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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: “First, Applicant respectfully disagrees that Stewart's identification of suppression zones teaches or suggests the claimed "generating the ignore mask." (Office Action, p. 5.) As amended, claim 1 requires generating the ignore mask by detecting that motion in a region exceeds a threshold value during a plurality of time intervals and, in response to that detected motion behavior, specifying the region in the ignore mask such that the region cannot trigger an alert. The claimed ignore mask is therefore behavior-centric, because the region is selected based on repeated observed motion behavior over time.”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument that newly amended claim language was not addressed in the previous office action is not persuasive, because Applicant did not submit this claim language for review in the previous office action. Newly amended language is addressed by the rejection reasons provided below.
Applicant argues: “By contrast, Stewart's suppression zones are object-centric. Stewart's zone-generation disclosure is based on detecting objects and generating suggested zone definitions associated with those detected objects.”
Examiner notes that that portion of Stewart is consistent with the scope of the claims, particularly pertinent to the original Claim 2.
Applicant argues: “Second, Applicant respectfully disagrees that Stewart teaches or suggests the amended limitations requiring "transmitting the ignore mask to the IoT camera for use in subsequent monitoring by the IoT camera" and "receiving the video stream from the IoT camera in response to transmitting the ignore mask to the IoT camera."”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument that newly amended claim language was not addressed in the previous office action is not persuasive, because Applicant did not submit this claim language for review in the previous office action. Newly amended language is addressed by the rejection reasons provided below. Also note that Applicant appears to rely on functions implemented inside an IoT camera without limiting the claim to perform the functions of an IoT camera.
Applicant argues: “The Office relies on Stewart's disclosure of suppression zones (Id, iJ4), a command receiving module (Id, iJiJ230), suggested zone definitions (Id, iJ270), optional placement of functionality in a camera (Id, iJ280), and user editing of zone definitions (Id, iJ288). However, these disclosures do not describe the claimed sequence and instead concern separate aspects of Stewart's system. In Stewart, suppression zones are used within Stewart's alert-processing framework to determine whether notifications for motion events should be issued. Id, iJ4. By contrast, amended claim 1 requires that an ignore mask first be transmitted to the IoT camera for use in subsequent monitoring by the IoT camera …”
Examiner notes that the claims indicate the IoT camera to be a separate system from the claims. Prior art indicates that this functionality can indeed be distributed and performed by different systems on the network. Thus the prior art appears to teach or render obvious the claimed context of distributing the computing load.
Applicant argues: “The cited Stewart passages do not disclose transmitting a suppression zone to a camera for use in subsequent monitoring by the camera. Nor do they disclose the claimed feedback sequence in which a video stream is subsequently received after deployment of the ignore mask. Nor do the cited passages disclose that a subsequently received video stream is received because the suppression zone was previously transmitted to the camera.”
Examiner notes that prior art indicates that subsequent to receiving a definition of an alerting zone, “When the zone of interest is an alerting zone [not within an ignore mask], the computing system causes (1310) one or more notifications of the one or more motion events to be issued.” Stewart, Paragraphs 298-299. This sequence is known and obvious based on the cited art. The fact that Applicant presumes more functionality on the IoT camera that is in communication with the method does not limit the claimed method to performing particular steps.
Response to Amendment
Examiner withdraws the objection to Figure 7 in view of the amendment designating it with a --Prior Art—label.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims 1, 8, 15, are amended to recite: “detecting that motion in a region of the video data having motion above exceeds a threshold value during each of a plurality of time intervals, wherein the motion comprises a change in a number of pixels from frame to frame in the video data;” however Examiner did not find a reference to a plurality of time intervals or this manner of detection in the Specification. For example, Specification Paragraph 76 is directed to detecting motion vectors over a period of time, but not over a plurality of time intervals and not for each of a plurality of time intervals..
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, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180232592 to Stewart (“Stewart”) in view of US 20240396625 to Martin (“Martin”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method for reducing errant alerts and network bandwidth usage from an Internet of Things (IoT) camera, comprising:
receiving, by at least one computer processor, video data from the [IoT] camera (“at a computing system with one or more processors and one or more memory components: obtaining video of an environment … FIG. 9B is a block diagram illustrating a representative video capturing device (e.g., a camera)” Stewart, Paragraphs 4, 22. See treatment of an IoT camera below.)
configured to monitor for an event and to trigger an alert when the event is detected; (Note that this claim is directed to a computer implemented method, so a limitation on the configuration of a camera which in itself is a preferred source of received data, does not limit the claimed method to executing a particular step. Cumulatively note that prior art teaches this feature: “one or more network-connected cameras 118 that are configured to provide video monitoring and security in the smart home environment” Stewart, Paragraph 40. “Conditions detected by the devices described above (e.g., motion, sound, vibrations, hazards) may be referred to collectively as alert events.” Stewart, Paragraph 43.)
generating an ignore mask based on the video data, wherein the ignore mask specifies one or more regions in a video stream from the IoT camera that cannot trigger an alert; (“identifying the zone of interest as one of an alerting zone or a suppression zone; … when the zone is a suppression zone, suppressing notifications of the one or more motion events.” Stewart, Paragraph 4.)
