on the image is second behavior, (col. 22, lines 2-10, the system may detect at a second time that the person is relatively closer to the home 250, “i.e., the second behavior corresponds to the person is relatively closer to the home 250”).
Merkley does not expressly disclose wherein the behavior of the person is determined to be a specific pose in a case where a similarity between an estimated skeleton of the person and a skeleton in the specific pose registered in advance is equal to or greater than a threshold.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the behavior of the person is determined to be a specific pose in a case where a similarity between an estimated skeleton of the person and a skeleton in the specific pose registered in advance is equal to or greater than a threshold, (see at least: Par. 0043, the pose similarity component 310 generates a pose similarity score for the skeletal model of the pedestrian based upon the computed distances between the joints of the skeletal model and their corresponding joints in the reference skeletal model, “i.e., implicitly performing similarity between an estimated skeleton of the person and a skeleton in the specific pose registered in advance”, …., the pose similarity component 310 determines that the pedestrian is making the hailing gesture based upon the pose similarity score exceeding a similarity threshold, [i.e., the pose similarity component 310 implicitly determines that the behavior of the person is determined to be a specific pose, “pedestrian is making the hailing gesture”, in case where the similarity score is equal to or greater than a threshold, “based upon the pose similarity score exceeding a similarity threshold”]).
Merkley and Mukherjee are combinable because they are both concerned with object monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Merkley, to use pose similarity component 310, to generates a pose similarity score for skeleton model, as though by Mukherjee, in order to determine human’s specific pose, based on the pose similarity score exceeding a similarity threshold, (Mukherjee, Par. 0043)
In regards to claim 2, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Merkley further discloses wherein the at least one processor executes the first determination process when the behavior of the person detected based on the image is first behavior, (see at least: col. 21, line 62 through col. 22, line 2, the system may detect (at a first time) a person relatively distant from the home 250 or an object of interest (e.g., relatively far from a door or car of the home 250), “i.e., first behavior corresponds to a person relatively distant from the home 250 ”); and executes the second determination process when the behavior of the person detected based on the image is second behavior, (col. 22, lines 2-10, the system may detect at a second time that the person is relatively closer to the home 250, “i.e., the second behavior corresponds to the person is relatively closer to the home 250”).
In regards to claim 3, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Merkley further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine to output a warning in case where a total length of time, during which specific behavior of the person based on the image is detected in a specific period, is equal to or greater than a first threshold, (see at least: col. 26, lines 3-23, the device 355 may determine that a person 330 has remained within the zone 305 for a duration that satisfies a threshold, and the device 355 may enable a strobe effect of the light, a motion of the visible light (e.g., sweeping back and forth), play a warning message or alarm sound, or a combination thereof, [i.e., determining to output a warning, “device 355 may enable a strobe effect of the light, a motion of the visible light …”, when a total length of time, during which specific behavior of the person based on the image is detected in a specific period, is equal to or greater than a first threshold, “the person 330 has remained on a premises for a time period longer than a first threshold”]).
In regards to claim 4, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Merkley further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine not to output the warning in case where a period, during which the specific behavior of the person based on the image is not continuously detected in the specific period, is equal to or greater than a second threshold, (see at least: col. 26, lines 3-23, the device 355 may deactivate (e.g., turn off) the light emitting source and/or the sound emitting source based on detecting that the person has left the zone 305 prior to an expiration of a timer, [i.e., determining not to output the warning, “the device 355 may deactivate (e.g., turn off) the light emitting source and/or the sound emitting source”, when a period, during which the specific behavior of the person based on the image is not continuously detected in the specific period, is equal to or greater than a second threshold, “based on detecting that the person has left the zone 305 prior to an expiration of a timer, which implicit that the period of time is not continuously detected in the specific period, is equal to or greater than a second threshold”]).
In regards to claim 5, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Merkley further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on a predetermined condition, at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold, (see at least: col. 25, lines 64-66, the device 355 may be configured to emit an alarm for a detected crime or a detection of the person 330 at pre-configured hours, [i.e., determining, based on a predetermined condition, at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold, “ determining pre-configured hours for emitting an alarm for a detected crime or a detection of the person 330”]).
In regards to claim 7, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Merkley further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on at least one of attribute of the person determined based on the image, a time at which the image is captured, a place where the image is captured, and a type of the specific behavior, at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold, (see at least: col. 9, line 56 through col. 10, line 6, the security and automation systems may determine, based on using the one or more facial recognition algorithms, whether the identity of the person matches or nor matches a profile of an occupant of the smart-home, “based on attribute of the person determined based on the image”; and from col. 10, lines 1-6, the security and automation system may be configured to operate in a first mode (also referred to as a security mode) during pre-configured hours of a day, [i.e., at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold, based on the detected trigger or facial recognition]).
In regards to claim 8, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Merkley further discloses set a determination method according to at least one of each region in the image captured by the imaging apparatus and a type of the behavior of the person, and perform a determination process based on the determination method set by the setting means, (see at least: col. 11, lines 19-36, system may determine one or more parameters, (e.g., identity of one or more entities, a behavior of an entity … ), based on the monitoring and intelligently perform an action based on the one or more parameters, and the system may perform one or more operations which may affect a detected behavior of an entity. For example, the system may emit a light, emit a sound, spray water, …etc., [i.e., set a determination method according to at least one of each region in the image captured by the imaging apparatus and a type of the behavior of the person, “determine one or more parameters”, and the at least one processor performs a determination process based on the determination method set by the setting means, “the system intelligently perform an action based on the one or more parameters, such as emit a light, emit a sound, spray water …”]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “an information processing method “. However, Merkley discloses the “information processing method”, (see at least: Figs. 8-12, col. 1, lines 34-36, “a method for a smart monitoring system”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 10 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes an information processing apparatus to execute”. However, Merkley discloses the “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes an information processing apparatus to execute”, (see at least: col. 3, lines 1-2,”a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for a monitoring system”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 2. As such, claim 13 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. As such, claim 14 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 4. As such, claim 15 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 5. As such, claim 16 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 2. As such, claim 18 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. As such, claim 19 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 4. As such, claim 20 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 5. As such, claim 21 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Claims 6, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkley and Mukherjee, as applied to claim 4 above; and further in view of Ishizawa et al, (US-PGPUB 20160133122)
In regards to claim 6, the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole discloses the limitations of claim 4.
The combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee as whole does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on at least one of a surrounding circumstance of the person determined based on the image and a type of an object in front of the person detected based on the image, at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold.
However, Ishizawa discloses determining, based on at least one of a surrounding circumstance of the person determined based on the image and a type of an object in front of the person detected based on the image, at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold, (see at least: Par. 0045-0047, sensor 200 (monitoring camera) transmits an image information to the monitoring server 100, which detects whether an abnormal situation has occurred in the monitored location, using the monitoring rule, which the monitoring rule is, for example, the conditional expression “if (an image of a person putting down a bag is caught by a camera, and then, a person does not get close to the bag in a certain period of time) then (issue a warning to a monitoring operator 900)”, [i.e., determines, based on at least one of a surrounding circumstance of the person, “based on detecting whether an abnormal situation has occurred in the monitored location”, determined based on the image, “an image information”, and a type of an object in front of the person detected based on the image, “a bag put down in front of a person caught by a camera”, at least one of a length of the specific period, the first threshold, and the second threshold, “person does not get close to the bag in a certain period of time”]).
Merkley, Mukherjee, and Ishizawa are combinable because they are both concerned with object monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Merkley and Mukherjee, to use the monitoring rule in the server 100, as though by Ishizawa, in order to detect occurrence of an abnormal situation in a monitoring system, (Ishizawa, Par. 0001)
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 6. As such, claim 17 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 6. As such, claim 221 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 02/06/2026