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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 4/16/2026 and petition decision on 09/03/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant argues that Chou discloses a method of synchronizing video streams received at a data center… The applicant argues that Dice does not teach identifying a first timestamp….determining a relationship between the first plurality of images and second plurality of images.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant does not provide an explanation why Chou does not teach the limitations. It is noted that the applicant provide a sentence from paragraph 0022 and did not argue paragraphs 0028 and 0029 which state internet disconnection (and storing locally) and reconnection (transmitting to store at the server). Chou discloses a surveillance system and Dice discloses a surveillance system. Dice discloses alarm events which can include a person and Figure 6A disclose alarm events which can show multiple occurring from different cameras and determining a relationship based on detected alarm events (column 25, lines 19-50 with timestamps between 8 pm to 8 am and seeing a person in different regions of interest near each other, Column 27, lines 43-67, Column 28, lines 1-30, digital alarm events with time sequence for a timeline). The claim language does not state what the relationship based on timestamps is, rather there is some relationship.
Dice discloses identifying a first timestamp for the first plurality of images (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A); identifying a second timestamp for the second plurality of images (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A, See also column 25, lines 40-50); and determining a relationship between the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images based on the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A); and storing, in a memory, the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images based on the relationship (Column 5, line 19-46, Column 16, liens 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 1, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A).
It is noted that the relationship limitation is not in claims 11 and 15.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al (US 2024/0022684 and hereafter referred to as “Chou”) in view of Dice et al (US 11,741,825 and hereafter referred to as “Dice”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chou discloses a method for synchronizing video streams received at a data center communicatively coupled to a plurality of edge devices, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor associated with an edge device, a plurality of images corresponding to a video stream (Page 2, paragraph 0024, Page 3, paragraph 0028, Figure 1),
wherein the video stream comprises a timestamp in an area within the plurality of images (Figure 2);
in response to determining the edge device is not connected to the data center: storing the plurality of images in a memory associated with the edge device (Figure 1, Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029);
in response to determining the edge device is reconnected to the data center: communicating the plurality of images to the data center (Figure 1, Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029),
wherein a processor in the data center is configured to execute a set of instructions to perform:
identifying a first plurality of images corresponding to the video stream (a first time window, Page 5, paragraph 0042);
identifying a second plurality of images corresponding to the video stream (a second time window, Page 5, paragraph 0042);
storing, in a memory, the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images (Page 3, paragraph 0029).
Chou is silent on identifying a first timestamp for the first plurality of images; identifying a second timestamp for the second plurality of images; and determining a relationship between the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images based on the first timestamp and the second timestamp; and storing, in a memory, the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images based on the relationship.
Dice discloses identifying a first timestamp for the first plurality of images (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A); identifying a second timestamp for the second plurality of images (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A); and determining a relationship between the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images based on the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A, See also column 25, lines 19-50); and storing, in a memory, the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images based on the relationship (Column 5, line 19-46, Column 16, liens 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 1, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou in order to teach the missing limitation as taught by Dice in order to make it for efficiently and accurately analyze data (Column 7, lines 62-66) as disclosed by Dice and make it easier for user/operator to find sequences with regions of interest.
Regarding Claim 11, Chou discloses a video surveillance system, comprising:
a bridge coupled to a plurality of edge devices (Figure 1, 30, 11-14, Page 2, paragraph 0022), wherein the bridge comprises a bridge memory storing a set of bridge instructions and a bridge processor configured to execute the set of bridge instructions (Page 2, paragraph 0024) to:
receive a plurality of images from the plurality of edge devices (Page 2, paragraph 0024, Page 3, paragraph 0028, Figure 1);
determine whether an edge device of the plurality of edge devices is communicatively coupled to a data center server (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029, Figure 1) wherein:
if the edge device is connected to a data center server, the bridge is configured to communicate the plurality of images to the data center server (Figure 1, Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029); or
if the edge device is not connected to the data center server (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029), the bridge is configured to:
record the plurality of images in the bridge memory (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029);
determine when the edge device is connected to the data center server; and communicate the plurality of images from the bridge memory to the data center server (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029),
wherein the data center server comprises server memory storing a set of server instructions and a server processor configured to execute the set of server instructions (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 4, paragraph 0041) to:
receive the plurality of images from the bridge (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029); and
store the plurality of images in the server memory (Page 3, paragraph 0029, Figure 5, Page 6, paragraph 0054).
Chou does not explicitly disclose identify a timestamp in stream metadata for the plurality of images, and store the plurality of images in the server memory based on the timestamp.
Dice discloses identify a timestamp in stream metadata for the plurality of images (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A), and store the plurality of images in the server memory based on the timestamp (Column 5, line 19-46, Column 16, liens 22-34, , Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 1, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou in order to teach the missing limitation as taught by Dice in order to make it for efficiently and accurately analyze data (Column 7, lines 62-66) as disclosed by Dice and make it easier for user/operator to find sequences with regions of interest.
Regarding Claim 15, Chou discloses a video surveillance system, comprising:
a bridge coupled to a plurality of cameras (Figure 1, 30, 11-14, Page 2, paragraph 0022), wherein the bridge comprises a bridge memory storing a set of bridge instructions and a bridge processor configured to execute the set of bridge instructions (Page 2, paragraph 0024) to:
receive a plurality of images from the plurality of cameras (Page 2, paragraph 0024, Page 3, paragraph 0028, Figure 1);
determine whether a camera of the plurality of cameras is communicatively coupled to a data center server (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029, Figure 1) wherein:
if the camera is connected to a data center server, the bridge is configured to communicate the plurality of images to the data center server (Figure 1, Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029); or
if the camera is not connected to the data center server (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029), the bridge is configured to:
record the plurality of images in the bridge memory (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029);
determine when the camera is connected to the data center server; and communicate the plurality of images from the bridge memory to the data center server (Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029),
wherein the data center server comprises server memory storing a set of server instructions and a server processor configured to execute the set of server instructions (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 4, paragraph 0041) to:
receive the plurality of images from the bridge (Page 2, paragraph 0022, Page 3, paragraph 0028, 0029); and
store the plurality of images in the server memory (Page 3, paragraph 0029, Figure 5, Page 6, paragraph 0054).
Chou does not explicitly disclose identify a timestamp in stream metadata for the plurality of images, and store the plurality of images in the server memory based on the timestamp.
Dice discloses identify a timestamp in stream metadata for the plurality of images (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A), and store the plurality of images in the server memory based on the timestamp (Column 5, line 19-46, Column 16, liens 22-34, , Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 1, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou in order to teach the missing limitation as taught by Dice in order to make it for efficiently and accurately analyze data (Column 7, lines 62-66) as disclosed by Dice and make it easier for user/operator to find sequences with regions of interest.
Regarding Claim 2, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Chou discloses wherein one or more of the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images depict an object in motion (Page 4, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 3, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 2. Chou discloses wherein the object is a person (Page 4, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 4, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 2. Chou discloses wherein the object is a vehicle(Page 4, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 5, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Dice discloses wherein identifying a first timestamp for the first plurality of images comprises identifying an area corresponding to a timestamp (Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 6, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Dice discloses wherein identifying an area corresponding to a timestamp comprises identifying one of a header or a footer (Column 9, lines 14-40, Column 25, lines 51-67, Column 26, lines 1-7). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 12 and 16, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 11 and 15 respectively. Chou discloses the server processor executes the set of server instructions to determine the plurality of images depicts an object in motion (Page 4, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 13 Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Chou discloses the server processor executes the set of server instructions to determine the object in motion comprises a person (Page 4, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 14, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Chou discloses wherein the server processor executes the set of server instructions to determine the object in motion comprises a vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0034).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Dice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fekete et al (US 2023/0368629 and hereafter referred to as “Fekete”).
Regarding Claim 7, Chou and Dice disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose masking. Fekete disclose determining a variable for masking (Page 2, paragraph 0023, 00025, 0030, 0032); and masking the variable (Page 2, paragraph 0023, 00025, 0030, 0032). Therefore, 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 in order to teach the missing limitation as taught by Fekete in order to provide privacy (Page 1, paragraph 0001) as disclosed by Fekete.
Regarding Claim 8, Chou, Dice and Fekete disclose all the limitations of Claim 7.
Chou discloses a timestamp (Figure 2). Dice discloses a timestamp with location of timestamp in header (Column 9, lines 14-40, Column 25, lines 51-67, Column 26, lines 1-7, Column 16, lines 22-34, Column 27, lines 61-67, Column 28, lines 1-11, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 6A). Fekete discloses wherein determining a variable for masking comprises determining time (Page 2, paragraph 0023, 00025, 0030, 0032). Therefore, the combination of Fekete with determining a variable of time and Dice and Chou which discloses time has timestamp with hour, minute and seconds meets the limitation of determining one of an hour, a minute and a second variable. Same motivations as above.
Regarding Claim 9, Chou, Dice and Fekete disclose all the limitations of Claim 7. Fekete discloses wherein masking the variable comprises positioning a box over the variable (Claim 4). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 10, Chou, Dice and Fekete disclose all the limitations of Claim 7. Fekete discloses wherein masking the variable comprises outlining the variable (Claim 4). Same motivation as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
September 30, 2026