transmitting the ignore mask to the IoT camera for use in subsequent monitoring by the IoT camera;; (This claim language is not clear about what does the transmitting, and the intended use of the data subsequent to the claim does not limit the claim to performing a particular step. Prior art teaches several relevant examples of this capability: “Device-side module 932, which provides device-side functionalities for device control, data processing and data review, including but not limited to: … Command receiving module 9320 for receiving, forwarding, and/or executing instructions and control commands ( e.g., from a client device 504, from a smart home provider server system 164, from user inputs detected on the user interface 910, etc.) for operating the smart device 204; … camera 118, being an example of a smart device 204.” Stewart, Paragraphs 229, 253, Figs. 9A-9B. The smart device can also have “Suggested zone definitions 984 for storing suggested zone definitions.” Stewart, Paragraphs 252, 270. In these cases the received data can subsequently be used in monitoring.
Stewart further notes, “The user-facing frontend 11100 also receives user edits on … zone definitions for zones of interest,” for the server system. Stewart, Paragraphs 267, 288. “In some implementations, one or more of the modules and data stores associated with server system 508 or 552 (FIGS. 5A-5B) may be located in the camera (e.g., camera 118) itself.” Stewart, Paragraph 280. Thus the camera can receive and use the suppression zones in its operation.
To the extent necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features of receiving and using the suppression zones in a smart camera device in the manner suggested in the cited portions of Stewart above.)
receiving the video stream from the IoT camera in response to transmitting the ignore mask to the IoT camera; (“When the zone of interest is an alerting zone [not within an ignore mask], the computing system causes (1310) one or more notifications of the one or more motion events to be issued.” Stewart, Paragraphs 298-299. “An example of such a notification is shown in FIG. 14G. The notification may include a frame of the video and text indicating that there is motion activity detected in the suggested zone” Stewart, Paragraph 292 and Fig. 9A.)
determining that the video stream is associated with the alert; and (“When the zone of interest is an alerting zone [not withing an ignore mask], the computing system causes (1310) one or more notifications of the one or more motion events to be issued.” Stewart, Paragraphs 298-299.)
transmitting the alert to a user device in response to the determining, (“When the zone of interest is an alerting zone [not withing an ignore mask], the computing system causes (1310) one or more notifications of the one or more motion events to be issued.” Stewart, Paragraphs 298-299.)
wherein the generating the ignore mask comprises: … detecting that motion in a region of the video data having motion above exceeds a threshold value during each of a plurality of time intervals, (“detecting one or more motion events captured in the video occurring at least partially within the zone of interest;” thus detecting motion above the detection threshold. Stewart, Paragraph 4. In another embodiment, “determining a number of the motion events that originated from a first region of the field of view within the predefined period of time, determining whether the number of originated motion events exceeds a first predefined threshold,” Stewart, Paragraphs 303-304. “In some implementations, the more thorough event identification process includes segmenting (1115) the video stream into multiple segments then categorizing the motion event candidate within each segment (1116). In some implementations, categorizing the motion event candidate includes an aggregation of … motion vector generation for each motion entity, motion entity features, and scene features to generate motion features (11166) for the motion event candidate.” Stewart, Paragraph 273. Thus, a motion even can be detected as an aggregation of detection of multiple motion vectors for each of a multiple of video segments.)
wherein the motion comprises a change in a number of pixels from frame to frame in the video data; and (“For example, the camera 118 analyzes the captured video for significant changes in pixels. When motion is detected by the preliminary motion detection, the camera 118 …” Stewart, Paragraphs 104, 323.)
in response to detecting that the motion exceeds the threshold value during each of the plurality of time intervals, specifying in the ignore mask that the region cannot trigger the alert.” (“determining a number of the motion events that originated from a first region of the field of view within the predefined period of time, determining whether the number of originated motion events exceeds a first predefined threshold, … a categorization is based on a determination that the motion event candidate is within a particular zone of interest.” Stewart, Paragraphs 303-304. “If the zone is a suppression zone, the server forgoes generating alerts and notifications for motion events detected in the zone. … rejection of a suggested zone is implicitly considered a designation of the suggested zone as a suppression zone” Stewart, Paragraph 288. “When the zone is a suppression zone, the computing system suppresses (1312) notifications of the one or more motion events. The server 508/552 forgoes issuing one or more alerts for motion events detected in the zone if the zone is a suppression zone.” Stewart, Paragraphs 298, 4.)
Stewart does not explicitly teach an “IoT camera.” Stewart does teach that the cameras “include, for example, hardware capable of data communications using any of a variety of custom or standard wireless protocols (e.g., IEEE 802. 1 5 .4, Wi-Fi, ZigBee, 6LoWPAN, Thread, Z-Wave, Bluetooth Smart, ISA l 00 . l la, WirelessHART, MiWi, etc .) and/or any of a variety of custom or standard wired protocols (e.g., Ethernet, HomePlug, etc.), or any other suitable communication protocol” which substantively covers IoT protocols. Stewart, Paragraph 237.
Martin teaches the above claim feature in the context of networked devices for providing video and alerts: “various sensors 197 such as, but not limited to video cameras … The one or more devices may be, for example, sensors, IoT devices, or networks of sensors or IoT devices.” Martin, Paragraphs 82-83.
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 networked smart camera teachings of Stewart to use IoT networking as taught in Martin, in order to connect to an IoT ecosystem of commercial networked devices.
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 computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the ignore mask comprises:
detecting, using artificial intelligence (AI), an object in the video data that cannot trigger the alert; and (“Object detection module 976 for detecting objects and corresponding contours in video feeds; … Zone definition module 980 for generating suggested zone definitions for detected objects; Object images database(s) 982 for storing one or more databases (e.g., machine-trained databases) of images of objects;” Stewart, Paragraphs 248-251.)
specifying in the ignore mask that a region in the video data covering the object cannot trigger the alert.” (“Zone definition module 980 for generating suggested zone definitions for detected objects;” Stewart, Paragraphs 248-251. “when the zone is a suppression zone, suppressing notifications of the one or more motion events.” Stewart, Paragraph 4.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the ignore mask comprises:
detecting a region in the video data having motion above a threshold value; and (“detecting one or more motion events captured in the video occurring at least partially within the zone of interest;” thus detecting motion above the detection threshold. Stewart, Paragraph 4.)
specifying in the ignore mask that the region cannot trigger the alert.” (“when the zone is a suppression zone, suppressing notifications of the one or more motion events.” Stewart, Paragraph 4.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the ignore mask comprises:
determining that a motion vector in the video data is associated with motion above a threshold value; and (“preliminary motion event detection, … preliminary motion vector generation, etc.; … motion vectors for detected motion event candidates” thus generating motion vectors for objects with motion above the detection threshold. Stewart, Paragraphs 245-247, 272. See additional associated threshold values in Paragraphs 303-304.)
specifying in the ignore mask that a region in the video data associated with the motion vector cannot trigger the alert.” (“when the zone is a suppression zone, suppressing notifications of the one or more motion events.” Stewart, Paragraphs 4, 277.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting, using artificial intelligence (AI), an object in the video stream; and (“Object detection module 976 for detecting objects and corresponding contours in video feeds; … Zone definition module 980 for generating suggested zone definitions for detected objects; Object images database(s) 982 for storing one or more databases (e.g., machine-trained databases) of images of objects;” Stewart, Paragraphs 248-251.)
wherein the determining that the video stream is associated with the alert comprises: … determining that the video stream is associated with the alert based on the object being associated with an event being monitored.” (“categorizing the motion event candidate includes an aggregation of background factors, motion entity detection identification, motion vector generation for each motion entity [associated object], motion entity features, … a categorization is based on a determination that the motion event candidate is within a particular zone of interest” Stewart, Paragraph 273. “when the zone of interest is an alerting zone, causing one or more notifications [alerts] of the one or more motion events to be issued;” Stewart, Paragraph 4.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: … performing video processing on the video stream, wherein the video processing comprises … performing spatial filtering on the video stream or processing the video stream as though the IoT camera points inside a sphere.” (“Filter application module 73014 for selecting event filters ( e.g., event categories, zones of interest, a human filter, etc.)” Stewart, Paragraph 142.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request to regenerate the ignore mask from the IoT camera, wherein the request is based on the IoT camera having been moved to a new location, an instruction from a user to regenerate the ignore mask, a change in a time of day, a schedule, or a user indication that a previously triggered alert was issued in error for the video stream; and (“In some implementations, the user may also designate a suggested zone that has been accepted as an alerting zone or a suppression zone. … may be subsequently edited by the user (e.g., the user may edit the size and boundaries of the zone,” Stewart, Paragraph 288.)
regenerating the ignore mask based on additional video data from the IoT camera, (“In some implementations, the user may also designate a suggested zone that has been accepted as an alerting zone or a suppression zone. If the zone is an alerting zone, the server generates alerts or notifications for motion events [in the additional video] detected in the zone. If the zone is a suppression zone, the server forgoes generating alerts and notifications for motion events detected in the zone.” Stewart, Paragraphs 288, 4.)
wherein the ignore mask specifies one or more regions in the video stream from the IoT camera that cannot trigger the alert; and …transmitting the ignore mask to the IoT camera.” (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
Claim 8, “A system for reducing errant alerts and network bandwidth usage from an Internet of Things (IoT) camera,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches:
“one or more memories; at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations comprising:” (“In some implementations, the method 1300 is performed at a computing system with one or more processors and one or more memory components.” Stewart, Paragraph 293.)
Claims 9, 11--14 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2, 4-7 respectively in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Claim 15: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “In some implementations, the method 1300 is governed by instructions that are stored in a nontransitory computer readable storage medium ( e.g., the memory 722) and the instructions are executed by one or more processors of a computing system (e.g., the CPUs 718).” Stewart, Paragraph 293.)
Claims 16, 18-20 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2, 4-6 respectively in view of the Claim 15 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160156823 to Yoshida (“Yoshida”) relevant for teaching event detection using networked cameras.
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