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 Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 USC 101, Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendment filed 06/22/2026 does not overcome the rejection as set forth in the last Office action. Therefore, the previous ground of rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained as set forth below, modified to address the amended claim limitations.
Regarding the rejection of claims 21, 39 and 40 under 35 USC 102/103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion on pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed 06/22/2026, that Siminoff merely discloses detecting a static state of whether a person’s face is obscured, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Siminoff discloses at ¶0143 that the A/V recording and communication device records video data of a property and “the facial recognition software and the object recognition software can be used to interact with one another, or to act alone, in order to determine, based on received image data (block 2005) of a person within the field of view of a camera 154 of an A/V recording and communication device 130, that the person has used an object to obscure or partially obscure their face, at block 2010.” As further stated in ¶0143, the video data may be analyzed to determine whether the person’s face is obscured “for some predetermined period of time” as the person approaches the property. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “a predetermined period of time” has a start and an end time, and therefore that making this determination would necessitate determining a point in time before the period of facial obscuration and a point in time after. Examiner therefore maintains that Siminoff discloses the amended limitation of “determining, using the image data, whether the image data depicts the human changing their apparel, including identifying a first frame of the sequence of frames depicting the human before the change in apparel and a second frame of the sequence of frames depicting the human after the change in apparel”. The previous ground of rejection under 35 USC 102 with respect to claims 21, 39 and 40 is modified below to address the amended limitations. Additionally, the new grounds of rejection set forth below with respect to newly added claims 41-44 are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 21, 39 and 40 recite a method, a system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, respectively, for monitoring a property. The limitation of “determining, using the image data, whether the image data depicts the human changing their apparel, including identifying a first frame of the sequence….and a second frame of the sequence…”, as drafted, comprises a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more computers” in claims 39 and 40, nothing in the claims precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the step of determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user of a monitoring system mentally assessing whether or not a person approaching a property is changing their apparel while viewing video images of the person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The “one or more computers” are recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additionally recited elements (i.e., obtaining image data comprising a sequence of frames, performing a monitoring system action) amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting information. Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more computers to perform the “determining” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 21, 39 and 40 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22, 24-25, 27-28, 30, 32-38 and 44 are additionally rejected under 35 USC 101 because they recite additional elements which amount to further mental processes of visual analysis and decision making, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and outputting information, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 28, 30, 32, 35 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PG PUB. 2018/0247504 A1 (hereinafter “Siminoff”; applicant-submitted prior art).
Regarding claim 21, Siminoff discloses a method (Fig. 20) comprising:
obtaining, from a camera of a monitoring system that is configured to monitor a property, image data comprising a sequence of frames depicting a human (Siminoff, ¶0143, Fig. 20, Step 2005; “based on received image data (block 2005) of a person within the field of view of a camera 154 of an A/V recording and communication device 130”);
determining, using the image data, whether the image data depicts the human changing their apparel, including identifying a first frame of the sequence of frames depicting the human before the change in apparel and a second frame of the sequence of frames depicting the human after the change in apparel (Siminoff, ¶0143, Fig. 20, Step 2010; “determine…that the person has used an object to obscure or partially obscure their face, at block 2010…if the process determines that a person is in the field of view of the camera, but that the person's face…is obscured for some predetermined period of time, or that the person's face is obscured at the time that the person activates the doorbell…” – Determining that the person’s face is obscured for some predetermined period of time or at the time of activating the doorbell necessitates determining a time before the face is obscured and a time after the face is obscured, as claimed.); and
in response to determining that the image data depicts the human changing their apparel, performing a monitoring system action using data representing the change in apparel (Siminoff, ¶0143, Fig. 20, Step 2020; “if the process determines that a person is in the field of view of the camera, but that the person's face is obscured, or is obscured for some predetermined period of time, or that the person's face is obscured at the time that the person activates the doorbell, a suspicious person warning flag may be set, at block 2015, and an alert may be generated and transmitted, at block 2020. The alert may be sent to one or more client devices associated with the A/V recording and communication device 130, and/or to a law enforcement agency, local police department, private security agency, etc.”).
Regarding claim 22, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein the change in apparel comprises applying a clothing item or removing a clothing item, wherein performing the monitoring system action using the data representing the change in apparel is responsive to determining that the change in apparel comprises applying the clothing item or removing the clothing item (Siminoff, ¶0143, Fig. 20, Steps 2010-2020; “determine, based on received image data (block 2005) of a person within the field of view of a camera 154 of an A/V recording and communication device 130, that the person has used an object to obscure or partially obscure their face, at block 2010. Such obscuring items may include items that are immediately suspicious, such as a ski mask…Other items that may be suspicious, depending upon the circumstances, are a hooded sweatshirt covering a person's head or face on warm days, or the wearing of sunglasses at night…if the process determines that a person is in the field of view of the camera, but that the person's face is obscured, or is obscured for some predetermined period of time, or that the person's face is obscured at the time that the person activates the doorbell, a suspicious person warning flag may be set, at block 2015, and an alert may be generated and transmitted, at block 2020.”).
Regarding claim 24, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein the change in apparel comprises applying a face covering or removing a face covering (Siminoff, ¶0143; “determine, based on received image data (block 2005) of a person within the field of view of a camera 154 of an A/V recording and communication device 130, that the person has used an object to obscure or partially obscure their face, at block 2010. Such obscuring items may include items that are immediately suspicious, such as a ski mask…”).
Regarding claim 25, claim 24 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein performing the monitoring system action using the data representing the change in apparel is responsive to determining that the change in apparel comprises applying the face covering or removing the face covering (Siminoff, ¶0143, Fig. 20, Steps 2010-2020; “if the process determines that a person is in the field of view of the camera, but that the person's face is obscured, or is obscured for some predetermined period of time, or that the person's face is obscured at the time that the person activates the doorbell, a suspicious person warning flag may be set, at block 2015, and an alert may be generated and transmitted, at block 2020.”).
Regarding claim 28, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein performing the monitoring system action comprises generating visual data using the data representing the change in apparel (Siminoff, ¶0153; “audio and/or video data is transmitted (streamed) from the A/V recording and communication device 130 to the user's client device 114 via the user's network 110 and the network 112. The streaming video may include images of the person(s) who was/were determined to have been unauthorized.”).
Regarding claim 30, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein performing the monitoring system action comprises generating an audio signal using the data representing the change in apparel and outputting the audio signal to one or more speakers at the property (Siminoff, ¶0153-0154; “the alert may comprise an audible alarm emitted from the speaker 152 of the A/V recording and communication device 130. The audible alarm may be any loud noise likely to attract attention and/or startle the suspicious person”).
Regarding claim 32, claim 30 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein performing the monitoring system action comprises transmitting a command that causes activation of an audible alarm (Siminoff, ¶0153-0154; “the alert may comprise an audible alarm emitted from the speaker 152 of the A/V recording and communication device 130. The audible alarm may be any loud noise likely to attract attention and/or startle the suspicious person”).
Regarding claim 35, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein performing the monitoring system action using the data representing the change in apparel comprises providing a notification to emergency response personnel, wherein the emergency response personnel comprise one or more of security personnel, law enforcement personnel, firefighting personnel, or medical personnel (Siminoff, ¶0143, Fig. 20, Step 2020; “The alert may be sent to one or more client devices associated with the A/V recording and communication device 130, and/or to a law enforcement agency, local police department, private security agency, etc.”).
Regarding claim 38, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff further discloses wherein the image data includes a plurality of image frames including: at least one image frame depicting the human before the change in apparel; and at least one image frame depicting the human after the change in apparel (Siminoff ¶0143; “if the process determines that a person is in the field of view of the camera, but that the person's face…is obscured for some predetermined period of time, or that the person's face is obscured at the time that the person activates the doorbell”).
Claim 39 recites a system having features corresponding to method claim 21, the rejection of which is applicable here, and Siminoff further discloses one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions executable by the one or more computers (Siminoff, ¶0168-0169).
Claim 40 recites one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions having features corresponding to method claim 21, the rejection of which is applicable here, and Siminoff further discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions executable (Siminoff, ¶0168-0170).
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 33-34, 36-37 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff, as applied to claims 21 and 40 above, in view of US PG Pub. 2007/0014439 A1 (hereinafter “Ando”; applicant-submitted prior art).
Regarding claim 33, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ando does as follows.
Ando teaches determining, using the data representing the change in apparel, a malicious intent score of the human, wherein the malicious intent score indicates a likelihood that the human has a malicious intent; and performing the monitoring system action using a) the data representing the change in apparel and b) the malicious intent score (Ando, ¶0124-0127, 0304, 0312-0313, Fig. 24; “the suspicious individual detecting unit 112 computes the degree of suspiciousness of the identified approaching individual to judge whether the approaching individual is a suspicious individual or not. The suspicious individual detecting unit 112 further detects a disguised suspicious individual, who is an approaching individual with face covered with a ski mask, hood of a jacket, full-face helmet or the like…The suspicious individual detecting unit 112 supplies the coping operation unit 113 with information on the approaching individual, which includes the classification of approaching individuals (usage-authorized individuals, approach-authorized individuals, previously detected individuals, or previously undetected individuals), degree of suspiciousness, or judgment results on whether the approaching individual is a suspicious individual or not (referred to as “approaching individual detection information” hereinafter)”).
Ando is considered analogous art because it pertains to a surveillance system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Siminoff to include a step of performing a monitoring system action based on a degree of suspiciousness determined from a detection that the face of the approaching individual is covered, as taught by Ando, in order to more accurately identify the presence of a suspicious individual and prevent against occurrence of damage against a target of the monitoring (Ando, ¶0055-0056).
Regarding claim 34, claim 33 is incorporated, and Ando in the combination further teaches determining that the malicious intent score satisfies a malicious intent score threshold, wherein performing the monitoring system action using a) the data representing the change in apparel and b) the malicious intent score is responsive to determining that the malicious intent score satisfies the malicious intent score threshold (Ando, ¶0347; “If the degree of suspiciousness of the approaching individual is a predetermined threshold (for example, 10) or more, the suspiciousness degree judgment unit 311 judges that the approaching individual is a suspicious individual”).
Regarding claim 36, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ando does as follows.
Ando teaches wherein performing the monitoring system action comprises automatically adjusting one or more devices to prevent the human from accessing the property (Ando, ¶0107, 0167; "The monitoring system 11 further controls operation of the target of monitoring and cautions, warns, and intimidates the suspicious individual to cause the suspicious individual to stay away from the target of monitoring in order to prevent the occurrence and expansion of damage against a target of monitoring by the suspicious individual.").
Ando is considered analogous art because it pertains to a surveillance system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Siminoff to include a monitoring system action comprising preventing a suspicious individual from entering a target of monitoring based on a determination that the face of the approaching individual is covered, as taught by Ando, in order to more efficiently prevent against occurrence and expansion of damage against a target of the monitoring (Ando, ¶0055-0056).
Regarding claim 37, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ando does as follows.
Ando teaches wherein performing the monitoring system action comprises automatically adjusting one or more devices to permit the human to access the property (Ando, ¶0109-0111, 0128, 0174-0175, 0349, 0353; "The coping operation unit 113 further uses the command from the user to cause the authorized individual information recording unit 115 to record the information on the approaching individual, which is recorded on the approach information recording unit 116, and registers the detected approaching individual as the usage-authorized individual or approach-authorized individual.").
Ando is considered analogous art because it pertains to a surveillance system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Siminoff to include a monitoring system action comprising allowing an individual access to a monitored target property based on a determination that the approaching individual is not suspicious, as taught by Ando, in order to more efficiently prevent against occurrence and expansion of damage against a target of the monitoring (Ando, ¶0055-0056).
Claim 44 recites one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions having features corresponding to method claims 36 and 37. Therefore, the recited elements of Claim 44 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in Claims 36 and 37. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Siminoff and Ando references presented in the rejection of Claims 36 and 37 apply to this claim.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff, as applied to claim 21 above, in view of US PG Pub. 2018/0137362 A1 (hereinafter “Danielsson”).
Regarding claim 27, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Danielsson does as follows.
Danielsson teaches wherein determining, using the image data, whether the image data depicts the human changing their apparel comprises providing the image data as input to an artificial intelligence model trained to identify instances of apparel change (Danielsson, ¶0034-0044; “Action recognition in a video sequence is the task of detecting one or more predefined types of actions in the video sequence. Examples of predefined types of actions are…suspicious behavior detection (e.g. detection of anomalous or unusual behavior)… A first action recognition algorithm is run on the digital network camera 100 for finding action candidates and a second action recognition algorithm is run on the server 200 for verifying or rejecting that the action candidate is an actual action.” – The second action recognition algorithm (implemented via trained neural network) is read here as the claimed “classifier trained to identify instances of apparel change”).
Danielsson is considered analogous art because it pertains to suspicious action detection in surveillance video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Siminoff to include inputting the image data into an action recognizer trained on a predetermined type of action, as taught by Danielsson, in order to more accurately verify that a suspicious action has occurred in the video (Danielsson, ¶0034).
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff, as applied to claims 21, 39 and 40 above, in view of “Learning a Deep Model for Human Action Recognition from Novel Viewpoints” (hereinafter “Rahmani”; published 2017).
Regarding claim 41, claim 21 is incorporated, and Siminoff does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Rahmani does as follows.
Rahmani teaches wherein determining, using the image data, whether the image data depicts the human changing their apparel comprises imposing a skeletal model onto the depiction of the human in the image data to evaluate whether activity performed by the human corresponds to an apparel change (Rahmani, Fig. 2, Section 3, Section 4.4; “In the feature extraction stage, synthetic dense trajectories are first generated by fitting 3D human models to mocap sequences and projecting the resulting 3D videos on 2D image planes corresponding to different viewpoints. The 2D dense trajectories are then represented by bag-of-features… In the third stage, the dense trajectory descriptors of real action videos are passed through the learned RNKTM to construct cross-view action descriptors.” The mocap sequences used as training data to teach the RNKTM classification model comprise skeletal models for various action classes, including donning and doffing).
Rahmani is considered analogous art because it pertains to human activity recognition in surveillance video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Siminoff to include using skeletal modeling of humans in the video to recognize donning/doffing activities by human using skeletal modeling, as taught by Rahmani, in order to more accurately classify the human actions for surveillance applications (Rahmani, Introduction).
Claim 42 recites a system having features corresponding to the steps recited in method claim 41. Therefore, the recited elements of Claim 42 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in Claim 41. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Siminoff and Rahmani references presented in the rejection of Claim 41 apply to this claim.
Claim 43 recites one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions having features corresponding to the steps recited in method claim 41. Therefore, the recited elements of Claim 43 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in Claim 41. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Siminoff and Rahmani references presented in the rejection of Claim 41 apply to this claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references pertain generally to human activity classification, face concealment detection and/or suspicious/unsafe behavior recognition in surveillance video.
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 SAMAH A BEG whose telephone number is (571)270-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/SAMAH A BEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights