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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/17/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,219,186 and the copending application No. 18/664,756 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 13 had been canceled previously.
Claims 16-20 have been newly added.
Claims 3-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting has been withdrawn due to the approved terminal disclaimer submitted on 04/17/2026.
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 04/17/2026 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.
Claims 3-6 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto (US 2017/0347068) in view of Kellerman (US 2015/0163538) and further in view of Kapicioglu et al (US 2018/0080793).
Regarding claim 3, Kusumoto discloses a method for altering video (Figure 1) comprising:
sending video feed by at least one camera to a hardware module (¶ [0023] and ¶ [0026]);
maintaining, by said hardware module, a predefined amount of pre-roll past video frames (¶ [0023] and ¶ [0036]);
sending said pre-roll past video frames upon connection by a user to a real time video feed display and switching to said real time video after receipt of said pre-roll past video frames (Figure 4; ¶ [0030]-[0032], ¶ [0037] and ¶ [0062] for sending recorded image then switching to live video image as user input on a switch button).
Kusumoto is silent about the pre-roll past video frames display in a fast forward manner, and combining user behavior analytics and sensory information to feed a machine learning model, the sensory information taken from geo-fencing.
Kellerman discloses upon a user request to change to another video in a live transport stream, buffered video frames of the requested video are displayed in a fast forward manner to catch up with live video stream and switching to the live video stream after receipt of the buffered video frames (¶ [0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kusumoto system with the teaching of Kellerman about displaying buffered video frames in fast forward manner to catch up with live video stream upon a user request, so to provide an alternative way of presenting requested video content in an automatic manner in the benefits of enhancing user viewing experience.
Kusumoto in view of Kellerman is silent about combining user behavior analytics and sensory information to feed a machine learning model, the sensory information taken from geo-fencing.
Kapicioglu discloses combining user behavior analytics and sensory information to feed a machine learning model, the sensory information taken from geo-fencing (¶ [0013]-[0015], ¶ [0020] and ¶ [0026]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kusumoto in view of Kellerman system with the teaching of Kapicioglu about feeding a machine learning model user and sensory information taken from geo-fencing, so to train a machine learning to perform tasks in an automatic manner.
Regarding claim 4, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses wherein said predefined amount of pre-roll past video frames is of a set duration prior to present time (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses sending a notification to said user based on a motion event and initiating said real time video upon response to said notification (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses wherein said hardware module includes a software module having a process to receive a video stream and send a video stream (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0022]; and taught by Kellerman; ¶ [0019]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. The combined system further discloses wherein said software module includes an operation system layer, video receiving libraries, networking functions, and video sending libraries (Kusumoto’s Figures 2-3; Kellerman’s Figure 7; and Kapicioglu’s Figures 1-2 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 16. The combined system further discloses an application layer having why motion features (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0082] for application layer performing functions of circuits in Figure 2; and ¶ [0027]-[0030] for detecting circuit for detecting motion events by receiving video image from signal processing circuit and output motion detected results when a pre-registered registration events occurs).
Regarding claim 18, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. The combined system further discloses wherein said why motion features receives said video stream from said video receiving libraries and sends said video stream out to said video stream libraries in formats comprising H264, H265, VP8, VP9, MJPEG, raw or custom format (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0023]-[0024]; and taught by Kellerman; ¶ [0029]; and ¶ [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. The combined system further discloses wherein said why motion feature includes computer vision motion detection, at least one image buffer and a connection manager (Kusumoto’s Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Kapicioglu discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. The combined system further discloses wherein said why motion feature includes at least one passive infrared laser, logic, and a user manager (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0025], ¶ [0033] and ¶ [0080]-[0082]; and taught by Kapicioglu; ¶ [0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 14-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The arts of record either alone or in combination fails to particularly disclose or suggest the unique combination and arrangement of claimed elements recited in the claim 7 and claim 8, when considering the claims as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights