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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/5/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least he following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/5/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims do not recite mental processes as the claims recite a “diff infrastructure” in which “images of the transaction video” are processed, “combined, and then followed by a bounding box localization to identify locations at which changes have occurred”. Applicant argues that the claims are not merely directed to determining a likelihood of fraud, but to a “fraud mode identifier” that “is run on before and after images” of a transaction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims recite a difference image and a bounding box, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and merely represent a basic analyzing of the image. The bounding box, at the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely puts a boundary at a location in the image where the difference is, such as drawing a circle on an image to point out a particular part of the image. This is not any more than basic observation and evaluation. The determining of a likelihood of fraud based on before and after images is an abstract idea, and is also observation and evaluation as mental processes. The “fraud mode identifier” is just an abstract construct for the algorithm of performing the determining of a likelihood of fraud.
On pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims have been amended to recite a camera capturing a first image before a transaction begins and a second image after the transaction begins, a bounding box applied within a difference image, and a likelihood of fraud based on content of the difference image within the bounding box. Applicant argues that the claims recite “computer-vision” technique that improves how an automated retail system facilitates transactions, reducing unnecessary image processing and improving the accuracy and efficiency of fraud detection within the automated retail system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cameras merely capture before/after images for analyzation. The cameras themselves are generic cameras, and are not triggered or change in any way, and merely gather image data for the abstract idea. The bounding box is also recited with a very high level of generality, merely representing marking an area of an image where a difference has been spotted. Determining a likelihood of fraud based on content of a difference image within a marked area (bounding box) does not represent any technical activity, but merely observing and evaluating an image, and is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any computer-inherent “computer-vision” techniques, and merely claims marking an area of an image where there is a difference between two images, and analyzing the image to determine a likelihood of fraudulent activity in a commercial space. The additional elements are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a particular technological environment, and the claims are directed to the analyzing of image data to determine the likelihood of fraud. Any reduction in image processing is merely a result of a more efficient algorithm of the abstract idea that merely does not utilize any image manipulation, and improving the accuracy and efficiency of fraud detection merely represents an improved abstract idea.
On page 11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, it is argued that amended claim 21 recites additional elements beyond any alleged abstract idea that, both individually and in ordered combination, amount to significantly more, such as applying, within a difference image representing a difference between the first image and the second image, a bounding box at a location of the difference, and determining whether a likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted threshold based on content of the difference image within the bounding box.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The bounding boxes are recited with a very high level of generality in the claims, the claims merely reciting that a bounding box is applied within an image, and a likelihood of fraud is determined based on the content within the bounding box without any further detail. The claims do not recite any particular manner is how the bounding box is generated, what all entails with the bounding box, or how the bounding box is used in the determination of the likelihood of fraud. Additionally, the specification does not provide any further detail except that the bounding boxes are placed around objects of interest in a frame (specification: [0047]). By broadest reasonable interpretation, the bounding boxes are merely to mark an area of a location where there is a difference, such as someone merely drawing a circle around an area of the image. How any technical field is changed or improved is not recited in the claims, and the additional elements merely represent generic elements that help implement the abstract idea with a computer.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/5/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 21-28 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 29-35 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 36-40 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claims 21-40 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 21 as representative, claim 21 sets forth a process for determining a probability of fraud:
adjust a fraud threshold based on at least one of a time of day, a user history, an inventory, a recent fraud incident, or local weather;
apply, within a difference image representing a difference between the first image and the second image, a bounding box at a location of the difference;
determine, based on content of the difference image with the bounding box, whether a likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold;
output, based on a determination that the likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold, an alert associated with the transaction.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for determining a probability of fraud. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to adjusting a fraud threshold, determining a likelihood of fraud based on comparing two or more images, and outputting an alert if the likelihood of fraud exceeds a threshold (see specification [0002] disclosing the frustration of conventional checkout lines), which is an advertising and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 21 recites additional elements, such as:
a product enclosure including a camera configured to capture a first image before a transaction begins and a second image after the transaction begins;
a remote computing device including a first memory and first processor configured to execute instructions stored in the first memory;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 21 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a remote computing device with a memory and processor, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and are merely recited in passing as a preamble for executing the steps of the abstract idea. The specification does not disclose much detail regarding the remote computing device and the memory and processor. Specification paragraph [0044] discloses a server in a cloud, and paragraph [0045] discloses that the instructions may be stored in any type of non-transitory computer-readable storage or memory device. The processor is not disclosed with any particularity exception as being configured to perform various steps of the abstract idea in the summary of the specification. As such, it is evident that these elements are generic computing components that are merely leveraged to implement the abstract idea on a computing device. The product enclosure including a camera also are not disclosed with any particularity or specificity. The closest disclosure occurs in specification paragraph [0038], which discloses the enclosures as “bodegas” that are about the size of a conventional vending machine, without any further detail. The cameras are not also disclosed in passing, except potential locations of the cameras, such as disclosed in specification paragraph [0039]. As such, it is clear that the additional elements are generic elements, that are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 21 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 21, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 21 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 21 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 21 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 21 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 29 (method): Claim 29 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 21 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 29 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 21.
Regarding Claim 36 (apparatus): Claim 36 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 21 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 36 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 21.
Dependent claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 21, such as by further defining the algorithm of determining a probability of fraud, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 21. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 21. Thus, dependent claims 22-28, 30-35, and 37-40 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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 21-23, 28-30, 35-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kundu (US 9,892,438 B1) in view of Aaron (US 20080110786 A1), and in further view of Hicks (US 20160210732 A1).
Regarding Claim 21: Kundu discloses a system comprising:
a product enclosure including a camera configured to capture a first image before a transaction begins and a second image after the transaction begins; (Kundu: col. 4, ln. 1-5 - “The surveillance system can include a camera system composed of multiple analog and/or digital cameras, stationary, PTZ, etc. The camera system provides video coverage of the shelves, stocking areas, floor, and other travel zones of a retail store, and one or more data feeds providing a record of items inventoried and purchased”; Kundu: col. 11, ln. 1-5 – “A video camera in the item scanner device can be configured to produce images of retail items present in the item carrier apparatus 150 or produce images of the items being placed in the item carrier apparatus 150, produce images of the operators movements, actions, etc.”; Kundu: col. 4, ln. 32-45 – “The activity can be detected based on analyzing before/after imagery of a cart and respective items”).
a remote computing device including a first memory and first processor configured to execute instructions; (Kundu: col. 8, ln. 11-28 – “a computer program product including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., any physical computer readable hardware storage medium) on which software instructions are encoded for subsequent execution. The instructions, when executed in a computerized device having a processor or logic, program and/or cause the processor to perform the operations disclosed herein. Such arrangements are typically provided as software, code, instructions, and/or other data (e.g., data structures) arranged or encoded on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium such as an optical medium (e.g., CD-ROM), floppy disk, hard disk, memory stick, etc., or other a medium such as firmware or shortcode in one or more ROM, RAM, PROM, etc., or as an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), etc. The software or firmware or other such configurations can be installed onto a computerized device to cause the computerized device to perform the techniques explained herein”).
determine, based content of the difference, whether a likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold; (Kundu: col. 17, ln. 41-61 – “the analyzer 322 monitors the images associated with video data 121 to detect a first type of potentially suspicious activity such as motions indicative of the operator 108-1 placing a retail item in the item carrier apparatus 150. Assume in this example that the analyzer 323 monitors the images associated with video data 121 to detect a second type of potentially suspicious event such as detection of a presence of one or more additional retail items in the item carrier apparatus 150 than in a previous image frame of video data 121. In one embodiment, the video data 121 captures multiple frames of images per second. The information in the frames can be compared over time to detect a change in the number of retail items placed in the item carrier apparatus 150. In one embodiment, the analyzer 322 analyzes the detected video events in view of probability model such as model 422. Model 422 can include probability information indicating a likelihood of whether a respective type of event as detected by analyzer 322 is potentially suspicious or not”; Kundu: col. 18, ln. 41-46 – “Based on comparison of the aggregated value to a threshold value (such as a probability threshold value), the aggregate analyzer resource 350 produces an overall output value indicative of whether a customer action corresponding to the detected video event and the detected sensor event is suspicious”).
output, based on a determination that the likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold, an alert associated with the transaction. (Kundu: col. 18, ln. 41-54 – “Based on comparison of the aggregated value to a threshold value (such as a probability threshold value), the aggregate analyzer resource 350 produces an overall output value indicative of whether a customer action corresponding to the detected video event and the detected sensor event is suspicious. The aggregate analyzer resource notifies information manager 360 of such information”).
Kundu does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
adjust a fraud threshold based on at least one of a time of day, a user history, an inventory, a recent fraud incident, or local weather;
apply, within a difference image representing a difference between the first image and the second image, a bounding box at a location of the difference;
Notably, however, Kundu does disclose adjusting the threshold to higher or lower values in order based on times when there is a higher or lower likelihood of activity (Kundu: col. 18, ln. 48-54).
To that accord, Aaron does teach adjust a fraud threshold based on at least one of a time of day, a user history, an inventory value, a recent fraud incident, or an environmental factor; Examiner notes that Applicant recites at least one of in the claim. (Aaron: [0061] – “the threshold score(s) may be made adaptable based on adaptation rules and parameters, such as the month, week, day of week, time of day, frequency of verification requests, and/or frequency of verification denials. Also, multiple thresholds and/or threshold scores may be used in some cases, as for example when rules are made conditional on various inputs and/or are triggered by particular occurrences or conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kundu disclosing the system for detecting suspicious activity based on activity identified in video feeds compared to a threshold with the time of day being used to adjust the fraud threshold as taught by Aaron. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the chances of fraudulent purchases, transactions, and other activities (Aaron: [0061]).
Kundu in view of Aaron does not explicitly teach apply, within a difference image representing a difference between the first image and the second image, a bounding box at a location of the difference; Notably, however, Kundu does disclose detecting a change in items between images (Kundu: col. 17, ln. 41-61).
To that accord, Hicks does teach apply, within a difference image representing a difference between the first image and the second image, a bounding box at a location of the difference; (Hicks: [0045] – “the difference identifier 520 can modify one or more image characteristics of the representative captured image in the location of the identified difference region(s) to visually indicate that these regions in the representative captured image is/are different from the corresponding region(s) in the reference image (and, thus, these region(s) of the inventory display being audited have likely changes since the prior/initial audit). Examples of image characteristics that can be modified by the difference identifier 520 to indicate the identified difference region(s) include, but are not limited to, the luminance and/or chrominance of the difference region(s), an average color in the difference region(s), and overlay of an outline and/or text in the identified difference region(s), etc., and/or any combination thereof”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kundu in view of Aaron disclosing the system for detecting suspicious activity based on activity identified in video feeds compared to a threshold with the applying a bounding box at a location of the difference within a difference image as taught by Hicks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to audit the items within an inventory display (Hicks: [0015]).
Regarding Claim 22: Kundu in view of Aaron and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kundu further discloses wherein the camera is configured to capture video and the first image and the second image are frames of the passively recorded video. (Kundu: col. 4, ln. 2-5 – “The camera system provides video coverage of the shelves, stocking areas, floor, and other travel zones of a retail store, and one or more data feeds providing a record of items inventoried and purchased”; Kundu: col. 17, ln. 48-56 – “the analyzer 323 monitors the images associated with video data 121 to detect a second type of potentially suspicious event such as detection of a presence of one or more additional retail items in the item carrier apparatus 150 than in a previous image frame of video data 121. In one embodiment, the video data 121 captures multiple frames of images per second. The information in the frames can be compared over time to detect a change in the number of retail items placed in the item carrier apparatus”). In summary, the cameras continuously surveil the various spaces of the retailer, such as the shelves or the carrier apparatus, which is a passively recorded video.
Regarding Claim 23: Kundu in view of Aaron and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kundu further discloses wherein the product enclosure includes a second memory and a second processor configured to execute instructions stored in the second memory to:
upload the video in response to receiving a request from the remote computing device to upload the video. (Kundu: col. 29, ln. 33-37 – “Communications interface 817 enables the computer system 810 and processor hardware 813 to communicate over a resource such as network 190 to retrieve information from and/or transmit information to remote sources (e.g., remote processor) and communicate with other computers”; Kundu: col. 12, ln. 39-45 – “As shown, the analyzer resource 140 receives the video data 121. As mentioned, the video data 121 can capture images of a customer (such as operator 108-1) in a shopping area 110 placing a set of retail items 120 into item carrier apparatus 150. The video sources 195 also can capture images of a respective customer or person merely taking possession (e.g., carrying) one or more retail items”). In summary, the video data is uploaded to another computer based on the need for event data.
Regarding Claim 28: Kundu in view of Aaron and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kundu further discloses identify, in response to the determination that the likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold, a product based on the difference between the first and second image. (Kundu: col. 4, ln. 32-38 – “The activity can be detected based on analyzing before/after imagery of a cart and respective items, activity can also be based on object recognition and identification techniques to identify and/or count the items in the cart, and so on. Any of one or more of such methods can provide an accurate and precise count or change-in-count of the items present in the cart at any given time”; Kundu: col. 18, ln. 41-46 – “Based on comparison of the aggregated value to a threshold value (such as a probability threshold value), the aggregate analyzer resource 350 produces an overall output value indicative of whether a customer action corresponding to the detected video event and the detected sensor event is suspicious”).
Regarding Claims 29 and 36: Claims 29 and 36 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 21. Therefore, claims 29 and 36 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 21 above.
Regarding Claims 30 and 37: Claims 30 and 37 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, claims 30 and 37 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 22 above.
Regarding Claims 35 and 40: Claims 35 and 40 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 28. Therefore, claims 35 and 40 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 28 above.
Claims 24, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Kundu (US 9,892,438 B1), Aaron (US 20080110786 A1), and Hicks (US 20160210732 A1), in view of Friedman (US 20180158269 A1).
Regarding Claim 24: The combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 23 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach request the video from the computing device in response to the determination that the likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold. Notably, however, Kundu does disclose determining that the probability exceeds a threshold for suspicious activity (Kundu: col. 18, ln. 41-46).
To that accord, Friedman does teach request the video from the computing device in response to the determination that the likelihood of fraud is greater than the adjusted fraud threshold. (Friedman: [0063] – “when the total grade indicates that there is high probability of deception, or that the results are inconclusive, additional analysis tools may be applied to the image or images obtained”). In summary, when the grade is high enough, the images are obtained for further analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks disclosing the system detecting suspicious activity based on activity identified in video feeds compared to a threshold with the request for the video in response to a determination that the likelihood exceeds the threshold as taught by Friedman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to perform additional checks in identifying the fraud (Friedman: [0063]).
Regarding Claims 31 and 38: Claims 31 and 38 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 24. Therefore, claims 31 and 38 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 24 above.
Claims 25, 27, 32, 34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Kundu (US 9,892,438 B1), Aaron (US 20080110786 A1), and Hicks (US 20160210732 A1), in view of Sullivan (US 20080110786 A1).
Regarding Claim 25: The combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 23 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach request the video from the computing device based on the difference between the first and second image. Notably, however, Kundu does disclose detecting activity in before/after imagery (Kundu: col. 4, ln. 32-38).
To that accord, Sullivan does teach request the video from the computing device based on the difference between the first and second image. (Sullivan: [0026] – “in response to detecting the triggering motion, transmission of frames from the video feed may occur at an increased rate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks disclosing the system detecting suspicious activity based on activity identified in video feeds compared to a threshold with the request for the video in response to determining differences in the images as taught by Sullivan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate responsive detection of a trigger image and limit bandwidth consumption (Sullivan: [0026]).
Regarding Claim 27: The combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein camera periodically captures content including the first image and the second image. Notably, however, Kundu does disclose detecting activity in before/after imagery (Kundu: col. 4, ln. 32-38).
To that accord, Sullivan does teach wherein camera periodically captures content including the first image and the second image. (Sullivan: [0024] – “periodically transmitting frames to a remote server at 210. The remote server may detect trigger images in frames and respond with information that facilitates augmenting the trigger image into an augmented image. The frames may be periodically transmitted at a first interval”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks disclosing the system detecting suspicious activity based on activity identified in video feeds compared to a threshold with the periodic capturing of the content as taught by Sullivan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to limit bandwidth consumption (Sullivan: [0026]).
Regarding Claims 32 and 39: Claims 32 and 39 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 25. Therefore, claims 32 and 39 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 25 above.
Regarding Claim 34: Claim 34 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 27. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 27 above.
Claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Kundu (US 9,892,438 B1), Aaron (US 20080110786 A1), and Hicks (US 20160210732 A1), in view of Dipaolo (US 20140117818 A1).
Regarding Claim 26: The combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the product enclosure includes a second memory and a second processor configured to execute instructions stored in the second memory to:
determine whether a door of the product enclosure has been open for at least a predetermined period of time;
responsive to a determination that the door of the product enclosure has been open for longer than the predetermined period of time, transmit the first image and the second image to the remote computing device.
Notably, however, Kundu does disclose transmitting information and communicating with remote sources and other computers (Kundu: col. 29, ln. 33-37).
To that accord, Dipaolo does teach wherein:
determine whether a door of the product enclosure has been open for at least a predetermined period of time; (Dipaolo: [0188] – “The alert notification or signal transmission is activated if the barrier 140 or access door is open a predetermined amount of time”).
responsive to a determination that the door of the product enclosure has been open for longer than the predetermined period of time, transmit the first image and the second image to the remote computing device. (Dipaolo: [0188] – “The signal can alert the store computer or personnel that the barrier 140 or access door has been opened for a particular period of time and can activate the security camera and monitor to show the thief an image of himself or herself in front of the product. This image can be recorded.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Kundu, Aaron, and Hicks disclosing the system detecting suspicious activity based on activity identified in video feeds compared to a threshold with the determining the door has been opened for longer than a predetermined period of time and transmitting images in response as taught by Dipaolo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to monitor possible theft (Dipaolo: [0188]).
Regarding Claim 33: Claim 33 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 26 above.
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 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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm EST.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights