DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, 23 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “triggering a beginning of a delay.” There is no support for this in the as-filed specification. The as-filed specification describes the delay as “inherent,” a description of how long the system takes to process video for transmission. It is not an intentional waiting period, therefore, it is not “triggered.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimada (US PG Publication 2020/0177849).
Regarding Claim 17, Shimada (US PG Publication 2020/0177849) discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform a method (software [0099]) comprising:
capturing, by a camera, a video sequence that depicts (capture image/during recording, S1-S2, Fig. 16, [0252]) a property (any land in the background of the video);
buffering by the camera and in memory, the video sequence (“recording” means saving, storing [0252]);
while continuing to capture and buffer the video sequence (during recording, S2, Fig. 16, [0252]):
detecting (determined that [0253]; action information generator, S61, Fig. 23), by the camera (wearable camera 10 determines whether there is a default event based on video analysis result data [0137]), a representation of an entity of interest (list of detected actions in Figs. 8, 15) depicted in at least a portion of the video sequence (there is a default event [0253]; video analysis result [0244] from captured video [0211]); and
in response to detecting (“is there action information?” is YES at S7 [0253], Fig. 23) the representation of the entity of interest (list of trigger events in Figs. 5, 7, [0253]) depicted in at least the portion of the video sequence (video analysis result [0244] from captured video [0211]):
triggering (note, “triggering” is not defined in this context in the as-filed specification) a beginning of a delay time period (the beginning of the time period is when the event is detected: “is there action information?” is YES at S7 [0253], Fig. 23) that is based on a time period to process data for the video sequence for sending to the analysis system (the time consumed from the end of executing step S7 to the end of executing step S46, Fig. 23);
selecting a snapshot from the video sequence (generate/transmit a thumbnail [0255]) using one or more duration criteria (thumbnail image is singular; the duration criteria is therefore one image; “duration criteria” is defined in the as-filed specification as “a maximum duration for the portion,” Spec. at [0074]; it can be “a single image,” Spec. at [0074]);
sending, to the video analysis system (to the investigation headquarter [0255]), the snapshot (generate/transmit a thumbnail [0255]) a) that was selected from the video sequence (by using captured video data [0255]) using the one or more duration criteria (thumbnail image is singular; the duration criteria is therefore one image; “duration criteria” is defined in the as-filed specification as “a maximum duration for the portion,” Spec. at [0074]; it can be “a single image,” Spec. at [0074]) and b) that includes the representation of the entity (thumbnails in Fig. 18 have entities);
and after expiration of the delay time period (after step S45 is executed, Fig. 23), sending, to the video analysis system (to the investigation headquarter [0257]), at least a portion of the video sequence (stream captured video S46, Fig. 23, [0257]).
Regarding Claim 18, Shimada (US PG Publication 2020/0177849) discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the camera sends the snapshot only in response to only detecting the representation of the entity (if YES at “is there information,” S7, proceed to “transmit thumbnail,” S44, Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 19, Shimada (US PG Publication 2020/0177849) discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the portion of the video sequence includes the snapshot (thumbnail is a still image [0217], i.e., captured by the camera, inherent).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of claim 17, wherein sending the snapshot comprises sending the snapshot (generate/transmit a thumbnail [0255], S44 Fig. 23) within a time period (is between the point in time when S7 is performed and S46 is performed, Fig. 23) from detecting the representation of the entity in the video sequence (at the end of S7 when the action is detected, Fig. 23) that is less than the delay time period of the camera for sending data (time from point S7 in the flow chart to S46 in the flow chart, Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 21, Shimada (US PG Publication 2020/0177849) discloses the system of claim 17, wherein a data size of the snapshot is less than a data size of the at least a portion of video sequence (thumbnail [0255], S44 Fig. 23, as opposed to captured video [0257], S46, Fig. 23; thumbnails refer to smaller images/files representative of the original image).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 5/21/2026 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues at the bottom of page 8 that Shimada does not select or transmit a snapshot based on “duration criteria.” This is not persuasive because applicant’s definition of duration criteria is broad enough to cover Shimada’s sending a thumbnail image. Applicant defines duration criteria as a single image or a number of images based on maximum duration. Spec. at [0074]. Since Shimada sends a thumbnail in the singular, it qualifies as satisfying the maximum duration of one image.
Applicant argues that because “a finite amount of time elapses between steps S41 and step S7,” the alleged delay of Shimada is not triggered in response to determining the entity is within the threshold distance of the property. Remarks at 9. This argument is unclear. “finite amount of time” is unrelated to any claim language and it’s not clear why this feature appears to be relevant to the applicant. Also, Applicant has amended limitations to “threshold distance” out of the claims, therefore, it’s not clear why applicant is arguing this limitation.
Applicant next argues that Examiner is relying on “personal knowledge” by alleging that Shimada triggers a delay time period at the end of Step S7. This is not persuasive. Applicant describes the trigger of the delay being the point in time when the event is detected, and step S7 is simply where and when that is in Shimada. Remarks at 9. Then, Applicant argues that the flow chart of Fig. 23 is not evidence of timing. This is not persuasive because the flow chart is depicts an order of discrete, sequential events, which represents a flow and an order of steps in time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060193534 A1 - image data captured during the moving-object detection period can be distributed in a stream
US 20140146172 A1 - transmitting still image of detected target in monitoring area
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights