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 Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 9-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laska et al. (US 2016/0005281) in view of Nuescheler et al. (US 2018/0054509).
Regarding claim 1, Laska teaches a system, comprising: a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon; and a processor configured to read the instructions to (see figure 2, figure 5):
receive image data from at least one imaging device configured to provide a field-of-view including the predetermined first area associated with a retail location, wherein the image data is received in response to motion of one or more objects within the predetermined first area (see para. 0013, 0371, Laska discusses obtaining video stream in response to detected motion events; see para. 0054, 0060, Laska discusses capturing motion events in retail environment);
in response to receiving the image data, implement an image recognition process configured to identify a first person in the image data corresponding to the predetermined first area (see para. 0111, 0321, 0416, Laska discusses person identification module for identifying characteristics associated with presence of humans in the received video streams of different areas);
in response to determining that one or more predetermined rules associated with a first notification has been satisfied, generate a first alert indicating the first person is identified within the predetermined first area in the image data (see para. 0416, Laska discusses real-time alert can be generated when an object of interest enters the zone of interest);
transmit the first alert to at least the first communication device (see figure 2, figure 5, para. 0212, 0228, Laska discusses event alert transmission using a network with multiple devices and cameras);
identify a second person in the image data corresponding to the predetermined first area, wherein the second person is distinct from the first person (see para. 0111, Laska discusses person identification module for identifying characteristics associated with presence of humans in the received video streams of surveillance areas);
in response to determining that one or more predetermined rules associated with a second notification has been satisfied, generate a second alert indicating the second person is identified within the predetermined first area (see para. 0114, Laska discusses providing real-time notifications as new motion events are detected in the video streams; see para. 0116-0117, 0321, 0416, Laska discusses storing motion events and people detected); and
transmit the second alert to at least the second communication device (see figure 2, figure 5, para. 0073-0075, Laska discusses a network interface connected to multiple devices that are capable of receiving alerts for areas).
Laska does not expressly disclose receive a registration of at least a first communication device and a second communication device, wherein the registration associates each of the first communication device and the second communication device with a predetermined first area.
However, Nuescheler teaches receive a registration of at least a first communication device and a second communication device, wherein the registration associates each of the first communication device and the second communication device with a predetermined first area (see para. 0053, Nuescheler discusses pairing multiple mobile devices within an area proximate to a point of contact).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Laska in this manner in order to improve image surveillance by optimizing resource allocation and data management by focusing devices on specific areas. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Laska, while the teaching of Nuescheler continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of improving data management by calculating specific regions for devices when registering devices and applying this to Laska’s more general approach to surveillance communication. Device registration is image analysis is a well-known technique in image computing and sensor networks. The Laska and Nuescheler systems perform communication, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Nuescheler and Laska teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a registration of a third device associating the third device with the predetermined first area (see para. 0053, Nuescheler discusses pairing multiple mobile devices within an area proximate to a point of contact);
track the first person within the image data (see para. 0213, Laska discusses tracking user motion in image data); and
generate a third alert indicating the first person is within the predetermined first area a predetermined time period after the first alert, and wherein the third alert is transmitted to at least the third device (see figure 2, figure 5, para. 0073-0075, Laska discusses a network interface connected to multiple devices that are capable of receiving alerts for areas).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 3, Laska teaches wherein the first alert is provided to a centralized cache that includes the one or more cache stores, and wherein the first communication device is configured to poll the centralized cache (see figure 2, figure 5, Laska discusses server module containing video storage database and devices connected to the server to receive and send data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 4, Laska teaches wherein the first alert is generated when the first person is identified in a first frame of the image data and a second frame of the image data, and wherein the first person is within the predetermined first area in each of the first frame and the second frame (see para. 0278, 0281, 0373, Laska discusses identifying video frames with motion events in zones; see para. 0410, Laska discusses generating real-time alerts for the events of interest and network transmission to users).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 5, Laska teaches wherein the first frame and the second frame are separated by a predetermined number of frames in the image data (see para. 0278, 0281, 0373, Laska discusses identifying video frames with motion events detected in zones).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 6, Laska teaches wherein the one or more predetermined rules associated with a first notification include an elapsed time since detection of the first person in the image data (see para. 0052, Laska discusses identifying all motion events within a particular past time window in zones; see para. 0159, Laska discusses activating a time-lapse).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 7, Nuescheler and Laska teach wherein the one or more predetermined rules associated with the second notification include receiving an acknowledgement notification from the first communication device in response to the first notification (see para. 0053, Nuescheler discusses pairing multiple mobile devices within an area proximate to a point of contact; see figure 10, Laska discusses client devices and server exchanging commands such as the client device responding to zoom and coordinates into captured video data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska with Nuescheler to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Claim 9 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laska et al. (US 2016/0005281) in view of Nuescheler et al. (US 2018/0054509) in view of Smith et al. (US 2016/0105644).
Regarding claim 8, Laska and Nuescheler do not expressly disclose wherein the motion of one or more objects within the first predetermined area is identified by at least one motion sensor. However, Smith teaches wherein the motion of one or more objects within the first predetermined area is identified by at least one motion sensor (see para. 0091, Smith discusses sensors configured to detect motion).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Laska and Nuescheler with Smith to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Laska and Nuescheler in this manner in order to improve image surveillance by optimizing resource allocation and data management by focusing devices on specific areas. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Laska and Nuescheler, while the teaching of Smith continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of improving data management by calculating specific regions for devices when registering devices and applying this to Laska’s more general approach to surveillance communication. Device registration is image analysis is a well-known technique in image computing and sensor networks. The Laska, Nuescheler, and Smith systems perform communication, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights