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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action relies on an improperly broad interpretation of Ton to teach this limitation. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that "weighted sections of the region of interest correspond to the monitored parts of the image." Office Action, p. 8. The Advisory Action likewise states that the claims are "directed to determining sections not weights" and that the prior art addresses the limitation. Applicant respectfully disagrees because this interpretation gives no patentable weight to the express modifier "weighted" and reduces "weighted sections" to any monitored portions of an image.”
Examiner notes that the Office Action has interpreted the claimed term "weighted sections" in view of the Specification and ordinary skill in the art. The claim does not apply or determine weights; the claim determines one or more weighted sections. “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. See reasons for claim construction and the corresponding rejection below.
Applicant argues: “The Specification confirms the proper understanding of that claim language by explaining that the system may determine one or more sections of a region of interest and determine one or more weights …”
Examiner notes that Specification may determine one or more weights but the Claims do not recite this limitation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues: “The Specification further explains that techniques such as "class activation maps (CAMs), saliency maps, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanation (LIME), Guided Grad-CAM, Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)" may be employed "to determine the one or more weighted sections," and that such techniques may identify regions within an image that contribute most to a classification decision.”
Examiner notes that most of the example methods of determining weighted sections do not mention weights, the rejection is consistent with these examples. Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues: “These disclosures are cited not to narrow the claims to any particular algorithm, but to show why the Examiner's reading of "weighted sections" as mere "monitored parts" is not reasonable. … In contrast, Ton discloses a delivery inbox in which a camera records photos or video when it detects motion or significant events such as the inbox being opened or unlocked. Ton, paragraph [0068].”
Examiner notes that comparing prior art to unclaimed features does not patentably distinguish the claims over the prior art.
Applicant argues: “The combination of references does not teach or suggest "determining one or more values associated with the one or more weighted sections of the region of interest satisfies one or more thresholds. " … As discussed above, the combination of Ton and Jorasch does not teach "determining one or more weighted sections of the region of interest," as claimed. … Neither passage teaches a value associated with a weighted image section of a region of interest …”
Examiner notes that the claimed one or more values are not limited to weights or to an association with particular weights. As noted above, Ton and Jorasch apply the method to embodiments of weighted regions.
Applicant argues: “The combination of references does not teach or suggest "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. " … Even accepting that Ton detects events, Ton does not determine a state or position based on values of weighted sections … Accordingly, because the cited combination does not teach the claimed weighted sections or values associated with those weighted sections satisfying thresholds, it also does not teach determining a state or position of the openable structure based on those values satisfying those thresholds.”
Examiner notes that the claimed one or more values are not limited to weights or to an association with particular weights. As noted above, Ton and Jorasch apply the method to embodiments of weighted regions.
Applicant argues: “Claim 15 The combination of references does not teach or suggest "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. " … The Office Action and Advisory Action assert that Ton teaches this feature because its second camera captures images or video when motion or significant events are detected, and because the inbox and inbox door may be treated as regions of interest. That analysis does not address the causal requirement of claim 15: the one or more regions of interest must be determined based on the one or more motion indications.”
Examiner disagrees. Claim does not limit the data structure of the regions of interest, the nature of the motion indications, or the basis that uses motion indications to determine regions of interest. Prior art teaches an example where: “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 [region of image characterized by motion], unlocked, etc.,” with the inbox and the inbox door as the regions of interest characterized by motion 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.
Applicant argues: “The motivation to combine the references is not supported. Applicant respectfully submits that the motivation to combine Ton and Jorasch is not supported. … Here, the Office Action states that it would have been obvious to "supplement the teachings of Ton to use [a] 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. At most, that statement explains why one might use a generic threshold in event detection; it does not explain why a skilled artisan would modify Jorasch's authentication-point, proximity-threshold, or video-streaming camera-framing disclosures to arrive at weighted-section state or position determination for an openable structure with Ton's delivery inbox camera.”
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Here, Ton performs the claimed functionality and it implies but does not explicitly describe the use of thresholds on the sensed data when determining a state of the object or an event in the video. 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.
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.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See, MPEP 2115.
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 claim does not apply or determine weights, it determines weighted sections where “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, Paragraphs 68, 279 Also note that “some data points may carry more weight than others” Jorasch, Paragraph 193. See statement of motivation below.)
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 associated with the one or more weighted sections 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, including “one or more states of the object (e.g., fully open, partially open, closed).” See Specification, Paragraphs 94-95, 26. 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 where “the at least one door 108 may be transitionable between an open state and at least one closed state.” Ton, Paragraphs 68, 70. 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 when determining a state of the object or an event in the video. 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8489065 to Green (“Green”) relevant for teaching motion tracking camera device.
US 20100316257 to Xu (“Xu”) relevant for performing image analysis that uses weighted regions in a video to determine a status of a moveable object, such as opening doors.
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