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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 09/09/2026. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chao & Yen (US 20110050758 A1, hereinafter, "Chao").
Regarding Claim 1, Chao teaches a control method for a monitoring equipment, comprising: collecting, by a monitoring image and weight acquisition module, a monitoring image captured by the monitoring equipment and a weight setting range (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 704); dividing, by a monitoring image and weight acquisition module, the monitoring image into a plurality of sub-images arranged in an array format (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 702); setting, by a weight setting module, a weight value of each sub-image according to the monitoring image and the weight setting range, wherein each weight value is within the weight setting range (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706); controlling, by a sub-movement value acquisition module, the monitoring equipment to capture the monitoring image (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 702); collecting, by the sub-movement value acquisition module, a sub-movement value of each sub-image in real time (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706); determining, by a power level determination module, a monitoring power level of the monitoring equipment based on both the sub-movement value and the weight value for each of the plurality of sub-images (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706); and controlling, by the power level determination module, the monitoring equipment to operate at the monitoring power level (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 708).
Regarding Claim 2, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Chao teaches setting the weight value includes: determining an attention level for each sub-image based on an analysis of the monitoring image (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 704); and setting the weight value for each sub-image based on its determined attention level (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706).
Regarding Claim 5, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Chao teaches determining the monitoring power level further comprises: setting a product of the sub-movement value and the weight value as a weighted sub-movement value of each sub-image (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706); calculating a total movement value based on the weighted sub-movement value of each sub-image (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706); and determining the monitoring power level based on a mapping relationship between the total movement value and a plurality of power levels (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 708).
Regarding Claim 6, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Chao teaches calculating the total movement value of the monitoring image according to the weighted sub- movement value of each sub-image includes: setting a sum of the weighted sub-movement values of the sub-images as the total movement value (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 706).
Regarding Claim 9, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Chao teaches a processor (Chao, Fig. 1, [0021], ln. 12-13, "After the sum of difference calculating module 120 processes all blocks on the frames…"); a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the control device to perform the control method according to claim 1 (Reasons for rejection identical to Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 9 as noted above. Chao teaches a monitoring equipment (Chao, Abstract, ln. 1, "…a display system…"); and a control device according to claim 9 communicatively connected to the monitoring equipment (Reasons for rejection identical to Claim 9).
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 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Ford et al (US 20210049770 A1, hereinafter, "Ford").
Regarding Claim 3, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Chao teaches controlling the monitoring equipment to capture the monitoring image and the sub-movement value of each sub-image in real time includes: identifying a changed sub-image by comparing a first image frame and a second, subsequent image frame (Chao, Fig. 7, Step 704); for the changed sub-image, identifying an object associated with the change (Ford, [0001], ln. 1-2, "…relates to identifying moving objects in a video stream from a stationary camera."). Chao does not teach determining if the identified object is present in a predefined whitelist; and if the object is present in the whitelist, assigning a first movement value to the changed sub-image; and if the object is not present in the whitelist, assigning a second movement value, different from the first movement value, to the changed sub-image. However, Ford teaches determining if the identified object is present in a predefined whitelist (Ford, Fig. 2, [0033], ln. 7-8, "The video stream moving object identifier 124 may optionally include one or more whitelists 230 and one or more blacklists 240."); and if the object is present in the whitelist, assigning a first movement value to the changed sub-image (Ford, Fig. 2, [0033], ln. 9-10, "For example, if moving cars are of interest, moving cars can be included in a whitelist 230."); and if the object is not present in the whitelist, assigning a second movement value, different from the first movement value, to the changed sub-image (Ford, Fig. 2, [0033], ln. 11-13, "For example, trees that have leaves that blow in the wind could be on a blacklist 240 so trees that are moving in a video stream are not identified as moving objects, because they are not of interest."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Ford and Chao with those of Chao because it is widely known in the art to identify moving objects in a video stream and include a whitelist and blacklist to sort the moving objects by importance.
Regarding Claim 4, Chao and Ford teach the limitations of dependent Claim 3 as noted above. Ford teaches if the sub-image exhibits no change between the first and second image frames, its sub-movement value is determined to be zero (Ford, Fig. 2, [0033], ln. 11-13, "For example, trees that have leaves that blow in the wind could be on a blacklist 240 so trees that are moving in a video stream are not identified as moving objects, because they are not of interest." If a moving object is classified as not being a moving object, its movement value is inherently zero.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Ford with those of Chao and Ford because it is widely known in the art to apply a movement value of zero to objects not moving or not of interest.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Sasai et al (US 20240107151 A1, hereinafter, "Sasai").
Regarding Claim 7, Chao teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Sasai teaches capturing a sound intensity of an environment where the monitoring equipment is located when the monitoring power level is less than a maximum power level of the monitoring equipment (Sasai, Fig. 2, 104); determining whether the sound intensity is greater than a preset intensity (Sasai, Fig. 2, 2041); if so, determining whether a sound of the environment in which the monitoring equipment is located belongs to a sound whitelist (Sasai, Fig. 2, 2043); and if so, controlling the monitoring equipment to operate at the monitoring power level (Sasai, Fig. 2, [0029], ln. 4-5, "In addition, the power supply control unit 211 controls the power supply on the basis of information from the sound pressure level detection unit 2041 and the sound recognition unit 2043."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sasai with those of Chao because it is widely known in the art to control a power supply on the basis of sound pressure and sound recognition.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Sasai and Farnsworth et al (US 11756531 B1, hereinafter, "Farnsworth").
Regarding Claim 8, Chao and Sasai teach the limitations of dependent Claim 7 as noted above. Farnsworth teaches if the sound of the environment where the monitoring equipment is located does not belong to the sound whitelist, controlling the monitoring equipment to operate at the highest power level (Farnsworth, Fig. 2, [0049], ln. 10-14 "Events classified as intrusion may be sent to the control system 135-a for security purposes [in case where the sensor unit 240 classifies the sound as an intrusion]. Events classified as occupancy may be handled for non-monitoring purposes. In some examples, the control system 135-a may trigger an event for monitoring and for emergency services if an audio signal is categorized as intrusion."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Farnsworth with those of Chao and Sasai because it is widely known in the art to trigger a monitoring system to monitor based on sounds not recognized from a database or whitelist.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
