Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/006,515

IMAGE SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING TECHNOLOGY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 31, 2024
Examiner
REYNOLDS, DEBORAH J
Art Unit
2400
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Alarm.com Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
111 granted / 166 resolved
+8.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
80 currently pending
Career history
246
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 166 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAIL ACTION Priority This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Application No. 61248263, filed on 10/2/2009 and is hereby incorporated by references. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/6/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 2-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20070262857 A1) in view of Baer (US 20050111696 A1) and Brodsky (US 20070024707 A1). Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses a system [e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 6-7; alarm system] at a property [e.g. a house or a building] and that comprises one or more computers [e.g. computers] and one or more storage devices [e.g. storage means] on which are stored instructions [e.g. software instructions] that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: detecting, using one or more first images captured by a camera at the property [e.g. FIG. 1-2; images captured by camera 2], a potential alert event [alarm condition]; in response to detecting the potential alert event [e.g. capturing image in response to a detection event], transmitting, to a different system [e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 5-6; transmitting images to a remote server] that is not located at the property, at least one of the one or more first images; buffering, in a buffer [e.g. means for storing image] , two or more second images [e.g. storing images captured from the camera locally], determining, using the two or more second images [e.g. [0016 and 0082-0087]; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server; transmitting real-time images], whether the potential alert event is an actual alert event [e.g. FIG. 5-7; detecting a valid or invalid alarm]; and in response to determining whether the potential alert event is an actual alert event [e.g. transmitting real-time images for image-based monitoring before, during, and/or after a response to an alarm], selectively transmitting the two or more second images to the different system [e.g. [0016 and 0082-0087]; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server] or discarding the two or more second images from the buffer. Although Jackson discloses transmitting real-time images for image-based monitoring before, during, and/or after a response to an alarm, it is noted that Jackson differs to the present invention in that Jackson fails to explicitly disclose the detail of the two image sets. However, Baer teaches the well-known concept of a surveillance system capturing a first quantity of the at least one of the one or more first images [e.g. FIG. 5-6; capturing current image a long exposure time; a first quantity is 1] being less than a second quantity of the two or more second images [e.g. after the event is detected, capturing one or more event or high quality images; the second quantity could be 2]; using the two or more second images to determine whether the potential alert event is an actual alert event [detecting event; the appearance of an intruder]. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system disclosed by Jackson to exploit the well-known concept of capturing images for a surveillance system technique taught by Baer as above, in order to provide sufficient artificial illumination to capture one or more additional high quality images of the event [See Baer; [0024]]. Moreover, Brodsky teaches the well-known concept of determining, by the monitoring system, to discarding the two or more second images from the buffer [e.g. FIG.2; paragraph 0021; e.g. identify images that are potentially relevant to the video application 270. More specifically, the image detector 260 applies one or more filters that are configured to eliminate images that are determined to be irrelevant to application 270 from further consideration]. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system disclosed by Jackson to exploit the well-known concept of capturing images for a surveillance system technique taught by Baer and the well-known concept of image processing technique taught by Brodsky as above, in order to provide sufficient artificial illumination to capture one or more additional high quality images of the event [See Baer; [0024]] and a video monitoring system that reduces the amount of video processing or video analysis required to perform a given task. [See Brodsky; [0011]]. Regarding claim 3, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose the one or more first images comprise two or more first images [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-6; capturing and transmitting real-time images for image-based monitoring before, during, and/or after a response to an alarm; Baer: FIG. 5-6; Brodsky: FIG. 2-3], the operations comprising: in response to detecting the potential alert event, selecting, from the two or more first images, an image that satisfies a relevancy criterion for the potential alert event, wherein transmitting the at least one of the one or more first images comprises transmitting, to the different system, the image that satisfies the relevancy criterion for the potential alert event [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2; capable of detecting a threshold alarm event; Baer: FIG. 5-6]. Regarding claim 4, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose the one or more first images comprise two or more first images; and transmitting the at least one of the one or more first images comprises transmitting, to the different system, a first image from the two or more first images [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-6; capturing and transmitting real-time images for image-based monitoring before, during, and/or after a response to an alarm; Baer: FIG. 5-6; Brodsky: FIG. 2-3]. Regarding claim 5, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose transmitting the two or more second images to the different system in response to determining that the potential alert event is an actual alert event [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-7]. Regarding claim 6, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose in response to determining that the potential alert event is an actual alert event: determining to skip analyzing the two or more second images as part of an event of interest process; and transmitting the two or more second images to the different system [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-7; Brodsky: FIG.2; paragraph 0021; e.g. identify images that are potentially relevant to the video application 270. More specifically, the image detector 260 applies one or more filters that are configured to eliminate images that are determined to be irrelevant to application 270 from further consideration]. Regarding claim 7, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose selectively transmitting the two or more second images to the different system or discarding the two or more second images from the buffer comprises: discarding, from the buffer, the two or more second images in response to determining that the potential alert event is not an actual alert event [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-7; Brodsky: FIG.2; paragraph 0021; e.g. identify images that are potentially relevant to the video application 270. More specifically, the image detector 260 applies one or more filters that are configured to eliminate images that are determined to be irrelevant to application 270 from further consideration]. Regarding claim 8, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose discarding the two or more second images comprises deleting, from the buffer, the two or more second images [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-7; [0016]; Brodsky: FIG.2; paragraph 0021; e.g. identify images that are potentially relevant to the video application 270. More specifically, the image detector 260 applies one or more filters that are configured to eliminate images that are determined to be irrelevant to application 270 from further consideration]. Regarding claim 9, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose discarding the two or more second images comprises discarding, from image analysis for the potential alert event, the two or more second images [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-7; Brodsky: FIG.2]. Regarding claim 10, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose in response to determining that the potential alert event is not an actual alert event [e.g. Jackson FIG. 2-4 and 5-7; determining invalid alarm; [0015-0016]], analyzing the two or more second images as part of an event of interest process before discarding the two or more second images from the buffer [e.g. ; Brodsky: FIG.2]. Regarding claim 11, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose selectively transmitting, to the different system not located at the property, at least one of the one or more first images or the two or more second images uses a wireless network [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-6; wireless connectivity; Baer: FIG. 2-4; wireless connection]. Regarding claim 12, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose detecting the potential alert event comprises detecting a potential camera tamper event for the camera [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-6; motion sensor detection camera]. Regarding claim 13, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose the system comprises the camera [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2 and 5-6; camera; Baer: FIG. 1-3; Brodsky: FIG. 2-3]. Regarding claim 14, Jackson, Baer and Brodsky further disclose the camera is located in a building at the property [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 1-2; [0018]; Cameras 2 can be affixed to or at least partially within structural features of a building]. Regarding claim 15-20, this is a non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations that includes same limitation as in claim 2-7 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Regarding claim 21, this is a method that includes same limitation as in claim 2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Naidoo et al (US 20040086089 A1). Babich et al (US 20080284580 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-2727383. 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. /ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 31, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12534225
SATELLITE DISPENSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12441265
Mechanisms for moving a pod out of a vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12434638
VEHICLE INTERIOR PANEL WITH ONE OR MORE DAMPING PADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Patent 12372654
Adaptive Control of Ladar Systems Using Spatial Index of Prior Ladar Return Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 29, 2025
Patent 12365469
AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEM WITH INTERMITTENT COMBUSTION ENGINE(S)
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 22, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 166 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month