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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application
with application number IN 202311085054 dated 12/13/2023. Copies of certified
papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received Priority is acknowledged under 35
USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 04/25/2025 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Drawings
The 6-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea. The claims recite a system and method for detecting flames/smoke using an image and sensor information. With respect to independent system claim 1:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a system i.e., a device or a machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
The limitation “associate at least a portion of the array of pixels with a corresponding one or more zones; associate the corresponding one or more zones with a criticality level; and determine a status based at least on the analyzed POV of the captured one or more images and the criticality level of the corresponding one or more zones" as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
As such, a person could view an imaging area, separate the area into zones where each zone is assigned a rule or category of criticality, and determine whether a fire is present based on the zone and rule/category of the imaging area with a degree of error or lack thereof either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “at least one image capturing device configured to capture one or more images in a field of view (POV), wherein each of the one or more images comprises an array of pixels; one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, configured to analyze the POV of the captured one or more images” and “receive the one or more captured images” as recited are drafted as mere data gathering, which may not be considered as an element which integrates the above-listed identified abstract idea into practical application per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device and the one or more sensors” are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO,
The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional step/element/limitation amounts to no more than an abstract idea performed on a computer. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III). Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
In addition, the elements of claim 12 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 1. Therefore independent claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible, either.
Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-20, under their broadest reasonable interpretation are identified as: being either directed towards mere data gathering or an abstract idea, mental process and mathematical calculation, and not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, claims 1-20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (US 8,655,010 B2) in view of Pilla et al. (US 2024/0021059 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Finn teaches “An imaging-based flame detection system (Finn column 2 lines 21-22 "system that provides for alarm suppression in video-based fire detection systems") comprising:
at least one image capturing device configured to capture one or more images in a field of view (FOV), wherein each of the one or more images comprises an array of pixels (Finn column 2 lines 51-52 "Video detector 12 may be a video camera or other image data capture device");
(Finn column 3 lines 55-56 “Rules-based ARs 27 are stored and employed by video recognition system 14”) configured to:
receive the one or more captured images (Finn column 2 lines 61-67 "Video detector 12 captures a number of successive video images or frames. Video input from video detector 12 is provided to video recognition system 14. In particular, frame buffer 20 temporarily stores a number of individual frames. Frame buffer 20 may retain one frame, every successive frame, a sub sampling of successive frames, or may only store a certain number of successive frames for periodic analysis");
associate at least a portion of the array of pixels with a corresponding one or more zones (Finn Figure 2A and column 5 lines 5-12 "FIG. 2A illustrates an image acquired by a video detector (e.g., video detector 12 shown in FIG. 1) that includes a plurality of smokestacks with plumes of smoke exiting from the top of each smoke stack. To suppress the presence of false alarms, a user defines within the field of view of the video detector a pair of ARs, 42 and 44, located in the region immediately surrounding each smokestack top" );
PNG
media_image1.png
363
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finn Figure 2A
associate the corresponding one or more zones with a criticality level (Finn column 4 lines 1-7 "Having defined the size and location of the AR with respect to the field of view of video detector 12, the user defines a rule associated with the AR. The rule may be entered by the user with keyboard 32, but as a practical matter, a plurality of available rules would likely be provided to the user by a drop-down menu, wherein the user would select one of the plurality of rules to associate with the defined AR"); and
determine a status based at least on the analyzed FOV of the captured one or more images and the criticality level of the corresponding one or more zones (Finn column 4 lines 8-14 "if smoke is detected and the region defined as containing smoke is adjacent, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm." A similar rule may test for the presence of flame, stating "if flame is detected and the region defined as containing flame is adjacent to, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm."").”
However, Finn is not relied on to teach “one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, configured to analyze the FOV of the captured one or more images; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device and the one or more sensors”.
Pilla teaches “one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, configured to analyze the FOV of the captured one or more images (Pilla paragraph [0022] "Flame detector 10 may be used to detect a flame 20 within the field of view 112 of the infrared sensor 110 and the field of view 122 of the thermal camera 120. These fields of view 112, 122 overlaps for an area being monitored"); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device and the one or more sensors (Pilla paragraph [0026] "flame detector 10 may include one or more infrared sensors 202, one or more thermal cameras 204, memory 208, processor 210, communication
circuitry 212, input/output circuitry 214, and display 216, which may be connected via bus 206")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a system for detecting a fire and minimizing false alarms as taught by Finn to include an additional sensor to detect flame/smoke as taught by Pilla.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that there is a need to reduce false fire alarms, " "Flame detectors have used optical cameras, including infrared or ultraviolet cameras. These flame detectors, however, come with many limitations, including being prone to false alarms, particularly false alarms from radiation sources that are not flames. Examples of such radiation sources include heaters, welders, the sun, reflections ( e.g., of sunlight, flames etc.), etc. Additionally, infrared flame detectors and ultraviolet flame detectors have their own disadvantages. For example, infrared detectors are affected by temperature and subject to false alarms from IR sources. Ultraviolet detectors are affect by smoke and oil vapors on optics" as noted by the Pilla disclosure in paragraph 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Finn with the Pilla disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the system with elements
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of system
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Finn and Pilla references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claim 13), the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more infrared (IR) sensors, flame sensors, or photodiodes (Pilla paragraph [0026] "flame detector 10 may include one or more infrared sensors 202, one or more thermal cameras 204").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Finn and Pilla references presented in the rejection of claim 1, applies to claim 2. Finally the system recited in claim 2 is met by Finn and Pilla.
Regarding claim 3 (similarly claim 14), the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 1, wherein the criticality level of each respective zone of the one or more zones is non-critical, critical, or highly critical (Finn column 4 lines 8-14 "if smoke is detected and the region defined as containing smoke is adjacent, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm." A similar rule may test for the presence of flame, stating "if flame is detected and the region defined as containing flame is adjacent to, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm."").”
Regarding claim 4 (similarly claim 15), the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 3, wherein the status indicates presence of a flame or smoke in the corresponding one or more zones (Finn column 4 lines 30-33 "A similar rule may test for the presence of flame, stating "if flame is detected in a region not overlapping an acceptable region and the flame is correlated with flame detected within the acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm."").”
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 16), the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 4, wherein the non-critical zone corresponds to a zone with an expected flame (Finn Figure 2A and column 4 lines 8-11 "if smoke is detected and the region defined as containing smoke is adjacent, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm.""), the critical zone corresponds to a zone with a possible non-critical flame (Finn Figure 2A and column 4 line 11-14 "A similar rule may test for the presence of a flame stating "if flame is detected and the region defined as containing flame is adjacent to, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm.""), and the highly critical zone corresponds to a zone with a possible unexpected flame (Finn column 4 lines 42-62 "Alarm suppressor 26 receives regions identified as indica-tive of fire from detector 24. This may include regions identified specifically as containing smoke, regions identified as containing flame, or may indicate the presence of both. Alarm suppressor 26 compares the regions identified as indicative of fire with the user-defined ARs to determine if there is overlap. For example, this may include comparing pixel locations associated with regions identified as indicative of fire and user-defined ARs. If there is overlap between the regions, then alarm suppressor 26 applies the rule associated with the user defined AR to determine whether or not the alarm should be triggered or suppressed. For instance, applying the first exemplary rule defined above, having determined that a region indicative of smoke is adjacent to the user-defined AR, alarm suppressor 26 determines whether the region identified as indicative of smoke completely overlaps the AR. If the region identified as indicative of smoke does not completely overlap the AR, then the alarm is suppressed, otherwise the alarm is triggered. Once again, this may include a pixel-by-pixel analysis to determine whether or not the AR is completely overlapped").”
Regarding claim 9 (similarly claim 20), the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the POV by evaluating the arrays of pixels of the at least one image capturing device and the one or more sensors to determine the status (Pilla paragraph [0044] "flame detector 10 may generate infrared sensor data and capture thermal images, which may be used to determine if a flame is present or is not present, including if there are any false alarms indicating that the detection of a flame is false and that a flame has not been detected").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Finn and Pilla references presented in the rejection of claim 1, applies to claim 9. Finally the system recited in claim 9 is met by Finn and Pilla.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 4, wherein the at least one image capturing device and the one or more sensors are spatially calibrated to analyze the flame within the POV of the captured one or more images (Pilla paragraph [0022] "Flame detector 10 may be used to detect a flame 20 within the field of view 112 of the infrared sensor 110 and the field of view 122 of the thermal camera 120. These fields of view 112, 122 overlaps for an area being monitored").”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to re-assign different criticality levels to the one or more zones during an operation of the imaging-based flame detection system (Finn column 4 lines 1-7 "Having defined the size and location of the AR with respect to the field of view of video detector 12, the user defines a rule associated with the AR. The rule may be entered by the user with keyboard 32, but as a practical matter, a plurality of available rules would likely be provided to the user by a drop-down menu, wherein the user would select one of the plurality of rules to associate with the defined AR").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Finn and Pilla references presented in the rejection of claim 1, applies to claim 11. Finally the system recited in claim 11 is met by Finn and Pilla.
Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn and Pilla in view of Bonn (US 11,145,090 B2).
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 17), the combination of Finn and Pilla teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (Finn Figure 1 and column 4 lines 63-66 "Alarm system 18 is therefore triggered based on the decision and output provided by alarm suppressor 26. In an exemplary embodiment, alarm system 18 is triggered automatically based on the output provided by alarm suppressor 26"); and
transmit the first signal to a communication device, wherein the communication device (Finn column lines 20-25 "detection of a region indicative of fire results in triggering of the alarm system. In contrast, the present invention compares regions identified as indicative of fire to user defined ARs 27 to determine whether the alarm should be suppressed or triggered").
However, the combination of Finn and Pilla is not relied on to teach “generate a first signal” and “generates an audible information for a user to signal”.
Bonn teaches “generate a first signal (Bonn column 8 lines 49-55 "In an embodiment, if the deep learning system detects flames in the optical image slice, an alarm state is set")” and “generates an audible information for a user to signal (Bonn column 8 lines 49-55 "In an embodiment, if the deep learning system detects flames in the optical image slice, an alarm state is set. The alarm state may trigger actions locally or at a remote location. For example, the alarm state may activate an audible or visual alarm, activate a fire suppression system (e.g., a sprinkler system), or some other activity")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a system using image and sensor information for detecting a fire and minimizing false alarms as taught by Finn and Pilla to include alarm and notification as taught by Bonn.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "In cases where they system determines that flame is likely to be present, the system can perform further actions to alert users or the public, or otherwise mitigate the risk posed by fire" as noted by the Bonn disclosure in paragraph 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Finn and Pilla with the Bonn disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7 (similarly claim 18), the combination of Finn, Pilla, and Bonn teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: generate a second signal (Bonn column 8 lines 49-55 "In an embodiment, if the deep learning system detects flames in the optical image slice, an alarm state is set") upon detecting a non-critical flame within the critical zone (Finn Figure 2A and column 4 lines 8-11 "if smoke is detected and the region defined as containing smoke is adjacent, but not completely overlapping the indicated acceptable region, then do not raise an alarm.""); and
transmit the second signal to a communication device, wherein the communication device generates a notification for a user to signal (Bonn column 8 lines 55-58 "the alarm state may cause the system to generate automated messages (e.g., SMS messages) or phone alerts, cause information to be displayed on a roadway variable-message sign, or take some other action") the presence of the non-critical flame within the critical zone (Finn column lines 20-25 "detection of a region indicative of fire results in triggering of the alarm system. In contrast, the present invention compares regions identified as indicative of fire to user defined ARs 27 to determine whether the alarm should be suppressed or triggered").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Finn, Pilla, and Bonn references presented in the rejection of claim 6, applies to claim 7. Finally the system recited in claim 7 is met by Finn, Pilla, and Bonn.
Regarding claim 8 (similarly claim 19), the combination of Finn, Pilla, and Bonn teaches “The imaging-based flame detection system of Claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: generate a third signal (Bonn column 8 lines 49-55 "In an embodiment, if the deep learning system detects flames in the optical image slice, an alarm state is set") upon detecting the smoke within the non-critical zone (Finn column 3 lines 5-6 "detector 24 to identify the presence of flame or smoke"); and
transmit the third signal to a communication device, wherein the communication
device generates an audible information (Bonn column 8 lines 49-55 "In an embodiment, if the deep learning system detects flames in the optical image slice, an alarm state is set. The alarm state may trigger actions locally or at a remote location. For example, the alarm state may activate an audible or visual alarm, activate a fire suppression system (e.g., a sprinkler system), or some other activity") for a user to signal the presence of smoke within the non-critical zone (Finn column lines 20-25 "detection of a region indicative of fire results in triggering of the alarm system. In contrast, the present invention compares regions identified as indicative of fire to user defined ARs 27 to determine whether the alarm should be suppressed or triggered").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Finn, Pilla, and Bonn references presented in the rejection of claim 6, applies to claim 8. Finally the system recited in claim 8 is met by Finn, Pilla, and Bonn.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent 7098796 B2 to Chen et al. discloses a fire detection by capturing multiple images of a predetermined area and analyzing the images to determine whether the flame has increased in subsequent frames.
US Publication 20110050902 A1 to Hanses et al. discloses a fire detection by monitoring and analyzing both image data and sensor data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 PST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights