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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
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, 3, 6, 8, 12, 14-15, 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adato et al. (US 20190215424 A1) in view of Lehane et al. (US 8908033 B2).
Concerning claim 1, Adato et al. (hereinafter Adato) teaches a method for monitoring activities in a monitored space using a plurality of video cameras each having a Field Of View (FOV) (fig. 1: system 100; ¶0120), the method comprising:
receiving a first video stream from a first one of the plurality of video cameras (¶0518: image processing unit 130 receives images from a camera);
identifying one or more objects in the FOV of the first one of the plurality of video cameras (¶¶0518-0520: identifying occlusions and/or blockages (objects));
classifying each of the one or more identified objects into one or more of a plurality of object classes (¶0518: “…the images may be analyzed to determine a type (classifying) of the occluding object”; ¶0523); and
determining when one or more objects, classified in a first object class of the plurality of object classes, obstructs a designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the first one of the plurality of PTZ video cameras for at least a threshold period of time (¶0527: the threshold period of time for urgency may vary based on the type of occluding object; ¶0529: The system determines the type of occluding object and the occlusion time period; ¶0531: The system may choose to ignore occlusions of some types of objects (determining an object is classified in a first class of objects).), wherein the designated region of the monitored space is a predefined critical region defined during commissioning (¶0161: the selected area of interest may be a shelf, a portion of a shelf being monitored, etc.; ¶¶0518-0520 – monitoring a predefined area to determine blockage), and when so:
further analyzing input from another camera that monitors the predefined area from a different angle (¶0518).
Adato fails to explicitly teach Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras; and causing a second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to adjust a pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras. However, Lehane et al. (hereinafter Lehane) teaches a method of enhanced surveillance that utilizes a plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras (col. 4, ll. 6-24: The surveillance endpoints may be movable video cameras; col. 6, ll. 3-15: control elements can be the servo motors that control the panning function, the focus, the zoom, or other functions, the signal filters, the amplifiers, or other functions of the surveillance endpoints) and in response to a presence event type, cause a second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to adjust a pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras (figs. 5-6; col. 7, l. 24 – col. 8, l. 38: at least one other camera can be controlled (changing direction of focus, amount of focus, panning, etc.) to focus on the event when a first camera is not able to.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the limitations of Lehane to the Adato prior art in order to cover an area that is normally surveilled by a first camera when said camera is unable to.
Concerning claim 3, Adato further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein classifying each of the one or more identified objects into one or more of a plurality of object classes includes classifying each of the one or more identified objects into one or more of a plurality of object classes using artificial intelligence (AI) (¶0305: classification algorithms may be included in supervised or unsupervised machine learning algorithms (it is well-known that machine learning is a field of artificial intelligence); ¶0517).
Claim 6 recites the same features in the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Adato further teaches control circuitry to implement the method (fig. 2: processing device 202; fig. 3: processing device 302).
Concerning claim 8, Adato further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of object classes include one or more of an object size class and an object type class (¶0517: size of the object; ¶0518; ¶0524; ¶0531: object type).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because it is directed to the corresponding video monitoring system. Lehane further teaches connecting the system through a peer-to-peer network (col. 4, ll. 31-40).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 because it is directed to the corresponding video monitoring system.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 because it is directed to the corresponding video monitoring system.
Concerning claim 17, Adato et al. (hereinafter Adato) teaches a method for monitoring activities in a monitored space using a plurality of video cameras each having a Field Of View (FOV) (fig. 1: system 100; ¶0120), the method comprising:
receiving a first video stream from a first one of the plurality of video cameras (¶0518: image processing unit 130 receives images from a camera);
identifying one or more objects in the FOV of the first one of the plurality of video cameras (¶¶0518-0520: identifying occlusions and/or blockages (objects));
classifying each of the one or more identified objects into one or more of a plurality of object classes (¶0518: “…the images may be analyzed to determine a type (classifying) of the occluding object”; ¶0523); and
determining when one or more objects of a selected object class block the FOV of the first video camera from viewing a designated region of the monitored space for at least a threshold period of time (¶0527: the threshold period of time for urgency may vary based on the type of occluding object; ¶0529: The system determines the type of occluding object and the occlusion time period; ¶0531: The system may choose to ignore occlusions of some types of objects (determining an object is classified in a first class of objects).), and when so:
further analyzing input from another camera that monitors the predefined area from a different angle (¶0518).
Adato fails to explicitly teach Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras; and sending one or more messages to two or more other of the plurality of PTZ video cameras, wherein, the two or more other of the PTZ video cameras coordinate an adjustments to their pan, tilt and/or zoom settings to capture the blocked region of the monitored space while minimizing the impact to the overall coverage of the monitored space by the video monitoring system. However, Lehane et al. (hereinafter Lehane) teaches a method of enhanced surveillance that utilizes a plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras (col. 4, ll. 6-24: The surveillance endpoints may be movable video cameras; col. 6, ll. 3-15: control elements can be the servo motors that control the panning function, the focus, the zoom, or other functions, the signal filters, the amplifiers, or other functions of the surveillance endpoints) and in response to a presence event type, send one or more messages to two or more other of the plurality of PTZ video cameras, wherein, the two or more other of the PTZ video cameras coordinate an adjustments to their pan, tilt and/or zoom settings to capture the blocked region of the monitored space while minimizing the impact to the overall coverage of the monitored space by the video monitoring system (figs. 5-6; col. 7, l. 24 – col. 8, l. 38: at least one other camera can be controlled (changing direction of focus, amount of focus, panning, etc.) to focus on the event when a first camera is not able to. Lehane explicitly teaches that more than the one of other camera(s) may be used to cover the area). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the limitations of Lehane to the Adato prior art in order to cover an area that is normally surveilled by a first camera when said camera is unable to.
Concerning claim 21, Lehane further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein sending the one or more messages to the two or more other of the plurality of PTZ video cameras comprises sending the one or more messages via a peer-to-peer network connection between the first PTZ video camera and the two or more other of the plurality of PTZ video cameras (col. 4, ll. 31-40).
Concerning claim 22, Lehane further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein sending the one or more messages to the two or more other of the plurality of PTZ video cameras comprises sending the one or more messages over an IP network (fig. 7; col. 8, ll. 39-41: environment 700 may include the surveillance endpoints; col. 8, l. 53- col. 9, l. 13: “Environment 700 further includes a network 720. The network 720 may can be any type of network familiar to those skilled in the art that can support data communications using any of a variety of commercially-available protocols, including without limitation TCP/IP…”).
Concerning claim 23, Lehane further teaches the method of claim 17, determining which of the plurality of PTZ video cameras can adjust their pan, tilt and/or zoom settings to capture the blocked region (figs. 5-6; col. 7, l. 24 – col. 8, l. 38); and
wherein the two or more other of the plurality of PTZ video cameras include two or more of the plurality of PTZ video cameras that can adjust their pan, tilt and/or zoom settings to capture the blocked region (figs. 5-6; col. 7, l. 24 – col. 8, l. 38).
Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adato et al. (US 20190215424 A1) in view of Lehane et al. (US 8908033 B2) and Gupta et al. (US 20120274776 A1).
Concerning claim 2, Adato in view of Lehane teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein identifying one or more objects in the FOV of the first one of the plurality of PTZ video cameras includes comparing one or more frames of the first video stream with a background reference frame associated with the first one of the plurality of PTZ video cameras.
Gupta et al. (hereinafter Gupta), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches identifying one or more objects in the FOV of the first one of the plurality of PTZ video cameras includes comparing one or more frames of the first video stream with a background reference frame associated with the first one of the plurality of PTZ video cameras (¶0077: Occlusion of the background means there is something new between the observed background scene 280 and the first camera). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Gupta to the Adato in view of Lehane invention in order to identify one or more objects in the FOV of the first PTZ video camera. Such modification is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Concerning claim 4, Adato in view of Lehane teaches the method of claim 1. Lehane further teaches the first one of the PTZ video cameras exchanging information with at least one other of the PTZ video cameras (figs. 5-6; col. 7, l. 24 – col. 8, l. 38), however, not explicitly taught is sending one or more instructions from the first one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras, wherein the one or more instructions cause the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to adjust a pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras.
Gupta teaches sending one or more instructions from the first one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras, wherein the one or more instructions cause the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to adjust a pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras (¶¶0080-0081: the PTZ coordinates are transferred to the second camera which changes its FOV accordingly). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Gupta to the Adato in view of Lehane invention in order to allow the other camera to cover the surveilled region of the first camera. Such modification is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Concerning claim 5, Lehane and Gupta further teach wherein the one or more instructions are sent from the first one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras via a peer-to-peer network (Lehane, col. 4, ll. 31-40; Gupta, ¶0080: the processor 105 of the first camera transfers a scene model 1000 associated with the first field of view of the first camera and the relative PTZ coordinates from the memory 106 of the first camera to the memory 106 of the selected second camera, via communication network 114).
Concerning claim 7, Adato in view of Lehane teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, verifying that the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras is not obstructed from viewing the designated region of the monitored space before causing the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to adjust a pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras.
Gupta et al. (hereinafter Gupta), in a similar field of endeavor, verifying that the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras is not obstructed from viewing the designated region of the monitored space before causing the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to adjust a pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras (fig. 11B: steps 1161-1165; ¶0094: evaluation of a candidate camera to be the selected second camera includes determining if the candidate camera is occluded before it is selected as the second camera). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Gupta to the Adato in view of Lehane invention in order to identify a video camera that is available to surveil the designated region. Such a modification is merely the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 because it is directed to the corresponding video monitoring system.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adato et al. (US 20190215424 A1) in view of Lehane et al. (US 8908033 B2) and Ahiska et al. (US 20120038776 A1).
Concerning claim 10, Adato in view Lehane of teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, comprising: storing one or more shared reference points that correspond to common physical locations in the monitored space in two or more of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras, wherein the designated region of the monitored space is identified relative to the one or more shared reference points.
Ahiska et al. (hereinafter Ahiska) teaches storing one or more shared reference points that correspond to common physical locations in the monitored space in two or more of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras, wherein the designated region of the monitored space is identified relative to the one or more shared reference points (fig. 8: steps 802-814; ¶¶0050-0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Ahiska to the Adato in view of Lehane to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination would benefit Adato in view of Lehane by allowing the system to efficiently switch between a system of multiple cameras.
Concerning claim 11, Ahiska further teaches the method of claim 10, comprising:
storing in the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras calibration data that relates one or more of the pan, tilt and/or zoom settings of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to the one or more shared reference points (fig. 8: steps 802-814; ¶¶0050-0052); and
adjusting the pan, tilt and/or zoom setting of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras to capture the designated region of the monitored space in the FOV of the second one of the plurality of Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ) video cameras based at least in part on the one or more shared reference points and calibration data (fig. 8: steps 802-814; ¶¶0050-0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of the remarks, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18, 10-15, 17, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection presented above.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant alleges “Moreover, it does not appear that Gupta and/or Adato suggest or teach identifying occlusions with consideration of classification of the object. The rejection does not identify any such analytical step, either. In view thereof, the rejection should be withdrawn for at least two reasons -the omission of one of the recited elements of the claim, and the required fundamental changes to Gupta.” The argument regarding the previous rejection is moot because of the new grounds of rejection, however, the examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Adato does not appear to suggest or teach occlusions with consideration of classification of the object. This is explicitly covered in at least [0518]-[0520], [0524] and [0531] of Adato where the type of occluding object is considered in the subsequent actions performed by the system.
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