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 of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Chinese Application CN202210806173.7 filed July 8th, 2022).
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment on May 14th, 2025. Applicant amended the Claims, Abstract, and Specification. The Examiner refers to the Original Specification regarding Objections.
Applicant amended claims 1 – 2, 4 – 10, and 14 – 18.
The pending claims are 1 – 18.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 26th, 2025 and November 10th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraphs 84 – 86, there are two “conventional technology” cited, but no references / IDS citations, or illustration in the Figures as to the conventional technologies referred to thus the “1” and “2” are unclear if they are reference characters which would be duplicative reference characters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a memory configured to …” in claims 17 and 18.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the processor is configured to …” in claims 17 and 18.
The Examiner notes one of ordinary skill understands the terms “memory and “processor” and connoting sufficient structure and thus NOT invoking Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedikian, et al. (US Patent #10,600,189 B1 referred to as “Bedikian” throughout), and further in view of Chen, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0042931 A1 referred to as “Chen” throughout), and Kang, et al. (CN-114491145 A referred to as “Kang” throughout) [Cited in February 26th, 2025 IDS as FOR Item #2 – the version provided is cited for Citations].
Regarding claim 1, see claim 17 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 9, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 17, Bedikian teaches a system to capture event data with compression algorithms to process the event data. Chen teaches particulars of the event data captures especially the timing features (e.g. start and stop times). Kang teaches storing blocks / metadata in memory with addressing considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bedikian with the particulars of event data captured as taught by Chen and the storage / addressing of event data as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
a processor [Bedikian Figure 6 (see at least reference character 605) as well as Column 8 lines 4 – 61 (processors used with memory / camera to process data)]; and
a memory, configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein when executing the instructions, the processor is configured to [Bedikian Figure 6 (see at least reference characters 660 and 665) as well as Column 8 lines 4 – 61 (processors used with memory / camera to execute programs to process event data captured by the camera)]:
obtain event data [Bedikian Figures 1 and 4 – 5 (see at least reference character 110 and 130) as well as Column 3 line 11 – 59 (capturing event data / brightness changes by a camera with time stamp information)];
process the event data, to obtain a plurality of data blocks and a plurality of corresponding metadata blocks, wherein each data block of the plurality of data blocks comprises a part of processed event data [Bedikian Figures 1 – 5 (Figures 4 – 5 illustrate event data and Figure 2 – 3 process captured event data from Figure 1) as well as Column 3 lines 11 – 59, Column 5 lines 12 – 25 (grouping event data based on event / brightness changes / part of processed event data) and Column 7 lines 21 – 55 (blocks of event data processed together as a group (Column 5 lines 12 – 25 to render obvious the “metadata” blocks to one of ordinary skill in the art as well as the subsets of pixels too))], and each metadata block of the plurality of metadata blocks comprises a start time, an end time, a quantity, and a compression manner of event data in a data block corresponding to the metadata block, and a storage address of the data block [See previous limitation for Bedikian citations regarding the claimed “block” and “quantity” (polarity / location on the sensor) and additionally Bedikian Figure 1 as well as Column 4 line 62 – Column 5 line 45 (timestamps associated with change in brightness / polarity of data where the quantity is either the polarity or location of the data), Column 6 lines 36 – 62 (first / second period of times using timestamp information), and Column 8 lines 25 – 61 (compression of event data with compression manners (e.g. video codecs) and storing data in memory (rendering obvious the address claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)) where the specifics of the event data are further detailed in Chen Figures 2 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 (position and time of event data where brightness changed occurred including notations / formatting of event data), 50 – 52 and 68 – 70 (start and end times of a duration of event data); Kang Figures 3 – 5 as well as Pages 7 – 9 (see at least the “block_index array”, “CRC”, and “block_size” parameters for the storage address used in examples such as #4 and #4 under “Second, video stream data reading” section, “Fourth, metadata recover”, and “Example two” with steps #1 – 5 and additionally the metadata file storage discussion (Page 8 – 9 space for accessing such data and the paragraph prior to “Moreover” section))]; and
store the plurality of data blocks into a first storage area, and store the plurality of metadata blocks into a second storage area [See previous two limitations for the blocks / grouping of data as well as Bedikian Figure 1 as well as Column 3 lines 29 – 36 (network storage) and Column 8 lines 25 – 61 (storing data (including grouped events) in memory (rendering obvious the address claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)); Kang Figures 3 – 5 as well as Pages 7 – 9 (see at least the “block_index array”, “CRC”, and “block_size” parameters for the storage address used in examples such as #4 and #4 under “Second, video stream data reading” section, “Fourth, metadata recover”, and “Example two” with steps #1 – 5 and additionally the metadata file storage discussion (Page 8 – 9 space for accessing such data and the paragraph prior to “Moreover” section))].
The motivation to combine Chen with Bedikian is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of processing even data [Chen Paragraph 2] in order to improve processing / handling of event data grouping event data captured [Chen Paragraphs 5 – 6 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Kang with Chen and Bedikian is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of storing data with time tags and metadata storage [Kang Abstract] in order to improve reading / storage efficiency in retrieve / using the metadata filed [Kang Abstract where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Bedikian, Chen, and Kang which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 18, Bedikian teaches a system to capture event data with compression algorithms to process the event data. Chen teaches particulars of the event data captures especially the timing features (e.g. start and stop times). Kang teaches storing blocks / metadata in memory with addressing considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bedikian with the particulars of event data captured as taught by Chen and the storage / addressing of event data as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
a processor [See claim 17 for citations of same / similar limitation]; and
a memory, configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein when executing the instructions, the processor is configured to [See claim 17 for citations of same / similar limitation]:
obtain a plurality of metadata blocks from a second storage area, wherein the plurality of metadata blocks correspond to a plurality of data blocks, each data block of the plurality of data blocks comprises a part of processed event data [See claim 17 “store the plurality of data blocks …” limitation for citations and Kang Page 4 (see steps a1 – a5 for reading values as the inverse of the storing step)], and each metadata block of the plurality of metadata blocks comprises a start time, an end time, a quantity, and a compression manner of event data in a data block corresponding to the metadata block, and a storage address of the data block [See claim 17 for citations of the same / similar limitation];
find, in the plurality of metadata blocks, at least one metadata block that comprises a start time and an end time between which any time point is in a target time interval [See previous limitation for citations and additionally Bedikian Column 5 lines 26 – 58 (finding time / desired events to use for analysis / computation) or alternatively Chen Paragraphs 58 – 67 (searching event data / finding in blocks / metadata)]; and
obtain, from a first storage area based on a storage address in the at least one found metadata block, at least one data block corresponding to the at least one found metadata block [Kang Figures 3 – 5 as well as Page 4 (see steps a1 – a5 for reading values as the inverse of the storing step) and Pages 7 – 9 (see at least the “block_index array”, “CRC”, and “block_size” parameters for the storage address used in examples such as #4 and #4 under “Second, video stream data reading” section, “Fourth, metadata recover”, and “Example two” with steps #1 – 5 and additionally the metadata file storage discussion (Page 8 – 9 space for accessing such data and the paragraph prior to “Moreover” section))], and process the data block based on a compression manner in a found metadata block corresponding to each data block, to obtain to-be-read event data [Bedikian Figures 1 and 6 (see at least reference character 655) as well as Column 4 line 62 – Column 5 line 45 (timestamps associated with change in brightness / polarity of data where the quantity is either the polarity or location of the data), Column 6 lines 36 – 62 (first / second period of times using timestamp information), and Column 8 lines 25 – 61 (compression of event data with compression manners (e.g. video codecs)); Kang Figures 3 – 5 as well as Page 4 (see steps a1 – a5 for reading values / event data as in Bedikian’s system)].
See claim 17 for the motivation to combine Bedikian, Chen, and Kang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 is taken as the representative claim as claim 10 is the inverse of claim 2. Regarding claim 2, the claim when taken as a whole recites novel conditioning of event data in which the data is chunked based on metrics associated with the data, and compared to others in the same chunk to have small differences and the differences are converted to only non-negative values and uses threshold comparisons for grouping the quantity / position of the data to select present compression algorithms. Claim 10 enforces the same non-negative values and preset decompression algorithms as the inverse of claim 2 and thus is similarly Allowable.
Regrading claims 3 – 8 and 11 – 16, the dependent claims depend on claims 2 and 10 which are indicated as Allowable and thus are similarly Allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Laska, et al. (US Patent #9,158,974 B1 referred to as “Laska” throughout) teaches in Figures 7 – 9 compression and memory management techniques related to event data to store / read for analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487