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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1 & 11 the applicant argues Venetianer (US 2007/0013776 A1) in view of Rin-gi (KR-102748314-B1):
Venetianer and Rin-gi fail to teach the "switching the application mode from the second mode to the first mode when the first target object within the second detection image is the same as the first target object within the first detection image but the second feature is not changed relative to the first feature" recited in the amended claims 1 and 11 of the present application, because the alert mode remains continuously activated as long as the object or its motion is detected. [Remarks: Pages 10-12]
The prior art always generates an alarm as long as an object moves, regardless of whether the object's feature is changed or unvaried. [Remarks: Pages 11-12]
Rin-gi only generates alarms based on coordinate motion, regardless of the object's specific features. [Remarks: Pages 11-12]
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 & 12-18, the applicant argues:
The claims 2-10 & 12-18 are dependent on claims 1 and 11, and the applicant believes claims 1 and 11 have been placed in a position for allowance, claims 2-10 and 12-18 should also be found allowable. [Remarks: Page 12]
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding claims 1 & 11, the examiner contends:
The rejection does not map the claimed “application mode” exclusively to an alarm state. Instead, the application mode is mapped to the video streaming and storage quality modes. Venetianer explicitly teaches that video encoding and streaming are modulated by content analysis and activity inference. When events of interest are detected, very high quality, bit-rate, frame rate, or resolution video is streamed, which corresponds to the claimed switching to a second mode. When there is no activity present, no video, or low quality video, is streamed, which corresponds to switching back to the first mode.
This argument overlooks the breadth of activities and events monitored by the primary reference. Venetianer defines a “scene change” as an activity, which explicitly includes an object changing appearance, such as its color, shape, or size. If the system is tasked to monitor for an object changing its appearance (a feature change), the detection of this change triggers the high-quality streaming mode. If the same target object remains in the frame but stops changing its appearance (meaning the second feature is not changed relative to the first feature), the specific event condition ceases. As a consequence, the system modulates the bandwidth back down to the low-quality video stream.
This is an incomplete reading of the secondary reference. Rin-gi specifically teaches assigning a personnel code as an identification number to each person, ensuring the system tracks the exact same object across sequential images. Furthermore, Rin-gi tracks specific “posture status” codes, which indicate whether a tracked individual is lying down, sitting, standing, or in any other posture. Therefore, the combined prior art is fully capable of identifying the same object between frames, assessing whether a specific feature (like appearance or posture) has changed, and dynamically switching the system's resource allocation mode accordingly.
Regarding claims 2-10 & 12-22, the examiner contends:
See the examiner’s response regarding claims 1 and 11 above.
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 1-2, 7, 10-12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venetianer et al., hereinafter referred to as Venetianer (US 2007/0013776 A1) in view of Rin-gi (KR-102748314-B1).
As per claim 1, Venetianer discloses an image mode application method applied to a surveillance apparatus with an operation processor, the operation processor receiving an image stream having a first detection image and a second detection image generated in sequence, the image mode application method (Venetianer: Abstract; [0036], [0049], [0087]) comprising:
the operation processor detecting a first feature of a first target object within the first detection image (Venetianer: Paras. [0129], [0150], [0153] disclose detecting a video primitive that includes an object descriptor of an object [first feature of a first target object] viewed in a video feed [includes the first detection image].);
the operation processor switching an application mode of the surveillance apparatus from a first mode to a second mode in accordance with a detection result of the first feature (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that includes higher quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution after detecting the video primitive.);
the operation processor detecting a second feature of the first target object within the second detection image (Venetianer: Paras. [0129], [0150], [0153] disclose detecting multiple video primitives that include an object descriptor of an object [second feature of a first target object] viewed in a video feed [includes the first and second detection image due to the continuous video stream].);
the operation processor determining whether the second feature has changed relative to the first feature (Venetianer: Paras. [0163], [0172] disclose detecting an object changing appearance or position, and using activity detectors to determine how an object interacts, such as changing direction or speed.); and
the operation processor switching the application mode from the second mode to the first mode when [activity is no longer present] (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that includes lower quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution when no video primitives are available.).
However, Venetianer does not explicitly disclose “… when the first target object within the second detection image is the same as the first target object within the first detection image but the second feature is not changed relative to the first feature.”
Further, Rin-gi is in the same field of endeavor and teaches when the first target object within the second detection image is the same as the first target object within the first detection image but the second feature is not changed relative to the first feature (Rin-gi: Paras. [0044]-[0047], [0074], [0120] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object, and if it is, activate an alarm. If the object is verified to be inanimate (human wearing concealment), there may be no coordinate movement during the set time (t). Further, Rin-gi: Paras. [0106] & [0125] disclose tracking the object to determine whether there is a coordinate movement, and tracking a movement status symbol [feature] indicating whether the object is appearing, moving, or stopping [i.e., determines when a tracked target object remains the same but its features, such as coordinate movement or posture, have not changed].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Venetianer and Rin-gi before him or her, to modify the surveillance system of Venetianer to include the determining and conforming feature as described in Rin-gi. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve event detection accuracy in surveillance systems by providing an advanced algorithm that responds to new events, even when intruders with malicious intent use irregular methods.
As per claim 2, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, wherein the first feature is relevant to the first target object, the first feature of the first target object is a behavior, a face feature, a clothing feature or a body feature (Venetianer: Para. [0150] discloses wherein the primitive is relevant to the first target object, the primitive of the first target object is a behavior, a face feature, a clothing feature or a body feature.).
As per claim 7, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, wherein the image stream is a single stream, the operation processor decides a transmission mode of the single stream in the first mode or the second mode in accordance with a feature conforming result (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that enables higher quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution of the video stream transmitted after detecting the video primitive and Rin-gi: Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again [feature conforming result], and if it is, activate an alarm.).
As per claim 10, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, wherein the application mode comprises an image mode, an alarm mode, a transmission mode and/or a storage mode, the image mode comprises an image quality adjustment mode or a resolution adjustment mode or a resolving power adjustment mode or a frame rate adjustment mode, the alarm mode comprises an alarm generation mode and an alarm shutdown mode, the transmission mode comprises a high transmission quantity mode and a low transmission quantity mode, the storage mode comprises a high storage mode and a low storage mode (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that includes higher quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution after detecting the video primitive and Rin-gi: Paras. [0038], [0044]-[0047], [0142] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again, and if it is, activate an alarm, if the object is removed, deactivate the alarm via recovery signal.).
As per claim 11, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 12, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 2 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 17, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 7 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 20, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 10 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 3 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venetianer in view of Rin-gi in further view of Kong et al., hereinafter referred to as Kong (US 2023/0306489 A1).
As per claim 3, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, further comprising:
the operation processor determining whether a preset feature of a second target object is detected within the second detection image (Venetianer: Paras. [0129], [0150], [0153] disclose detecting multiple video primitives that include an object descriptor of an object [preset feature of a second target object] viewed in a video feed [includes the second detection image due to the continuous video stream].); and
the operation processor keeping the application mode in the second mode when the (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose staying in a mode that includes higher quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution after detecting the video primitive and Rin-gi: Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again [second feature of the first target object conforms to the first feature], and if it is, activate an alarm.);
wherein the preset feature does not appear on the first detection image (Venetianer: Para. [0163] discloses an object entering a scene and becoming stationary.).
However, Venetianer-Rin-gi do not explicitly disclose “… the preset feature is detected within the second detection image …”.
Further, Kong is in the same field of endeavor and teaches the preset feature is detected within the second detection image (Kong: Para. [0052] discloses detecting a suspicious item [preset feature] from among various people [includes second target object] or objects appearing in the video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Venetianer-Rin-gi and Kong before him or her, to modify the surveillance streaming system of Venetianer-Rin-gi to include the preset feature detected within the second detection image feature as described in Kong. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve surveillance monitoring systems by providing an algorithm that prioritizes detected objects according to a threat indication level.
As per claim 13, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 3 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 4 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venetianer in view of Rin-gi in further view of Doretto et al., hereinafter referred to as Doretto (US 2012/0189207 A1).
As per claim 4, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, wherein the operation processor receives the image stream having the first detection image, the second detection image and a third detection image generated in sequence, the image mode application method further comprising:
the operation processor detecting a third feature of the first target object within the third detection image (Venetianer: Paras. [0129], [0150], [0153] disclose detecting a video primitive that includes an object descriptor of an object [third feature of a first target object] viewed in a video feed [includes the third detection image].);
the operation processor setting the application mode in the first mode when the third feature conforms to the first feature, or conforms to the second feature, or conforms to the first feature and the second feature simultaneously (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that includes lower quality when some video primitives are available and switches to a different mode that includes high quality when events of interest are detected and Rin-gi: Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again [second feature of the first target object conforms to the first feature], and if it is, activate an alarm.).
However, Venetianer-Rin-gi do not explicitly disclose “… the operation processor comparing the third feature with the first feature and the second feature …”.
Further, Doretto is in the same field of endeavor and teaches the operation processor comparing the third feature with the first feature and the second feature (Doretto: Paras. [0034], [0038], [0054] disclose the identifying descriptor that is calculated for the person or object can be compared to one or more previously calculated identifying descriptors that are taken from persons or objects in previously input images [i.e., descriptors from more than one input image].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Venetianer-Rin-gi and Doretto before him or her, to modify the surveillance streaming system of Venetianer-Rin-gi to include the preset feature detected within the second detection image feature as described in Doretto. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve detection accuracy in surveillance systems by providing an enhanced re-identification logic that enables sorted object matching by calculating the distance between descriptors to a predetermined threshold.
As per claim 14, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 4 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 5-6 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venetianer in view of Rin-gi in further view of Xiao et al., hereinafter referred to as Xiao (US 2023/0245535 A1).
As per claim 5, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, further comprising:
the operation processor setting a region of interest (Rin-gi: bounding box) corresponding to the first target object within each detection image of the image stream (Rin-gi: Abstract; Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again in the boundary area, and if it is, activate an alarm.); and
the operation processor setting the region of interest in the second mode (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that includes higher quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution after detecting the video primitive and Rin-gi: Abstract; Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again in the boundary area, and if it is, activate an alarm.);
wherein the memory unit is electrically connected to the operation processor (Venetianer: Paras. [0049]-[0052] disclose the concept of memory electrically connected to the processor that executes the computer programs that are stored in the memory).
However, Venetianer-Rin-gi do not explicitly disclose “… setting the region of interest … and storing the region of interest into a memory unit in accordance with the detection result …”.
Further, Xiao is in the same field of endeavor and teaches setting the region of interest and storing the region of interest into a memory unit in accordance with the detection result (Xiao: claim 11; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023] disclose setting and storing the bounding box [region of interest] into a memory storage 112 in accordance with the detection result.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Venetianer-Rin-gi and Xiao before him or her, to modify the surveillance streaming system of Venetianer-Rin-gi to include the setting and storing region of interest into a memory unit feature as described in Xiao. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve detection accuracy among multiple objects in surveillance systems by providing a configuration that enables additional control over detected objects.
As per claim 6, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 5, further comprising:
the operation processor switching the region of interest from the second mode to the first mode when the second feature conforms to the first feature (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching to a mode that includes higher quality, bitrate, frame rate, and resolution after detecting the video primitive and Rin-gi: Abstract; Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again in the boundary area, and if it is, activate an alarm.).
As per claim 15, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 5 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 16, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 6 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venetianer in view of Rin-gi in further view of Kim et al., hereinafter referred to as Kim (US 2018/0131987 A1).
As per claim 8, Venetianer-Rin-gi disclose the image mode application method of claim 1, further comprising:
the operation processor acquiring the image stream having both the first mode and the second mode (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose switching between the first and second mode of the video/feed or stream.); and
the operation processor (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose having the first mode or the second mode and Rin-gi: Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again [feature conforming result], and if it is, activate an alarm.);
wherein the memory unit is electrically connected to the operation processor (Venetianer: Paras. [0049]-[0052] disclose the concept of memory electrically connected to the processor that executes the computer programs that are stored in the memory);
wherein the image stream comprises two streams with different modes, (Venetianer: Paras. [0082], [0088]-[0089] disclose the image stream having the first mode and the second mode represent different imaging streams and Rin-gi: Paras. [0044]-[0047] disclose determining if the same thermal moving object is detected again [feature conforming result], and if it is, activate an alarm.).
However, Venetianer-Rin-gi do not explicitly disclose “… storing the image stream … into a memory unit … the operation processor decides a recording mode of the two streams …”.
Further, Kim is in the same field of endeavor and teaches storing the image stream into a memory unit and the operation processor decides a recording mode of the two streams (Kim: Fig. 1 & Paras. [0009], [0023]-[0030] disclose storing the video captured [image stream] via camera 200 into a memory bank and the recording controller 130 decides a recording mode that converts the image stream into two different streams, wherein recording controller 130 controls switching between the time-lapse recording mode and the event recording mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Venetianer-Rin-gi and Kim before him or her, to modify the surveillance streaming system of Venetianer-Rin-gi to include the storing image stream and deciding recording mode of the two streams feature as described in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve event detection in surveillance systems by providing a configuration that enables prevention of recording omission that may occur due to transmission delays of an event stream.
As per claim 18, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 8 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 03-07-2026