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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101. See below.
Regarding section 103, Applicant argues: “Claim 1, recites, in part, "determining one or more weighted sections of the region of interest." Claim 8 recites a similar limitation. The Office Action relies on an improperly broad interpretation of Ton to teach this limitation. Specifically, the Office Action asserts, "weighted sections of the region of interest correspond to the monitored parts of the image." Office Action, p. 8. In fact, the only mention of "weight" in Ton is with respect to a generic "weight sensor" ( e.g., a scale) in a paragraph listing various other sensors such as microphones and cameras. Ton, ,i 86. Monitoring images (e.g., capturing image data) does not teach "determining one or more weighted sections of the region of interest," as claimed.”
Examiner notes that the Office Action has interpreted the claimed terms in view of the Specification and ordinary skill in the art. Applicant simply argues that prior art does not address whatever is in the claims without contradicting or supporting an alternative claim construction. In view of the evidence on the record, this argument is not persuasive. See reasons for claim construction and corresponding rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1, recites, in part, "determining, based on the one or more values of the one or more weighted sections satisfying the one or more thresholds, a state of the openable structure." Claim 8 includes a similar limitation As discussed above, the combination of Ton and Jorasch does not teach, "determining one or more weighted sections of the region of interest," nor "determining one or more values associated with the one or more weighted sections of the region of interest satisfies one or more thresholds," as claimed and therefore necessarily cannot teach "determining, based on the one or more values of the one or more weighted sections satisfying the one or more thresholds, a state of the openable structure," as claimed.”
Examiner notes that prior art teaches an embodiment of the claim: Prior art teaches this feature, for example “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” significant events indicating when event values detected by the camera satisfy the event detection threshold. Ton, Paragraph 68. Where it is known that “a user may satisfy an authentication requirement by using any combination of information whose combined point value meets or exceeds a required threshold” Jorasch, Paragraphs 193, 955. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Claim 15, recites, in part, "determining, based on the one or more motion indications, one or more regions of interest in the field of view of the image capture device." Applicant submits the combination of references does not teach this limitation. The Office Action asserts that a camera capturing image data when it detects motion teaches, "determining, based on the one or more motion indications, one or more regions of interest in the field of view of the image capture device." It does not. There is no indication in Ton or Jorasch that "one or more regions of interest" are "determined based on the one or more motion indications," as claimed.”
Examiner disagrees. Claim does not limit what the region of interest is, and Specification particularly defines that the region of interest embodies pixels of an object of interest. Prior art teaches this: “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” with the inbox and the inbox door as the regions of interest in the event. Ton, Paragraph 68. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that the motivation to combine Ton and Jorasch is not supported. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should be made explicit. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”
Examiner disagrees. Office Action cited Ton, Paragraph 68 and Jorasch, Paragraphs 193, 955 as evidence supporting motivation to combine. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “The claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art references. … Here, the Office Action merely concludes that it would be obvious to "supplement the teachings of Ton to use threshold in determining if a particular event has occurred based on the sensor data as taught in Jorasch, to determine when an event should be declared." Office Action, p. 10. … A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to combine Jorasch 's user authentication threshold system with Ton 's delivery inbox camera system to arrive at the claimed weighted section analysis for determining openable structure states. … Accordingly, the motivation relied upon by the Office Action is not rationally supported.”
Examiner notes that Applicant appears to list multiple unconnected theories of argument.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Jorasch is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Jorasch is relevant to imaging and identifying regions of interest in an image, and it is cited particularly to indicate that the act of detection of an event necessarily relates to a threshold for detection of an event.
35 USC § 101
Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50) in view of The USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024), published in November 2024.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claims 1-20 recite “receiving, by a computing device, from an image capture device, image data” a generic term (“device”) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Specification describes a computing device as a computer in Paragraph 11, and an image capturing device as a camera. The claim limitations below are construed accordingly.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230237426 to Ton (“Ton”) in view of US 20210399911 to Jorasch (“Jorasch”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from an image capture device, image data associated with a field of view of the image capture device; (The second camera may look for motion and record photos and/or video when it detects motions in the device's surroundings,” and thus within its field of view. Ton, Paragraphs 58, 68.)
determining, based on the image data, a region of interest in the field of view, wherein the region of interest comprises an openable structure; (“the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” describing an openable structure. Ton, Paragraph 68. See similarly “select regions of interest to track and focus” based on items of interest in the field of view, in Jorasch, Paragraph 2578.)
determining one or more weighted sections of the region of interest; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “The one or more weighted sections may comprise one or more groupings of pixels that represent the object/region of interest,” thus weighted sections of the region of interest correspond to the monitored parts of the image. See Specification, Paragraph 25. Prior art provides an example of this: “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” indicating that the inbox and the inbox opening are the monitored parts of the image corresponding to the weighted sections. Ton, Paragraph 68.)
determining one or more values associated with the one or more weighted sections of the region of interest satisfies one or more thresholds; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “The one or more values may comprise values associated with the image data … the state of the openable structure may be determined based on the one or more values (and/or changes thereof) of the one or more weighted sections,” where the values may cover a broad range of definitions.. See Specification, Paragraphs 94-95. Prior art teaches this feature, for example “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” significant events indicating when event values detected by the camera satisfy the event detection threshold. Ton, Paragraph 68. See additional treatment of using thresholds below.)
determining, based on the one or more values of the one or more weighted sections satisfying the one or more thresholds, a state of the openable structure.” (Prior art teaches this feature, for example “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” significant events indicating when event values detected by the camera satisfy the event detection threshold. Ton, Paragraph 68. See additional treatment of using thresholds below.)
Ton performs the claimed functionality and it implies but does not explicitly describe the use of thresholds on the sensed data in determining a state. However, this feature is well understood in the art, as confirmed by Jorasch in the context of cameras and authentication: “a user may satisfy an authentication requirement by using any combination of information whose combined point value meets or exceeds a required threshold” Jorasch, Paragraphs 193, 955.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Ton to use threshold in determining if a particular event has occurred based on the sensor data as taught in Jorasch, to determine when an event should be declared. See Ton, Paragraph 68 and Jorasch, Paragraphs 193, 955.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein the image capture device comprises a camera.” (Note that the imaging device being a camera does not further limit the method claim 1 to perform additional steps. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.” Ton, Paragraph 68.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein the openable structure comprises one or more of: a premises door, a garage door, a gate, a fence, an appliance door, or a window.” (“The inbox closes and locks by itself after the delivered item is put inside. … The owner may open a separate main access door …” In this case, the inbox is a smart appliance and it has access doors. Ton, Paragraphs 67, 68.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the region of interest comprises determining one or more identifiers associated with the image capture device, wherein the one or more identifiers comprise one or more of: one or more device identifiers, one or more data identifiers, or one or more image data fingerprints.” (“Further, a first camera of the 2 cameras may scan the code (QR or barcode) that the vendor, seller, online marketplace, or shipment company generates. The code is affixed to the package,” which is an example of a data identifier or a fingerprint detected by the camera. See Ton, Paragraphs 67 and 51-53.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, further comprising based on receiving the image data, determining historical image data associated with the field of view of the image capture device.” (“in some embodiments, the one or more predefined conditions may be automatically determined, using the processing device, based on historical data corresponding to performance of the one or more steps.” Ton, Paragraphs 43. As noted in Claim 1, data of one of the performed steps is embodied in the images collected of the inbox and the authentication information. See Ton, Paragraphs 67, 40, 83. See similarly in Jorasch, Paragraph 956.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, based on the state of the openable structure, one or more messages.” (“When the delivery inbox is scanned & opened, closed, and locked, [states of openable structure] text messages are sent.” Ton, Paragraph 68.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining timing information associated with the image data; and withholding, based on the timing information, a message.” (“In general, the one or more contextual variables may represent a condition relevant to the performance of the one or more steps of the method. The one or more contextual variables may include, for example, but are not limited to, location, time, …” Ton, Paragraph 41. See sending a message as one of the steps of the method in Claim 6 and Ton, Paragraphs 68, 60.)
Claim 8, “A method,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and because prior art teaches:
“determining, based on the one or more values of the one or more weighted sections satisfying the one or more thresholds, a position of the openable structure” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, position can be a door opening. See Specification, Paragraph 95. Prior art teaches this feature, for example “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” significant events indicating open or closed positions of the inbox. Ton, Paragraph 68. See additional treatment of using thresholds below.)
Claim 9 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 10 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 11 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 12 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 5 in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 13 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 14 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 7 in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 15, “A method,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches:
“determining, based on the image data, one or more motion indications; (“the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” describing an openable structure. Ton, Paragraph 68.)
determining, based on the one or more motion indications, one or more regions of interest in the field of view of the image capture device; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, regions of interest can be pixels that represent objects of interest. See Specification, Paragraph 25. Prior art teaches: “the 2 cameras on the inbox performs as a security camera that captures images/videos when the 2nd camera detects motion, or when it detects [determines] significant events such as inbox opened, unlocked, etc.,” with the inbox and the inbox door as the regions of interest in the field of view of the camera. Ton, Paragraph 68 and illustration of these regions in Figs. 1-8. See similarly “select regions of interest to track and focus” based on items of interest in the field of view, in Jorasch, Paragraph 2578.)
applying, to the one or more regions of interest in the field of view, one or more security settings.” (For example “When the delivery inbox is scanned & opened, closed, and locked, text messages are sent to one or more phone numbers” Ton, Paragraph 68. Also note security settings for detecting completion of delivery or vandalism in Ton, Paragraphs 58, 60 which are similar to features in Specification, Paragraph 111.)
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2, in view of Claim 15 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4, in view of Claim 15 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 5, in view of Claim 15 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6, in view of Claim 15 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 7, in view of Claim 15 rejection.
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights