DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed on April 27, 2026 for the application of O’Connor for an “Automatic prioritization and/or failover for analytics devices” filed on June 30, 2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 4 and 14 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-13, and 15-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detmold et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20240333880) in view of Onodera (U.S. Patent No. 7855729) and in further view of Jibaja et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10838833).
As per claims 1, 2, and 12, Detmold discloses a computing system/method associated with a premises monitoring system that is configured to monitor a premises (Abstract, systems and methods for monitoring urban areas), the computing system comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor ([0058]), causes the at least one processor to:
obtain a plurality of parameters corresponding to a first premises analytics device located at the premises ([0028]), the first premises analytics device having been configured to execute a pipeline that performs an object detection operation on video data ([0062], “object detection module 324 may comprise program code to analyse camera sensor data and perform object detection operations on the camera sensor data.”), the plurality of parameters indicating at least one of:
a temperature of the first premises analytics device ([0028], “receive temperature data from the temperature sensor”); or
a watchdog timer status associated with the first premises analytics device ([0093], “a watchdog timer”);
detect, based on at least one of the plurality of parameters, a failure condition associated with the first premises analytics device ([0027], “the functional status of the computing device indicates a malfunction”) the failure condition indicating that the first premises analytics device is unable to execute the pipeline ([0028], “receive temperature data from the temperature sensor or humidity data from the humidity sensor; process the received temperature data or humidity data to determine a temperature or humidity condition unsuitable for the operation of the computing device”) or will be unable to execute the pipeline ([0117], “Based on the received sensor data, the watchdog component 357 may detect environmental conditions that are unsuitable for normal or safe operation of computing device 310.”);
Detmold fails to explicitly disclose identifying one additional premises analytics device being separate from the first premises analytics device.
Onodera of analogous art teaches:
in response to detecting the failure condition, identify at least one additional premises analytics device associated with the premises monitoring system that is capable of executing the pipeline (col. 4, lines 47-57, “when the first means detects a failure of at least one of the video recording apparatuses, changing the assignment of the monitor cameras to the video recording apparatuses so that at least first one of the monitor cameras which has been assigned to the failed video recording apparatus will be newly assigned to first normal one of the video recording apparatuses, and that at least second one of the monitor cameras which has been assigned to the failed video recording apparatus will be newly assigned to second normal one of the video recording apparatuses.”), the at least one additional premises analytics device being separate from the first premises analytics device that is experiencing the failure condition (col. 6, lines 32-34, “Video recording apparatuses 41, 42, and 43 are located on the first, second, and third floors of the building”) and (Fig. 1, elements 41-43).
All of the claimed elements were known in Detmold and Onodera and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving the performance of the data analytics device (Onodera, col. 5, lines 19-26).
Detmold in view of Onodera fails to explicitly disclose a command to generate at least one pipeline deployment.
Jibaja of analogous art teaches:
cause transmission, to a pipeline deployment system, of a command to generate at least one pipeline deployment (col. 42, lines 35-47, “Deploying (426) the component (406, 412, 418) that has failed in the failover container (428) may be carried out, for example, through the use of a shared volume that enables mounting local directories into containers, through the use of Docker ADD or COPY commands that enable files from a local filesystem to be copied into a specific directory within the container, or in other ways. In such an example, deploying (426) the component (406, 412, 418) that has failed in the failover container (428) can even include removing the failed component from the data analytics pipeline (402) and adding the component contained in the failover container (428) to the data analytics pipeline (402).”) for the at least one additional premises analytics device based on the pipeline (col. 40, line 59 through col. 41, line 8);
receive, from the pipeline deployment system, the at least one pipeline deployment (col. 42, lines 35-47); and cause transmission of the at least one pipeline deployment to the at least one additional premises analytics device for execution by the at least one additional premises analytics device (col. 42, lines 31-47, “Deploying (426) the component (406, 412, 418) that has failed in the failover container (428) may be carried out, for example, through the use of a shared volume that enables mounting local directories into containers, through the use of Docker ADD or COPY commands that enable files from a local filesystem to be copied into a specific directory within the container, or in other ways. In such an example, deploying (426) the component (406, 412, 418) that has failed in the failover container (428) can even include removing the failed component from the data analytics pipeline (402) and adding the component contained in the failover container (428) to the data analytics pipeline (402).”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Detmold and Jibaja and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving the performance of the data analytics pipeline (Jibaja, col. 42, lines 63-67).
As per claims 3 and 13, Detmold discloses the plurality of instructions further causes the at least one processor to obtain the at least one parameter corresponding to the first premises analytics device ([0028], “receive temperature data from the temperature sensor”).
As per claims 5 and 15, Jibaja discloses the at least one parameter comprises one or more of: latency in task execution relative to expected times for tasks to be performed; lack of heartbeat response from the first premises analytics device (col. 42, lines 18-30, “each component or container may be configured to produce a heartbeat that is monitored by a monitoring service”); failure of the first premises analytics device to respond to commands (col. 45, lines 37-46); failure of the first premises analytics device to perform analytics; age of the first premises analytics device; capabilities of the first premises analytics device; and
information indicating a failure or impending failure (col. 19, lines 26-29, “A continuous monitoring system correlates hardware and software status and the hardware identifiers. This allows detection and prediction of failures due to faulty components and manufacturing details.”) of hardware or software of the first premises analytics device (col. 41, lines 45-63).
As per claims 8 and 18, Jibaja discloses the plurality of instructions further causes the at least one processor to: cause transmission, to a pipeline deployment system, of a command to generate the pipeline deployment for the at least one additional premises analytics device based on the pipeline (col. 40, line 59 through col. 41, line 8); and receive, from the pipeline deployment system, the pipeline deployment (col. 42, lines 31-47).
As per claims 9 and 19, Jibaja discloses the causing of the pipeline deployment to be deployed to the at least one additional premises analytics device comprises causing transmission of the pipeline deployment to the at least one additional premises analytics device for execution by the at least one additional premises analytics device (col. 42, lines 31-47).
As per claims 11 and 20, Detmold discloses the pipeline is configured to perform an object detection operation on video data ([0062], “object detection module 324 may comprise program code to analyse camera sensor data and perform object detection operations on the camera sensor data.”).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detmold et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20240333880) in view of Onodera (U.S. Patent No. 7855729) and Jibaja et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10838833) and in further view of Peddada (USPGPUB 20070174661).
As per claims 6 and 16, Detmold discloses the plurality of instructions further causes the at least one processor to, initiate a reboot process at the first premises analytics device based on the failure condition and at least one additional parameter ([0093]). However, Detmold fails to explicitly disclose reboot process being unsuccessful.
Peddada of analogous art teaches the causing of pipeline deployment to be deployed to the at least one additional premises analytics device being based at least on the reboot process being unsuccessful ([0040], “If the attempt to restart was unsuccessful, then, in step 310, the cluster master will migrate the failed server onto a different machine, as illustrated in step 311.”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Detmold and Peddada and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving the performance of the data servers (Peddada, [0005]).
As per claims 7 and 17, Jibaja discloses the at least one additional parameter comprises one or more of: business logic information; a time of day; a type of a failure associated with premises analytics device (col. 41, lines 45-63); and whether the failure is also associated with another premises analytics devices (col. 45, lines 33-46).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detmold et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20240333880) in view of Onodera (U.S. Patent No. 7855729) and Jibaja et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10838833) and in further view of Anglin et al. (USPGPUB 20160034366 ).
As per claim 10, Detmold fails to explicitly disclose delaying the pipeline deployment.
Anglin of analogous art teaches the plurality of instructions further causes the at least one processor to temporarily delay, based on at least one rule, the causing of the pipeline deployment to be deployed to the at least one additional premises analytics device ([0025], “The failover delay 304 parameter indicates a duration of a failover timer that must expire before the client backup program 114 will proceed to the secondary server”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Detmold and Anglin and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing an efficient reconfiguration/failovers (Anglin, [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on April 27, 2026 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights