DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
An RCE under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under § 1.114, and the fee set forth in § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to § 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received February 10, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Response, the previous (1) rejection of claims 4, 6, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); and (2) rejections of claims 1, 2, 9–12, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are WITHDRAWN.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Yu and Tammannagari
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9–12, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Yu et al. (US 2023/0038842 A1; filed Aug. 3, 2021) in view of Tammannagari et al. (US 2023/0051980 A1; PCT filed Feb. 20, 2020) (see Response 10–11) have been considered but are now moot.
Takaki, Brunner, and Grewal
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Takaki (US 2018/0218228 A1; filed Aug. 2, 2018) in view of Brunner et al. (US 2020/0219264 A1; filed Jan. 6, 2020), and in further view of Grewal et al. (US 2021/0279311 A1; PCT filed Apr. 11, 2017) (see Response 11–12) have been considered but are now moot.
Piette and Yerli
Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Piette et al. (US 2020/0311899 A1; filed Mar. 29, 2019) in view of Yerli (US 2022/0070236 A1; filed Oct. 1, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, while Piette teaches a device (fig. 1, item 200) comprising:
a sensor (figs. 1 and 5, item 208); and
a processing device (fig. 1, item 216) coupled to the sensor, wherein the processing device is to:
obtain sensor data (“the reflected radar signal.” at ¶ 97) from the sensor;
generate first data (“The reflected radar sianal [sic] in step 2030 is a radar cross-section (RCS) which represents a measurement as to the detectability of an object by radar.” and “the RCS may be input into a trained neural network . . . to obtain a vector indicative of the reflected radar signal.” at ¶ 97; fig. 15, item 2030) from the sensor data;
determine a first correlation metric (fig. 15, item 2040; “obtain a statistical correlation (step 2040) to generate a correlation” at ¶ 101) between the first data and second data (fig. 15, item 2010) obtained from an image capture device (figs. 1 and 5, item 10), wherein the first correlation metric is based on first depth data (“a reflected radar signal is received by radar sensor system 216 (step 2030)” at ¶ 93; a reflected radar signal is indicative of depth) corresponding to the first data and second depth data (“depth information is received from depth camera 10” at ¶ 93; fig. 15, item 2020) corresponding to the second data;
determine whether the first correlation metric satisfies an authentication criterion (“Normal” at fig. 15) based on a discrepancy (“The correlation is compared to a range of expected correlations in memory storage module 224 or set of modules 40 and a determination is made as to whether the correlation is within an expected value.” at ¶ 101) between the first depth data and the second depth data; and
enable an operation (“If the correlation is within the expected range of values, combined system 200 does not generate an alert, and waits to detect the next person.” at ¶ 104) responsive to determining the first correlation metric satisfies the authentication criterion,
Piette does not teach (A) the first data and the second data being, respectively, first imaging data and second imaging data; and (B) wherein the operation determines that a user is an authenticated user (and thus the operation being an authentication operation).
Yerli teaches imaging data (“image data” at ¶¶ 184, 271); and
an operation that determines a user is an authenticated user (“determines that the user 820 has already authenticated” at ¶ 276).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for (i) Piette’s first data and second data to be, respectively, first imaging data and second imaging data and (ii) Piette’s operation to determine that a user is an authenticated user (and thus the operation being an authentication operation) as taught by Yerli to “provide[[s]] a higher security level than standard camera-based face detection authentication systems.” Yerli ¶ 64.
Regarding claim 10, Piette teaches wherein the sensor is at least one of a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) unit, a thermal imaging sensor unit, a Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) unit (figs. 1 and 5, item 208), a Sound Navigation and Ranging (SONAR) unit, an ultrasonic sensor unit, a hyperspectral imaging sensor unit, an electromagnetic field sensor unit, a radio frequency (RF) sensor unit, or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit.
Regarding claim 11, Piette teaches a system (fig. 1, item 200) comprising: a first sensor unit (figs. 1 and 5, item 208); an image capture device (figs. 1 and 5, item 10); and processing device (fig. 1, item 216) coupled to the first sensor unit and the image capture device, wherein the processing device is to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, claim 10 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 10 are equally applicable to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Piette teaches a method to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Piette, Yerli, and Amini
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Piette in view of Yerli, and in further view of Amini et al. (US 2023/0344705 A1; filed Apr. 20, 2023).
Regarding claim 9, while Piette teaches the image capture device (figs. 1 and 5, item 10) to begin capturing information (“At a first step a person must be detected (2010). This can be done through traditional video surveillance techniques as described above, using sensor system 208 and/or depth camera device 10” at ¶ 91) with the sensor (figs. 1 and 5, item 208), wherein the information comprises the sensor data,
Piette does not teach receiving indication from the image capture device to begin the capturing.
Amini teaches receiving indication from an image capture device to begin capturing (“the camera 110a may be equipped with, or in communication with, a motion detector that triggers the capturing and encoding of video when motion in the surveilled environment is detected. In response to receiving an indication of detected motion, the camera 110a may begin generating content 602 by capturing video” at ¶ 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Piette to receive an indication from the image capture device to begin the capturing as taught by Amini for “conserving computing resources (e.g., storage space, network capacity) for content that contains critical information” (Amini ¶ 111) and “to improve operation of the networked security system” (id. ¶ 114).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–8, 12–15, and 18–20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20170200273-A1; US-20230394691-A1; and US-20250076487-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449