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 1/15/2025. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-20 recite the limitation "the determined type" in e.g. the fifth paragraph of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 2-6, 9-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20070262857 A1) in view of Brodsky (US 20070024707 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses a system [e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 6-7; alarm system] comprising: 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: determining, using one or more images captured by a camera and image analysis data for identifying relevant physical activity [e.g. 1-3 and 5-7; detecting alarm event of a house or building by analysis of images capture by camera 2] , that the one or more images likely include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within an area corresponding to a location of the camera and should be transmitted to another system [e.g. FIG. 3-5; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server]; determining, using second data that is different data from the one or more images [e.g. [0016 and 0082-0087]; transmitting real-time images for image-based monitoring before, during, and/or after a response to an alarm], that data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to another system [e.g. FIG. 3-5; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server]; determining to transmit, to the other system , fewer images that include image data of the determined type [e.g. FIG. 3-5; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server].
Although Jackson discloses transmit relevant images to the other system [e.g. FIG. 3-5; [0016]; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server], it is noted that Jackson differs to the present invention in that Jackson fails to disclose the detail of detail of the image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area captured by the camera.
However, Brodsky teaches the well-known concept of a system [e.g. FIG. 3-4; alarm system] comprising one or more images [e.g. irrelevant images] that do not actually include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area [e.g. monitoring rea] corresponding to the location of the camera [e.g. camera 110] and b) data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to another system [e.g. FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image], and in response to determining that a) the one or more images do not actually include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area corresponding to the location of the camera [e.g. 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] and b) data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to the other system: determining to transmit [e.g. FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image], to the other system, updating the image analysis data for identifying relevant physical activity to reflect that a) the one or more images do not actually include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area corresponding to the location of the camera [e.g. eliminating or ignoring processing irrelevant images] and b) data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to the other system [e.g. FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image].
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 image processing technique taught by Brodsky as above, in order to provide 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 and Brodsky further disclose determining, using the second data that is different data from the one or more images [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 3-5; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server; Brodsky: FIG. 3-4] , that a) the one or more images do not actually include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area corresponding to the location of the camera [e.g. Brodsky: FIG. 3-4; determining relevant/irrelevant images] and b) data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to another system comprises: sending, to a device, a request for feedback that indicating that the one or more images likely include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area corresponding to the location of the camera [e.g. Brodsky: FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image]; and receiving, from the device, the feedback indicating that the one or more images do not include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity [Jackson: FIG. 3-6; signal from server; control camera to send image data; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4] , wherein: determining to transmit fewer images and updating the image analysis data are both responsive to receiving the feedback indicating that the one or more images do not include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity [e.g. [Jackson: FIG. 3-6; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4].
Regarding claim 4, Jackson and Brodsky further disclose accessing one or more rules for transmitting images to the device [Jackson: FIG. 1-3 and 6-7; [0016 and 0023]; rules to detect an alarm event, taking images and transmit to a server; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4]; and determining that the one or more rules for transmitting images to the device indicate that the system should send the request, wherein sending the request to the device is in response to determining that the one or more rules for transmitting images to the device indicate that the system should send the request [Jackson: FIG. 1-3 and 6-7; [0016 and 0023-0026]; rules to detect an alarm event and signals to control cameras, taking images and transmit to a server; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4].
Regarding claim 5, Jackson and Brodsky further disclose the feedback indicates the determined type of the image data is not a relevant physical activity for which images should be transmitted to the other system [e.g. e.g. Jackson: FIG. 3-5; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image].
Regarding claim 6, Jackson and Brodsky further disclose the feedback indicates that: the determined type of the image data is a relevant physical activity for which images should be transmitted to the other system e.g. Jackson: FIG. 3-5; transmits alarm events and associated video or static images to a remote central server; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image, and the one or more images do not include image data indicative of the relevant physical activity].
Regarding claim 9, Jackson and Brodsky further disclose in response to that a) the one or more images do not actually include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area corresponding to the location of the camera and b) data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to the other system, updating the image analysis data comprises updating one or more rules for transmitting images to a device [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 2-5; [0016]; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image, and the one or more images do not include image data indicative of the relevant physical activity].
Regarding claim 10-14 and 17, 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 2-6 and 9 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18-20, this is a computer-implemented method that includes same limitation as in claim 2-4 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20070262857 A1) in view of Brodsky (US 20070024707 A1) and Babich et al (US 20080284580 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jackson and Brodsky further disclose updating the image analysis data comprises updating the image analysis data [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 2-5; [0019]; image captured during night; timing module]; and the operations further comprising, in response to determining that a) the one or more images do not actually include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity within the area corresponding to the location of the camera and b) data for the one or more images should not be transmitted to the other system, analyzing one or more newly captured images captured after the one or more images using the updated image analysis data [e.g. Brodsky: FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image, and the one or more images do not include image data indicative of the relevant physical activity], but Jackson and Brodsky fail to explicitly disclose defining a time schedule for analysis images.
However, Babich teaches the well-known concept of a video alarm verification system comprising the image analysis data comprises updating the image analysis data that defines a time schedule for analysis of images [e.g. FIG. 5; detecting alarm based on acquired video data, detecting if the alarm is a false alarm during entry delay period].
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 image processing technique taught by Brodsky and the well-known monitoring an alarm zone technique taught by Babich as above, in order to provide a video monitoring system that reduces the amount of video processing or video analysis required to perform a given task. [See Brodsky; [0011]] and alarm event verification avoiding false alarms [See Babich; abstract].
Regarding claim 8, Jackson, Brodsky and Babich further disclose determining a time of capture of the one or more newly captured images; using the determined time, selecting, from a plurality of thresholds [e.g. Brodsky: FIG. 3-4; relevant image detector based on whether a threshold (threshold is adjustable of sub-areas of the image) amount of change/movement occurs in the image], a likelihood threshold for determining whether the one or more newly captured images include image data that is indicative of relevant physical activity and should be transmitted to another system; and analyzing the newly captured images using the selected likelihood threshold [e.g. Jackson: FIG. 2-5; [0016]; Brodsky: FIG. 2-4; relevant image detector; ignore any images that are not identified as being potentially relevant to the application; control the encoding/transmission 344 of the images based on the relevancy determination, either by enabling or disabling the transmission of each image, and the one or more images do not include image data indicative of the relevant physical activity].
Regarding claim 15-16, 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 7-8 above respectively, 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.
Baer (US 20050111696 A1).
Naidoo et al (US 20040086089 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