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 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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on April 20, 2026, claims 11-20 have been canceled, claims 1-4, 6-10, 21-24, 26 and 28 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 21-30 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 21 recite the subject matter of “wherein the motion threshold is continuously updated based on one or more motion parameters” and “wherein the audio threshold is continuously updated based on one or more audio parameters”. Examiner cannot find support in the specification. Specification paragraph 29 recites “audio processing program 157 may be configured to consistently tune and update baseline audio settings for identifying an audio event.” and paragraph 33 recites “image processing program 158 may be configured to consistently tune and update baseline motion settings for identifying a motion event”. However, there is no support for updating the threshold “continuously” as claimed. While updating consistently means updating regular basis, it lacks the continuity as claimed. If Examiner is mistaken, please provide support in the specification such as paragraphs, column/line etc.
Claims 2-10 and 22-30 are also rejected because they depend from the rejected claim 1 or claim 21.
Claims 8 and 28 recite the subject matter of “the second motion threshold is continuously updated based on analyzing one or more of the one or more second images or the second audio” and “wherein the second audio threshold is continuously updated based on analyzing one or more of the one or more second images or the second audio”. Examiner cannot find support in the specification. Specification paragraph 29 recites “audio processing program 157 may be configured to consistently tune and update baseline audio settings for identifying an audio event.” and paragraph 33 recites “image processing program 158 may be configured to consistently tune and update baseline motion settings for identifying a motion event”. However, there is no support for updating the threshold “continuously” as claimed. While updating consistently means updating regular basis, it lacks the continuity as claimed.
Further, Examiner also cannot find support updating motion threshold based on analyzing audio data or updating audio threshold based on analyzing images.
If Examiner is mistaken, please provide support in the specification such as paragraphs, column/line etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 24 recite “the one or more alert events” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 8-10, 21-24 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Li: US 2017/0206761) in view of Mullins (US 20240144792 A1) further in view of Bennis ( US 20230236217 A1) further in view of Fountaine (US 20180325470A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Li teaches a system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a data capture device (Fig. 1, camera 110) configured to capture one or more images of a subject and audio of the subject (Par 58, image feature(s) includes human bodies, human faces, pets, things, etc. and Par 65, speech, crying, scream, sound caused by an animal ); and
a computing device (Fig. 1, computing device 120) configured to:
acquire, via the data capture device, the one or more images of the subject and the audio of the subject (Fig. 2, step 202, extract video frames and step 214, extract audio signals),
determine, based on the one or more images of the subject, that a motion threshold has been exceeded (Par 60, processor 121 determines a difference between a video frame and its preceding (or subsequent) video frame by, for example, comparing pixel values of the video frame and the preceding (or subsequent) video frame. If the difference is equal to or exceeds a threshold,),
determine, based on the audio of the subject, that an audio threshold has been exceeded (Par 64, processor 121 determines a change in sound level of the audio signal. If the change is equal to or greater than a threshold, processor 121 identifies the change as a sound feature); and
based on the motion threshold being exceeded and the audio threshold being exceeded, send, via a local area network (Par 27, local wireless network), a notification to one or more user devices (Par 12, identifying a special event based on analysis of video frame(s) and/or audio signal and Par [41-42] and Par [0043] At 212, processor 121 transmits the video, video preview frames, and/or the information relating to the detected special event(s) (if any) to user device 140 via network 130.).
Li does not explicitly disclose exceeding a motion threshold is for a first length of time or exceeding the audio threshold is for the second length of time.
However the preceding limitation is known in the art of monitoring systems. Mullins teaches audio monitoring device (abstract and Par 7) having exceeding the audio threshold is for the second length of time (Par 8, activation if levels are greater than 70 dB, sustained for five seconds or longer and Par 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mullins in order to make the system less or more sensitive (Mullins: Par 19).
Li or Mullins does not explicitly disclose exceeding a motion threshold is for a first length of time.
However the preceding limitation is known in the art of monitoring systems. Bennis teaches a motion detector to activate an alarm device (abstract) and further teaches exceeding a motion threshold is for a first length of time (Par 37-38, the electronic controller 150 determines that a current tilt angle of the motion detector 100 is greater than the deviation threshold at (t)=41 seconds and initiates a timer (e.g., debounce time, delay unit) associated with the temporal threshold. The electronic controller 150 determines that the current tilt angle of the motion detector 100 remains greater than the deviation threshold for the duration of the temporal threshold and transmits a tamper alert signal to the alarm device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bennis in order to prevent a false indication (Bennis: Par 37).
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the motion threshold is continuously updated based on one or more motion parameters or wherein the audio threshold is continuously updated based on one or more audio parameters.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of monitoring devices. Fountaine teaches a device for monitoring adverse events of a user and coordinating emergency actions (Par 7) and further teaches wherein the audio threshold is continuously updated based on one or more audio parameters (Par 58, when the sound 105 of the immediate environment 102 raises above a threshold level that may be calculated statically (e.g., set to a decibel level) or re- factored continuously (e.g., adjusted based on the ambient sound of the immediate environment 102)).
Fountaine also teaches sensor 202 can be motion sensor in addition to noise/sound sensors (Par 57). One of the ordinary skill in the art would can easily see that the sensor threshold levels would be continuously updated based on sensor parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fountaine in order to adjust to the ambient conditions (Fountaine: Par 58).
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed steps of the method correspond with the elements of the device as addressed in claim 21. Since the device has been made obvious, the steps of using the device in its intended manner are also made obvious.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the data capture device comprises an image sensor (Li: Fig. 1, camera 110) and a microphone (Fountaine: Par 8) and wherein the one or more user devices comprise one or more of a smartwatch (Li: Par 29, user device 140 may be a smart phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a wearable device (e.g., Google Glass™ or smart watches), a haptic device, an audio/video monitor, a smartphone, a computer, a television, a set-top box, or a streaming device.
Claim 2 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 22 above.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21,
the computing device is configured to, based on the motion threshold being exceeded for the first length of time and the audio threshold being exceeded for the second length of time, send, via the local area network, the notification to the one or more user devices, the computing device is configured to: based on the motion threshold being exceeded for the first length of time and the audio threshold being exceeded for the second length of time, send, to a machine learning model, data comprising images and audio associated with a time period preceding the determination that the motion threshold was exceeded and the determination that the audio threshold was exceeded; detect, by the machine learning model, based on the data, one or more alert events are occurring (Li: Par [41-42] and Par [0043] At 212, processor 121 transmits the video, video preview frames, and/or the information relating to the detected special event and Fountaine: par 70, The safety profile 114 comprises conditions under which one or more events of concern 116 constitute an adverse event 118, … the safety profile 114 may be continuously updated through updates from the network 101 and/or through machine learning algorithms i.e. event detection uses machine learning model); and
sending, via the local area network, based on the detection that the one or more alert events are occurring, the notification to the one or more user devices (Li: Par 27, local wireless network and Par 12, identifying a special event based on analysis of video frame(s) and/or audio signal and Par [41-42] and Par [0043] At 212, processor 121 transmits the video, video preview frames, and/or the information relating to the detected special event(s) (if any) to user device 140 via network 130).
Claim 3 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 23 above.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the one or more alert events comprise one or more of the subject choking, the subject gagging, a child climbing out of a crib, the subject falling, the subject not breathing, the subject speaking one or more words or phrases, or one or more types of sounds coming from the subject (Li: Par 38, baby crying).
Claim 4 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more images of the subject and the audio of the subject are acquired in a first area, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
acquire, via a second data capture device, one or more second images and second audio associated with a second area;
determine, based on the one or more second images, that a second motion threshold has been exceeded for a third length of time, wherein the second motion threshold is continuously updated based on analyzing one or more of the one or more second images or the second audio;
determine, based on the second audio, that a second audio threshold has been exceeded for a fourth length of time, wherein the second audio threshold is continuously updated based on analyzing one or more of the one or more second images or the second audio; and
based on the second motion threshold being exceeded for the third length of time and the second audio threshold being exceeded for the fourth length of time, send, via the local area network, a second notification to the one or more user devices.
However, Li further teaches video monitoring devices for monitoring premises for baby or eldering monitoring (Par 3). One of the ordinary skill in the art understand that having an additional system having an additional data capture device having the same functionality of acquiring and processing images and audio for an additional area. Since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional system having an additional data capture device having the same functionality of acquiring and processing images and audio for an additional area in order to monitor multiple premises (Li: Par 3).
Claim 8 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 28 above.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the notification sent to the one or more user devices causes the one or more user devices to one or more of: exit a standby mode, output the one or more images (Li: Par [0043] At 212, processor 121 transmits the video, video preview frames, and/or the information relating to the detected special event(s) (if any) to user device 140 via network 130 and Par 52, user device 140 presents to the user the received video, sample videos, video preview frames (or thumbnail images thereof), and/or information relating to the special event(s) in a UI.), output the audio, or emit a haptic output.
Claim 9 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 29 above.
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the system further comprises a remote computing device (Li: Par 23, computing device 120), wherein the data capture device is further configured to establish a communication session with the remote computing device (Li: Fig. 1, Camera 110 communicates with Computing device 120 via network 130);
wherein the remote computing device is configured to:
receive, via the communication session, the one or more images and the audio (Li: Par 20, camera 110 may be configured to transmit a stream video to computing device 120 and Par 38);
output one or more images and the audio (Li: par [0028] User device 140 is configured to receive data (e.g., image and/or video data) from camera 110 and/or computing device 120 via network 130.);
receive an input indicative of an alert event (Li: Par [0022] Computing device 120 is configured to analyze the video received from camera 110 and Par 38); and
send a notification indicative of the alert event (Li: Par [0043] At 212, processor 121 transmits the video, video preview frames, and/or the information relating to the detected special event(s) (if any) to user device 140 via network 130).
Claim 10 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 30 above.
Claims 5-7, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine further in view of Williams et al. (Williams: US 10825318 B1).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to:
receive an indication from the one or more user devices that the notification is indicative of an alert event; determine, based on the alert event, one or more notification parameters associated with the alert event; and train, based on the one or more notification parameters, a predictive model configured for predicting a likelihood that an alert event is occurring.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of monitoring devices. Williams teaches a system for identifying a condition/event based on sensor data to send a notification indicating the condition/event (abstract) and further teaches receive an indication from the one or more user devices that the notification is indicative of an alert event; determine, based on the alert event, one or more notification parameters associated with the alert event; and train, based on the one or more notification parameters, a predictive model configured for predicting a likelihood that an alert event is occurring (Col. 12 lines 52-65; Models may be created based upon example inputs in order to make valid and reliable predictions for novel inputs. Additionally or alternatively, the machine learning programs may be trained by inputting sample data sets or certain data into the programs, such as mobile device, and Col. 13 lines 53-60 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams in order to make valid and reliable predictions (Williams: Col. 12 lines 52-65 ).
Claim 5 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 25 above.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis, Fountaine and Williams teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the one or more notification parameters comprise one or more of a type of sound in the audio (Li: Par 38, baby crying, glass shattering and see also Par 65), motion associated with the audio, a type of motion, facial recognition, a light level, a quality of image, a detection zone, an ignore zone, a day of week, a time of day, a location of one or more users, an application setting, or an amount of time since a previous notification.
Claim 6 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 26 above.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Li, Mullins, Bennis and Fountaine teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
determine, based on one or more of the one or more images or the audio, one or more values of one or more notification parameters; provide the one or more values of the one or more notification parameters to determine a likelihood that an alert event is occurring (Li: Par 42, when determining the score, processor 121 gives a different weight to special events detected based on the video frames than to those detected based on the audio signal.); and
receive the likelihood that an alert event is occurring, wherein the computing device is further configured to send, via the local area network, the notification to the one or more user devices based on the likelihood that an alert event is occurring exceeding an event threshold (Li: Par 42, processor 121 determines a score of cross-referencing two detected special events around the same time that are detected separately by analyzing the video frames and the audio signal. If the determined score equals to or exceeds a threshold, processor 121 counts the events as a single special event and performs step 210 as described. On the other hand, if the score is less than the threshold, processor 121 does not recognize them as a special event. In doing so, a false event may be prevented from being recorded and Par 43).
The combination does not explicitly disclose a predictive model configured for predicting the likelihood of the alert event.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of monitoring devices. Williams teaches a system for identifying a condition/event based on sensor data to send a notification indicating the condition/event (abstract) and further teaches using a predictive model configured for predicting the likelihood of the alert event (Col. 13 lines 53-60; The identified abnormalities or anomalies in the historical data and their corresponding conditions may comprise a predictive model to be used to analyze current sensor data. For example, the model may include a prediction of a condition associated with an individual in the home environment based upon certain abnormal or anomalous patterns in current sensor data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a predictive model configured for predicting the likelihood of the alert event in order to accurately predict the correct output (Williams: Col. 13 lines 40-45).
Claim 7 is rejected for the similar reasons for claim 27 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
The arguments regarding the amended limitations on page 10-13 are moot in view of new grounds of rejections. It should be noted that the claim does not require “percentage” as argued.
The arguments regarding the motivation to combine the references on pages 13-14 are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Examiner clearly provides motivation to combine from the prior art references without using nay knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights