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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,295,140. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because representative patent claims 3 and 19 require the additional elements (See the highlighted elements shown in the table below) not required by representative application method claims 1 and 8 respectively, and the same analysis is also applied to application apparatus claim vs patent apparatus claim 19. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims recite common subject matter;
Whereby representative application claims 1 and 8 which recite the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising", do not preclude the additional elements recited by representative patent claims 3 and 19 respectively, and
Whereby the elements of representative application claims 1 and 8 are fully anticipated by representative patent claims 3 and 19 respectively, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness". (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
US Application Number 18/931,454
Us Patent Number 11,295,140
Claim 1. A method comprising:
Claim 3. A method comprising:
determining a motion event in a portion of a field of view, wherein the portion of the field of view is associated with a processing priority;
based on a quantity of motion events in a first portion of a field of view satisfying a threshold, associating the portion of the field of view with a reduced notification setting; wherein the reduced notification setting comprises at least one of: a notification exclusion setting, a notification withholding setting, or a reduced processing priority
determining a prioritization of a notification for the motion event based on the processing priority; and
after associating the portion of the field of view with the reduced notification setting, determining a subsequent motion event in the portion of the field of view; and
sending the notification according to the prioritization.
based on object recognition of an object associated with the subsequent motion event, sending a notification.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Hogg, et al. (US 2016/0042621 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Hogg, et al. disclose a method comprising: determining a motion event in a portion of a field of view, wherein the portion of the field of view is associated with a processing priority; determining a prioritization of a notification for the motion event based on the processing priority; and sending the notification according to the prioritization (See paragraphs 0197-0219). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
With regard to claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the processing priority is associated with one or more of: sending a notification, triggering an alarm, or starting a recording (See for example, 0215-0219).
With regard to claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the processing priority is an escalated, i.e., based on the priority value, some actions may be taken immediately, processing priority (See for example, paragraph 0215).
With regard to claim 4, the method of claim 1, wherein the processing priority is a downgraded processing priority (low priority See for example, paragraph 0215 and 0221).
With regard to claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein sending the notification according to the prioritization comprises: queueing the notification in a queue comprising a plurality of notifications; and sending the notification (See for example, paragraph 0218).
With regard to claim 6, the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a response to the notification (See for example, 0224-0226).
With regard to claim 7, the method of claim 1, further comprising determining one or more of: a speed, a location, a trajectory of the motion event, or an object associated with the motion event (See for example, paragraphs 0197, 0203-0204, 0215, and 0224).
Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected the same as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively, except claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are apparatus claims. Thus, argument similar to those presented above for claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 15. Claim 15 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions thereon. Fortunately, Hogg, et al. (See for example, paragraph 0050) teach this feature.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19,and 20 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 respectively. Thus, argument similar to those presented above are respectively applicable to claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Number 10,380,429 (See for example, Fig. 16, and the associated text); US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0329193 (See for example, paragraphs 0119-0143); and Computer English Translation of WO2014/072910 A1 (See for example, Fig. 2 and the associated text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights