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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21, 29, 35 have been amended. Claims 22, 23, 28, 30, and 32 have been canceled and claim 42-45 have been added. Claims 21-27 and 29-41 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 24-27,29,31,33-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff (Pub 20180114421) in view of NI (Pub 20210142481).
Regarding claim 21, Siminoff discloses:
receiving information that identifies an updated area of interest for use in detecting
activity in a field of view of a camera, the updated area of interest being different from a previous area of interest that was used in detecting activity in the same field of view of the camera, wherein the updated area of interest comprises a portion of the field of view in which a detected activity triggers transmission of data for the detected activity, (Take for example any of Fig 18-23 comprising zones 1-5 compared with Fig 17 comprising the same zones. The zones may be updated by user input by toggling the zones ON/OFF Para. [0107]. When any of the zones are toggled OFF, such as in Fig 18-23, Fig 17 becomes a previous zone and any ON zones of Fig 18-23 becomes an updated area of interest. Further, see motion alerts triggered in ON zones only in Para. [0108]);
and presenting, on a display, a boundary of the updated area of interest, (see Para. [0019] and Para. [0107] respectively for zones delineated by boundary lines and displaying a GUI).
However, the updated area of interest was determined by automatically adjusting, using a location for a false detection, the previous area of interest in response a determination that the false detection occurred within the previous are of interest is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, NI discloses the updated area of interest was determined by automatically adjusting, using a location for a false detection, the previous area of interest in response a determination that the false detection occurred within the previous are of interest, (see continuous images of a specific scene 100 Fig 4, construed as a previous area of interest. The images are analyzed to detect objects/events in Fig 4 101/102. Based on the analysis, a closed valid analysis region is generated wherein image analysis outside the closed valid analysis region are not performed during actual monitoring of the specific scene. The closed analysis region is construed as the updated area of interest, Para. [0067]. It is further noted that regions with false object detection may be excluded from the valid analysis region, Para. [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination thereby conserving processor resources thereby allowing efficient and speedy analysis of events/objects in subsequent processing.
Regarding claim 24, Siminoff discloses wherein adjusting the previous area of interest to obtain the updated area of interest comprises: identifying a location of the false detection within the previous area of interest, (Para. [0106]) and
reducing a size the previous area of interest to remove the location of the false detection to obtain the updated area of interest, (note the size of an interest area may be reduced, see for example the ON zone of Fig 22 compared with that of Fig 17).
Regarding claim 44, the combination discloses claim 21. However, wherein the previous area of interest was defined by human input is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, NI discloses wherein the previous area of interest was defined by human input, (Para. [0092] note default frame 114 may be set by a user as well as valid analysis region 113).
Claim(s) 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of NI in view of Subramanian (Pub 20220292287).
Regarding claim 43, the combination discloses claim 21. However, wherein the false detection comprises a detection of an object classified as an object of non-interest.
In a similar field of endeavor, Subramanian discloses wherein the false detection comprises a detection of an object classified as an object of non-interest. (Para. [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Subramanian for the benefit of providing control over which events to monitor and which to not monitor thereby allowing efficient monitoring of different event categories.
Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of NI in view of Stadler (Pub 20190149779).
Regarding claim 45, the combination discloses claim 21. However, presenting, on the
display, a notification that the updated area of interest is different from the previous are of interest is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Stadler discloses presenting, on the display, a notification that the updated area of interest is different from the previous are of interest, (see displaying false event areas using coloring/hatching, Para. [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Stadler for the benefit of providing identifiable areas and allowing a user to control different area based on user’s specification.
Claim(s) 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of NI in view of Okumura (Pub 20140093129).
Regarding claim 25, the combination discloses claim 24. However, detecting movement
of an object at a first location within the previous area of interest; determining a traversal score for the object, wherein the traversal score indicates an extent of motion of the object across the field of view; and classifying the detection of the movement of the object at the first location as a false detection using the traversal score to determine an area of false detection is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Okumura discloses identifying false detection location
comprises detecting movement of an object at a first location within the previous area of interest; determining a traversal score for the object, wherein the traversal score indicates an extent of motion of the object across the field of view; and classifying the detection of the movement of the object at the first location as a false detection using the traversal score, (Par. [0026]). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the frame processing in order to determine locations of objects causing false detection using a traversal score of objects in a set of frames so that false detections can be distinguished from events that are of interest to a user thereby improving the functionality of the monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to achieve noted benefit.
Regarding claim 26, the combination discloses claim 25. However, determining an object location in frames sets and determining a traversal score using a distance of objects in frame sets are not disclosed.
In a similar of endeavor, Okumura discloses wherein determining the traversal score for the object comprises: determining a location of the object in each frame of a frame set, the frame set including multiple sequential image frames captured by the camera in which the object was detected; and determining the traversal score using a distance between the location in a first frame of the frame set and the location in a final frame of the frame set, (Para. [0026]). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the frame processing in order to determine locations of objects causing false detection using a traversal score of objects in a set of frames so that false detections can be distinguished from events that are of interest to a user thereby improving the functionality of the monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to achieve noted benefit.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of NI in view of Seo (Pub 20210400194).
Regarding claim 27, the combination discloses claim 21. However, the previous area of interest comprised a previous portion of the field of view including a first number of camera pixels; the updated area of interest comprises the portion of the field of view including a second number of camera pixels; and the first number of camera pixels is different from the second number of camera pixels is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seo discloses the previous area of interest comprised a previous portion of the field of view including a first number of camera pixels; the updated area of interest comprises the portion of the field of view including a second number of camera pixels; and the first number of camera pixels is different from the second number of camera pixels, (Para. [0069][0153]). One of ordinary skill in the art would include different camera pixels when different fields of views are to be generated since the coverage area of those field of view may require more/less number of pixels thereby allowing a proper amount of details to be captured thereby generating meaningful images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination so that sufficient amount of detail is captured thereby improving the functionality of the monitoring system thus far.
Claim(s) 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of Stadler (Pub 20190149779).
Regarding claim 29, Siminoff discloses:
receiving data indicating feedback for a particular activity detected in an area of interest for use in detecting activity in a field of view of a camera, wherein the area of interest comprises a portion of the field of view in which a detected activity triggers transmission of data for the detected activity, (Note data indicating feedback is received from a user through GUI Fig 17-23 and Para. [0106]. Zones 1-5 are construed as an area of interest where the ON zones generate motion alerts whereas the OFF zones do not generate alerts);
in response to receiving the data indicating the feedback for the particular activity in the area of interest, adjusting the area of interest using data representing detections that occurred in the area of interest to obtain an adjusted area of interest including detections of the particular activity to obtain an adjusted area of interest, (The area of interest such as any of zones 1 -5 Fig 17-23 may be adjusted by turning of a zone. The zones are turned off in response to receiving user feedback through GUI, Para. [0107])
and providing, for presentation on a display, information indicating the adjusted area of interest, (ON/OFF zone displayed to a user, see Para. [0019] and Para. [0107] respectively for zones delineated by boundary lines and displaying a GUI).
However, the feedback indicates that the particular activity detected in the area of interest is false detection and automatically adjusting the area of interest using data indicating locations of detection that occurred in the area of interest including detection of the particular activity to obtain an adjusted area of interest is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Stadler discloses the feedback indicates that the particular activity detected in the area of interest is false detection and automatically adjusting the area of interest using data indicating locations of detection that occurred in the area of interest including detection of the particular activity to obtain an adjusted area of interest, (note user may define false event areas, which is construed as received feedback, Para. [0040]. It is further noted that the false event areas may be excluded, construed as automatic adjustment of an area of interest, Para. [0012-0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Siminoff by Stadler for the benefit of conserving computing resources thereby allowing efficient event monitoring.
Regarding claim 31, Siminoff discloses wherein the feedback comprises human feedback, (note user feedback to select ON/OFF zones Fig 18-23).
Regarding claim 34, Siminoff discloses wherein providing the information indicating the adjusted area of interest comprises providing a notification that the adjusted area of interest is different from the area of interest, (note receiving prompt to confirm changes to motion zones Para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 35, Siminoff discloses wherein adjusting the area of interest
using the data indicating the location of the detections that occurred in the area of interest to obtain the adjusted area of interest comprises: identifying a location of a false detection within the area of interest, (Para. [0106]);
and reducing a size the area of interest to remove the location
of the false detection to obtain the adjusted area of interest, (note the size of an interest area may be reduced, see for example the ON zone of Fig 22 compared with that of Fig 17. The ON zones become reduced in Fig 18-23 compared with that of Fig 17).
Regarding claim 40, Siminoff discloses wherein the area of interest was defined by human input, (see Para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 42, the combination discloses claim 21. However, providing the information indicating the adjusted area of interest comprises providing a boundary of the adjusted area of interest is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Stadler discloses providing the information indicating the adjusted area of interest comprises providing a boundary of the adjusted area of interest, (see displaying false event areas using coloring/hatching, Para. [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Stadler for the benefit of providing identifiable areas and allowing a user to control different area based on user’s specification.
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of Stadler in view of Budagavi (Pub 20220172440).
Regarding claim 33, the combination discloses claim 31. However, wherein the human
feedback indicates a latency in an activity detected using the area of interest is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Budagavi discloses wherein the human feedback indicates a latency in an activity detected using the area of interest, (see user preference in determining whether events are rendered for events related to MTP, motion to photon, latency Para [0110]). One of ordinary skill in the art would include latency as a parameter in monitoring system so that object-area prediction can be made so that object tracking mechanism is improved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to achieve noted result.
Claim(s) 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of Stadler in view of Lipton (Pub 20050168574).
Regarding claim 36, the combination discloses claim 35. However, false detection comprises a detection of an object classified as an object of non-interest is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lipton discloses false detection comprises a detection of an object classified as an object of non-interest, (see categorization of events Para. [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Lipton for the benefit of allowing the zones to be controlled according to different criteria.
Claim(s) 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of Stadler in view of Okumura (Pub 20140093129).
Regarding claim 37, the combination discloses claim 35. However, wherein identifying
the location of the false detection within the area of interest comprises: detecting movement of an object within the area of interest; determining a traversal score for the object, wherein the traversal score indicates an extent of motion of the object across the field of view; and classifying the detection of the movement of the object as a false detection using the traversal score is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Okumura discloses wherein identifying the location of the
false detection within the area of interest comprises: detecting movement of an object within the area of interest; determining a traversal score for the object, wherein the traversal score indicates an extent of motion of the object across the field of view; and classifying the detection of the movement of the object as a false detection using the traversal score, (Para. [0023-0026] see movement classification as false negative based on motion between frames determined by the position of detection target in at least two frames). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the frame processing in order to determine locations of objects causing false detection using a traversal score of objects in a set of frames so that false detections can be distinguished from events that are of interest to a user thereby improving the functionality of the monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to achieve noted benefit.
Regarding claim 38, the combination discloses claim 37. However, wherein determining the traversal score for the object comprises: determining a location of the object in each frame of a frame set, the frame set including multiple sequential image frames captured by the camera in which the object was detected; and determining the traversal score using a di stance between the location in a first frame of the frame set and the location in a final frame of the frame set are not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Okumura discloses wherein determining the traversal score for the object comprises: determining a location of the object in each frame of a frame set, the frame set including multiple sequential image frames captured by the camera in which the object was detected; and determining the traversal score using a distance between the location in a first frame of the frame set and the location in a final frame of the frame set, (Para. [0026] see threshold construed as traversal score which is based on a distance between positions of at least two frames). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the frame processing in order to determine locations of objects causing false detection using a traversal score of objects in a set of frames so that false detections can be distinguished from events that are of interest to a user thereby improving the functionality of the monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to achieve noted benefit.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of Stadler in view of Seo (Pub 20210400194).
Regarding claim 39, the combination discloses claim 29. However, the area of interest
comprises the portion of the field of view including a first number of camera pixels; the adjusted area of interest comprises an adjusted portion of the field of view including a second number of camera pixels; and the first number of pixels is different from the second number of camera pixels is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seo discloses the area of interest comprises the portion of
the field of view including a first number of camera pixels; the adjusted area of interest comprises an adjusted portion of the field of view including a second number of camera pixels; and the first number of pixels is different from the second number of camera pixels, Para. [0069][0153]). One of ordinary skill in the art would include different camera pixels when different fields of views are to be generated since the coverage area of those field of view may require more/less number of pixels thereby allowing a proper amount of details to be captured thereby generating meaningful images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination so that sufficient amount of detail is captured thereby improving the functionality of the monitoring system.
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff in view of Stadler in view of Grieb (U.S. 10025986).
Regarding claim 41, the Siminoff discloses wherein adjusting the area of interest comprises:
identifying a location of a false positive detection within the area of interest, (Para. [0106] see turning off to reduce false alarms)
; and reducing a size of the area of interest to remove the location of the false positive detection to obtain the adjusted area of interest, (see Fig 18-23 compared with Fig 17. When a zone is turned off, the ON regions become reduced).
However, the false positive detection including detection of an object with a traversal score that does not satisfy a threshold traversal score, wherein the traversal score indicates an extent of motion of the object across the field of view is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Grieb discloses the false positive detection including detection of an object with a traversal score that does not satisfy a threshold traversal score, wherein the traversal score indicates an extent of motion of the object across the field of view, (col. 12 lines 58-67 – col. 13 lines 1 – 14, see whether motion has exceeded a threshold and determination of occurrence of notable moment.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Grieb for the benefit of reducing the number of false alerts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
HUMAM M. SATTI
Examiner
Art Unit 2422
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights