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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 21-22, 24, 26, 34-35, 37-40, 43-46, and 48-49 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 03/24/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 21-22, 24, 34-35, 38-39, 44-45 and 48-49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 12462657 B1, hereinafter Fu) in view of Bufalini et al. (US 20130070090 A1, hereinafter Bufalini).
Concerning claims 1 and 21, Fu teaches a system (and method), comprising:
one or more processors (col. 78, ll. 36-53); and
one or more computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (col. 78, ll. 36-53), cause the system to:
causing a display of a monitoring agent to output recorded video of a first event, the recorded video having been acquired by a camera at a property (fig. 1, fig. 10, col. 17, l. 40 – col. 18, l. 6; col. 57, ll. 28-41 - Remote monitoring service 140 has security personnel (i.e., a monitoring agent) that monitor video feeds and/or alerts from a property.);
after causing the display of the recorded video, determining that the monitoring agent has provided an input identifying a first event type category, selected from among at least three predetermined event type categories, within which the first event has been categorized (fig. 10: scenario 650, col. 57, ll. 18-22; col. 61, ll. 20-46 – Monitoring personnel tag events, objects, and /or characteristics of video from the video feeds. The events may be classified (e.g., a burglar was detected, a loiterer was detected, a false alarm was detected, etc.); col. 8, ll. 26-39: The events may also be classified by threat level (e.g., low, medium, and high priority level).);
based at least in part on the first event type category identified by the input, causing first data to be stored in a datastore (col. 15, ll. 48-50, col. 41, ll. 23-26 : storing metadata associated with the video data generated by the processor; col. 61, ll. 43-46: manually added tags applied by the monitoring personnel included in the metadata may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation), the first data indicating information about the triggering event (col. 61, ll. 20-46);
after the first data has been stored in the datastore, receiving a first indication that a first user interface element of an application of the user has been selected, wherein selection of the first user interface element represents a request to review events that have grouped by priority level and/or importance (figs. 11-12: events 710a-710n and/or 712a-712n; col. 64, l. 60- col. 65, l. 15: The user of companion app 160 may click or tap on the events presented on the user interface of companion app 160); and
in response to receipt of the first indication, causing, based at least in part on the first data in the datastore, the application to output first information concerning the first event (col. 64, l. 60- col. 65, l. 15: after the user interacts (clicks or taps) with the events, information regarding the particular event (e.g., live video stream, thumbnails, additional information, etc.) may be sent to the user device comprising companion app 160). Not explicitly taught is the first data indicating that the first event has been flagged for review by a monitoring agent and, wherein selection of the first user interface element represents a request to review events that have been flagged for review by the user.
Bufalini, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an administrator and/or user (i.e., a monitoring agent) manually flagging an event for review at a later time (fig. 11: button 1122; ¶0054). In response to selecting the flag for review button, a flag (e.g., metadata) can be associated with the content (¶0101). The flag can then be used to retrieve the content that the administrator and/or user thought was worth flagging more quickly than had the content not been flagged. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fu and Bufalini by allowing the monitoring personnel to manually flag an event for review and store that flag in the metadata. Now that the metadata includes a “flag for review”, one skilled in the art could easily modify the user interface of companion app 160 to show a group indicating events that the user should review. Adding this flag would allow for quick retrieval of content (Bufalini, ¶0101).
Concerning claims 2 and 22, Fu, now incorporating the teachings of Bufalini, further teaches:
storing, in the datastore, second data representing a first feature of a frame of the recorded video, the first feature having been determined by at least one image processing component (col. 63, l. 61 – col. 64, l. 8; fig. 13, col. 68, ll. 64-65 – a thumbnail and/or time stamp that are presented along with a video feed are implicitly stored (e.g., in memory or a buffer) in order to be transmitted to the user device); and
causing, based at least in part on the second data, the first information to include a representation of the first feature together with the frame (col. 63, l. 61 – col. 64, l. 8: thumbnail view of the video data may be considered a first feature presented along with a video feed; fig. 13, col. 68, ll. 64-65: time stamp 804 may be considered a first feature presented along with a video feed).
Concerning claims 4 and 24, Fu, now incorporating the teachings of Bufalini, further teaches:
wherein the input indicates that the first feature is free of a security concern (col. 61, ll. 34-40: the first input may tag the event as a false alarm), and the method further comprises causing the first information to include an indication that the first feature is free of a security concern (col. 61, ll. 43-46; col. 64, ll. 17-21; fig. 11: events 712a-712n may indicate no event detected).
Concerning claims 34 and 35, Fu, now incorporating the teachings of Bufalini, further teaches, wherein the one or more computer- readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to:
determine that preference data associated with the property indicates that events within the first event type category are to be flagged for review via the application (The combination of Fu and Bufalini now teaches flagging events for review; Fu, in col. 61, ll. 20-46, teaches that the types of tags/flags that may be applied are included with the metadata according to the design criteria of a particular implementation. These tags/flags classify the detected events which can then be grouped into different levels of priority (see also col. 3, ll. 19-41).); and
cause the first data to be stored in the datastore further based at least in part on the preference data indicating that events within the first event type category are to be flagged for review (Fu, col. 15, ll. 48-50, col. 41, ll. 23-26 : storing metadata associated with the video data generated by the processor; col. 61, ll. 43-46).
Concerning claims 38 and 44, Fu, now incorporating the teachings of Bufalini, further teaches:
after causing the application to output the first information and in response to receipt of a second indication that a second user interface element of the application has been selected, causing the application to output the recorded video of the first event (col. 64, l. 60- col. 65, l. 15: after the user interacts (clicks or taps) with the event information displayed on the user interface live and/or timelapse video streams may be displayed through companion app 160).
Concerning claims 39 and 45, Fu, now incorporating the teachings of Bufalini, further teaches:
after causing the application to output the first information and in response to receipt of a second indication that a second user interface element of the application has been selected, causing the application to output second information indicative of times at which one or more features were detected in the recorded video for the first event (col. 21, ll. 36-39: The time an object is detected may be stored in metadata; fig. 13, col. 68, ll. 60-65: time stamp 804 is shown along with video feed 802 after the user has interacted with the high priority event 710a shown in fig. 12).
Concerning claims 48 and 49, Fu, now incorporating the teachings of Bufalini, further teaches:
based at least in part on the input identifying the first event type category, causing second data to be stored in the datastore, the second data indicative of the first event type category (The combination of Fu and Bufalini now teaches the first data containing a flag for review . Fu, in col. 15, ll. 48-50, col. 41, ll. 23-26, further teaches storing metadata associated with the video data generated by the processor; col. 61, ll. 43-46: manually added tags applied by the monitoring personnel included in the metadata may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation.);
wherein causing the first data to be stored in the datastore is further based at least in part on the second data stored in the datastore (col. 15, ll. 48-50, col. 41, ll. 23-26 : storing metadata associated with the video data generated by the processor; col. 61, ll. 43-46: manually added tags applied by the monitoring personnel included in the metadata may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation).
Claims 37 and 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 12462657 B1, hereinafter Fu) in view of Bufalini et al. (US 20130070090 A1, hereinafter Bufalini) and Kedarisetti et al. (US 20200327313 A1, hereinafter Kedarisetti).
Concerning claims 37 and 43, Fu in view of Bufalini teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 21. Fu further teaches after causing the application to output the first information and in response to receipt of a second indication that a second user interface element of the application has been selected, correcting the first data (col. 28, ll. 13-35). Not explicitly taught is causing the first data to be removed from the datastore.
Kedarisetti, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches anomaly detection comprising:
after causing the application to output the first information and in response to receiving user feedback, causing the classification (i.e., first data) to be removed (¶0221). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fu in view of Bufalini and Kedarisetti by incorporating the removal of classification information (i.e., flagging, tagging, etc.) from incorrectly classified objects in order to reduce false positive detections.
Claims 6 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 12462657 B1, hereinafter Fu) in view of Bufalini et al. (US 20130070090 A1, hereinafter Bufalini) and San Pedro et al. (US 20220172586 A1, hereinafter San Pedro).
Concerning claims 6 and 26, Fu in view of Bufalini teaches the system and method of claims 34 and 35. Fu further teaches providing a user with a graphical user interface to adjust settings implemented by the system (col. 20, ll. 20-34). Not explicitly taught is receiving a second indication that the user has provided a second input to the application, the second input indicating a preference that events categorized within the first event type category be flagged for review via the application; and determining the preference data based on the second input.
San Pedro, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
receiving a second indication that the user has provided a second input to the application, the second input indicating a preference that events categorized within the first event type category be flagged for review via the application (¶0032, ¶¶0088-0089: The user configuring watchlists through user client 108); and
determining the preference data based on the second input (¶0032, ¶¶0088-0089: The user configuring watchlists through user client 108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fu in view of Bufalini and San Pedro by allowing the user to adjust preferences that indicate which events fall into a specific category and how the system responds. Such a modification would allow the Fu in view of Bufalini system to apply different preferences to different surveillance areas and/or security cameras (San Pedro, ¶0089).
Claims 40 and 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 12462657 B1, hereinafter Fu) in view of Bufalini et al. (US 20130070090 A1, hereinafter Bufalini) and Latapie et al. (US 20230094800 A1, hereinafter San Latapie).
Concerning claims 40 and 46, Fu in view of Bufalini teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 21. Fu further teaches updating the user display interface when information is presented (e.g., as new information is determined about the events detected, as context information is determined, as responses to a deterrence action is detected, etc.) (col. 7, ll. 50-56). Not explicitly taught is after causing the application to output the first information and in response to receipt of a second indication that a second user interface element of the application has been selected, causing the application to output second information indicative of one or more actions taken by the monitoring agent while reviewing the first event.
Latapie, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a semantic reasoning engine used in monitoring physical or environmental conditions at different locations, wherein after causing the application to output the first information and in response to receipt of a second indication that a second user interface element of the application has been selected (figs. 9A-9B: 902, ¶0152: Inputs on the interface to select particular sensor feeds), causing the application to output second information indicative of one or more actions taken by the system while monitoring a location (figs. 9A-9B: 910, ¶0152: a list of mitigation actions taken by the system to address detected issues is presented). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fu in view of Bufalini and Latapie by presenting the user with information regarding the actions taken by the monitoring agent (i.e., mitigation actions) while reviewing the first event. Such a modification would allow the user of the Fu in view of Bufalini system to determine the deterrence actions taken and/or the time of said deterrence action taken to mitigate an event (e.g., successful deterrence 712a-712n of fig. 11 in Fu). This would inform the user of useful information regarding the security of their property.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights