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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
The examiner notes the applicant has incorporated some features from claims (5, 13, and 18) which were previously rejected under “OFFICIAL NOTICE”, where the examiner noted the identification/tagging was well-known. Although the applicant did not properly traverse such notice, regarding why/how use of bounding boxes/tags were never known/used, the examiner nonetheless provides evidence of such in order to expedite prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, 12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRae US 2022/0345669 in view of Goyal et al., US 12,033,348 , Xiong et al., US 20220414382 and Chen et al., US 20180254065.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
604
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a-b)The claimed obtaining an original image is met by cameras 12a..12n (Fig 1), where the images captured, as shown in Fig 1, the media server may receive the images from the image device (12) (including raw images (para 33) directly or thru a base station 14 (para 26) which may be incorporated into the camera or server. The artificial intelligence module is met where the system may perform artificial intelligence or computer vision (para 16, 39) on the captured frames/images including (para 26, 39-41, where the analysis of the captured images may be done by the server or could be performed in the image device (para 29).
c) the claimed providing…is met where the terminal device (user device) receives the image(s) and results such “DELIVERY PERSON” or “BILL” (para 36)
d) the claimed displaying…is met where user device 16 (Fig 1) (para 13, 22, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36-39), which includes the original captured image, the analysis result (who, what) and the superimposed where the description of the detected/person object is displayed along with the captured images.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the added limitations from previously dependent claim 2,
McRae does not explicitly recite numbering the frames, synchronization:
McRae discloses the original image may be provided to the AI component (which may be located in the camera, server, base station) and to the server.
McRae does not explicitly recite numbering frames, however the features of providing video frames along with frame number is known as evidenced by Goyal et al., which discloses such conventional technique (col 10, line 43-67, col 21, line 35-52) which provide information regarding the frames which were identified and processed, which can include tasks simultaneously and synchronously being done.
Regarding the newly added d) “user settings” Goyal discloses “user settings” (full text para 10, 12, 28) which can control the display, thus being an obvious feature to include in the McRae which also displays information.
The motivation to modify McRae with Goyal would provide the user to know what images and frame numbers are being displayed to inform the user from what frames/captured images the object/person notification originated from thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Principles of Law:
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and include:
a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
d) applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results:
e) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
g) some teaching, suggestion, motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teaching to arrive at the claimed invention.
As noted by the PTAB recent decision (12 July 2022):
“"The correct legal framework for obviousness does not involve divining the intention of an inventor of a prior art reference but, rather, involves determining 'what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”
Microsoft Word - IPR2021-00417 FD - Ready (law360news.com)
Regarding the synchronously, the examiner notes in line with KSR, it would be obvious to ensure the data was aligned (synchronized) IAW KSR (c-e and g) which would provide predictable results, to ensure the user receive the data (images, analysis, frame numbers) in a manner which ensured the user was informed what the images were/are while viewing the images, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the thru the camera module and synchronously thru the artificial intelligence module.
Goyal provides information regarding the frames which were identified and processed, which can include tasks simultaneously and synchronously being done.
Regarding the analysis result and image number to the server thru the AI module, as noted by McRae the surveillance camera may include the AI-computer vision processing and the server receives the information prior to the end user device as shown in Fig 1, directly (with or without the base station)(col 29-32).
The motivation to provide synchronous data between components would ensure data was received/processed to ensure the user receive such information accurately and in a timely matter as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the newly added b)
PNG
media_image3.png
102
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McRae disclose “bounding boxes” (para 5-6);
Goyal also discloses bounding boxes (full text para 11, 38) which are used to identify and classify objects.
Although the combination does not explicitly recite the tag information comprises object type, tag number and position the examiner notes these are conventional/obvious in the field of endeavor.
The examiner incorporates Xiong et al., US 20220414382 which discloses “bounding boxes” to include object data type, position information object type or class as well as confidence (para 84).
Regarding “tag number” as disclosed by applicant as being a label-ID (Fig 5) the examiner provides additional evidence of such convention by incorporating Chen et al., US 20180254065, ( para 156 and 165) which discloses a tracker ID label for each associated bounding box being tracked.
The motivation to modify the above McRae/Goyal combination with conventinal labeling as done by Xiong/Chen provide the user/system the ability to track/identify objects and provides the ability to search/retrieve information of such objects using such information, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 5,
McRae discloses the uses of AI/computer vision where the examiner notes AI is based upon at least one tag information comprising labels/tag/confidence and also position when performing surveillance in order to identify/detect/analyze objects/persons with previous/past or future captured images to train and perform the AI, thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure AI in a surveillance system properly identified/tagged with confidence including position the captured information.
In considering claim 4.
The examiner notes the combination of McRae and Goyal provide the user the features of receiving original captured images and analysis results (identified person, object) which provide the frame numbers with respect to the captured images and analyzed images.
Regarding synchronization as noted in claims 2-3, the features of synchronizing data is an obvious feature IAW KSR (c-e and g) which would provide predictable results, to ensure the user receive the data (images, analysis, frame numbers) in a manner which ensured the user was informed what the images were/are while viewing the images, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 8,
McRae disclose the surveillance camera (image device 12a..12n) may include the AI-computer vision processing (para 26) which may be incorporated into the camera or server. The artificial intelligence module is met where the system may perform artificial intelligence or computer vision (para 16, 39) on the captured frames/images including (para 26, 39-41, where the analysis of the captured images may be done by the server or could be performed in the image device (para 29).
As shown in Fig 1, the imaging devices are edge devices in the system.
In considering claim 9,
Refer to claim 1.
As noted in Fig 1, the system may include cameras 12a-n and include AI-computer vision processing ability, which are connected to a server 50 and then to a user device 16, where the base station may be eliminated (para 26)
In considering claim 12,
Refer to claim 4.
In considering claim 16,
Refer to claim 8.
In considering claim 17,
Refer to claim 1 and 9.
Regarding the communication interface…as noted by applicant’s specification this is a wired or wireless communication connection, where McRae discloses the imaging devices may include wireless or wired communication (para 24-25, 28-29)
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRae US 2022/0345669, Goyal et al., US 12,033,348, Xiong et al., US 20220414382 and Chen et al., US 20180254065, in view of Farren et al., US 12,033,748.
In considering claims 6,
McRae discloses the use of AI/computer vision (para 16, 39) in a surveillance system to identify objects, cars and people.
McRae does not explicitly the conventional features of using AI such as labels/annotations to optimize the AI models parameters.
The examiner evidences such features as taught by Farren et al., US 12,033,748 (col 4, line 34 to col 5, line 45), which discloses that when using AI learned relationships between the input and features corresponding to labels and annotations are used to make accurate predictions and improve the accuracy including surveillance systems.
These setting parameters comprising annotation information corresponding to a tag in the analysis are used by the elements to ensure accuracy in the AI modules.
Regarding the through the terminal device it is noted that McRae discloses the user may interface with user interface 16 to interface with imaging device 12(para 38) via thru the server.
Thus the motivation to modify McRae with Farren provide the advantages as noted above and ensure the surveillance system accurately detects, objects persons to ensure a proper security notification system as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 7,
As noted above in claim 6, the tag result and analysis result are known, although the combination does not explicitly recite such information through the terminal device, where the examiner notes it is conventional to allow a end user to update/validate information received from an AI module, since the AI module is always learning and to ensure proper accuracy/results thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 14,
Refer to claim 6.
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 7.
In considering claim 19,
Refer to claim 6.
In considering claim 20,
Refer to claim 6-7.
McRae discloses the user can (via user device 16) remotely monitor and interface with the imaging device 12 (para 38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights