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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 01/28/2026, filed with the office on 05/28/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 19 are amended. Claims 2 and 15 were previously cancelled.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendments of the claims, the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to the claims 1, 9 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are objected to because each of the claims are missing a semicolon. For example, claim 1 recites: “one or more persons of interest based on the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics determining, by the video conference provider”. Examiner believes, there should be a semicolon “;” after the term ‘characteristics’ and before the term ‘determining’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 28, 2026 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 10 of its reply, Applicant argues in second paragraph that claim 1 recites “a second client device” is part of the “incident identification system” while the disclosure in deCharms uses the second client device as a “responder service” and “a second user device” that have entirely different functionalities with respect to the system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed function of “the second client device” in claim 1 is to join in a multimedia session and share multimedia stream upon request. Therefore, regardless of the intendent use of the device i.e. first user device, second user device or responder device, the claimed device performs the same functions. The disclosure in deCharms teaches such devices in ¶0116: “the user device 402 can be a user's IPHONE” and ¶0117: “the responder device 404 can be an IPHONE”. Additionally, a device in the session can be designated as a responder— ¶0210: “a third user device 808 that may have been designated by the second user 806 as a responder”; where the devices may share information between each other ¶0258: “allow users, their networks, and responders to communicate and to share information”; over a provider’s network interface— ¶0007: “a network interface that is programmed to transmit real-time video recorded by camera to another computing device”; in a multi-way communication setting— ¶0066: “computing devices 108a-d that is participating in the video chat (video chat can be a multi-way (e.g., two-way, three-way, four-way) videoconference”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deCharms (US 2016/0192166 A1), in view of Bodbyl et al. (US 2021/0012115 A1) and in further view of Whitaker et al. (US 2023/0089720 A1).
Regarding claim 1, deCharms teaches, A method comprising: (deCharms, ¶0005: “methods that include”) receiving an indication of an incident event; in response to receiving the indication of the incident event: (deCharms, ¶0204: “The central computer system 802 receives the incident report”) determining, by a video conference provider, a plurality of client devices associated with an incident identification system; (deCharms, ¶0204: “The central computer system 802 can transmit (e.g., push notification) the alert with the incident report to the identified other users (815b), which in this example includes users who are associated with the second user device 806 and the third user device”) of the plurality of client devices; (deCharms, ¶0011: “transmitting real-time video from the mobile computing device to the other computing device”) monitoring the at least one multimedia stream, (deCharms, ¶0090: “monitoring or display devices 212 can be devices that are located near the mobile computing device 202 and that have open and accessible input or output devices (e.g., display 256 and speakers”) comprising: identifying, by the video conference provider, one or more people in a first multimedia stream from the received multimedia streams; (deCharms, ¶0005: “determining an identity of an assailant involved in the incident”) obtaining, by the video conference provider, a set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics from a database; (deCharms, ¶0005: “determining an identity of an assailant involved in the incident based on comparison of the one or more features with information stored in one or more data sources”) identifying, by the video conference provider, one or more persons of interest based on the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics (deCharms, ¶0005: “determining an identity of an assailant involved in the incident based on comparison of the one or more features with information stored in one or more data sources”) first location corresponding to a first person of interest of the one or more persons of interest; (deCharms, ¶0109: “In the case of an assailant, criminal, or other person, location or item involved in the incident, information captured/obtained by the user's computing device may be used to identify that person, location”) determining, by the video conference provider, a second client device having a second location in proximity to the first location: (deCharms, ¶0205: “the second user device 806 being currently located within a threshold distance of where the incident occurred for the first user device 804”) transmitting, by the video conference provider, a request to the second client device to join the incident identification system: (deCharms, ¶0011: “transmitting real-time video from the mobile computing device to the other computing device; receiving a request to connect a mobile computing device with a responder service”) and receiving, by the video conference provider, at least one multimedia stream from the second client device. (deCharms, ¶0203: “the first user device 804 reports an incident which is then used to provide an update to the crime map displayed on the second user device 806”; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a multimedia stream includes display maps). However, the deCharms does not explicitly teach, joining, by the video conference provider, one or more of the plurality of client devices to an identification session without input from the one or more of the plurality of client devices and determining, by the video conference provider, a level of confidence of the identification of one or more of the identified persons of interest; and generating, by the video conference provider, an incident alert based on the identified one or more persons of interest and the level of confidence
In an analogous field of endeavor, Bodbyl teaches, joining, by the video conference provider, one or more of the plurality of client devices (Bodbyl, ¶0061: “application server may provide access to an interface (e.g., similar to interface 204) to the security platform 402 for various computing devices, such as operator devices 462, end user devices 466, and/or administrator devices 464”; the application server) to an identification session without input from the one or more of the plurality of client devices; (Bodbyl, ¶0059: “in response to receiving an alarm, the alarm balancing server 456 may access a risk score stored in data store 452 and apply the accessed risk score, for example, to route the alarm to an appropriate operator device 462”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify deCharms using the teachings of Bodbyl to introduce a series of connected devices. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of monitoring a device to identify an event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts deCharms and Bodbyl to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of deCharms and Bodbyl does not explicitly teach, determining, by the video conference provider, a level of confidence of the identification of one or more of the identified persons of interest; and generating, by the video conference provider, an incident alert based on the identified one or more persons of interest and the level of confidence.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Whitaker teaches, determining, by the video conference provider, a level of confidence of the identification of one or more of the identified persons of interest; (Whitaker, ¶0016: “for each such detected at least one human subject, calculating a confidence score associated with the determination”) and generating, by the video conference provider, an incident alert based on the identified one or more persons of interest and the level of confidence. (Whitaker, ¶0016: “if any one of the calculated confidence scores does not exceed a predefined confidence threshold, executing the configured alarm handling workflow”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify deCharms in view of Bodbyl using the teachings of Whitaker to introduce computing a confidence score for a person identification. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of alerting appropriate authorities when certain person of interest is detected with an acceptable level of confidence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts deCharms, Bodbyl and Whitaker to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: comparing, by the video conference provider, the one or more identifying characteristics to the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics; and determining, by the video conference provider, that the one or more identifying characteristics correspond to an incident event based on the comparison. (deCharms, ¶0005: “determining an identity of an assailant involved in the incident based on comparison of the one or more features with information stored in one or more data sources”).
Regarding claim 4, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The method of claim 3, wherein determining, by the video conference provider, that the one or more identifying characteristics correspond to the incident event further comprises at least one of: determining, by the video conference provider, that there is a match between the one or more identifying characteristics and the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics; (deCharms, ¶0160: “perform one or more identity matching operations for such features using local data sources, such as data sources that are maintained by the responder device 404 (e.g., repository of user identities”) or determining, by the video conference provider, that there is not a match of the one or more identifying characteristics to the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics. (deCharms, ¶0160: “perform one or more identity matching operations for such features using local data sources, such as data sources that are maintained by the responder device 404 (e.g., repository of user identities”)
Regarding claim 5, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: responsive to the incident alert, transmitting, by the video conference provider, a request to join an authorized agency device to the identification session; (deCharms, ¶0011: “transmitting real-time video from the mobile computing device to the other computing device; receiving a request to connect a mobile computing device with a responder service”) and joining, by the video conference provider, the authorized agency device to the identification session. (deCharms, ¶0146: “emergency responders or police officers carrying mobile devices running the software provided for here may receive real time alerts when an event has taken place near them, including mapped information of its location, photo, video, audio or other information collected about the event.”)
Regarding claim 6, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the video conference provider, an identifying characteristic; (deCharms, ¶0005: “the features can include one or more of: face, voice, gate, proportions, and device identity (AI); the data sources can include one or more of: criminal databases”) and adding, by the video conference provider, the identifying characteristic to the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics in the database. (deCharms, ¶0005: “adding one or more features, and transmitting the modified video with the features to a remote storage system for persistent storage”).
Regarding claim 7, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein identifying, by the video conference provider, one or more identifying characteristics in the first multimedia stream from the received multimedia streams comprises: performing, by the video conference provider, visual recognition on each of the received multimedia streams; (deCharms, ¶0078: “identify other users who are located around the mobile computing device through any of a variety of appropriate techniques, such as voice recognition, facial recognition”) and identifying, based on the visual recognition, the one or more identifying characteristics in the first multimedia stream. (deCharms, ¶0119: “automatic recognition of a surrounding event or situation (e.g., face recognition”; ¶0005: “the features can include one or more of: face”).
Regarding claim 8, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein identifying, by the video conference provider, one or more identifying characteristics in the first multimedia stream from the received multimedia streams comprises: performing, by the video conference provider, audio recognition on each of the received multimedia streams; and identifying, based on the audio recognition, the one or more identifying characteristics in the first multimedia stream. (deCharms, ¶0005: “determining an identity of an assailant involved in the incident based on comparison of the one or more features with information stored in one or more data sources (AG); the data can include one or more of: video data, image data, audio data”).
Regarding claim 9, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 9 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine deCharms, Bodbyl and Whitaker presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. deCharms additionally teaches, A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; a communications interface; and a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the communications interface, the processor configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium (deCharms, ¶0312: “computer-readable medium” refers to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor”).
Regarding claim 10, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 10 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine deCharms, Bodbyl and Whitaker presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 11, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The system of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: determine, by the video conference provider, a first client device location of a first client device associated with the first multimedia stream. (deCharms, ¶0109: “In the case of an assailant, criminal, or other person, location or item involved in the incident, information captured/obtained by the user's computing device may be used to identify that person, location”)
Regarding claim 12, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: identify, by the video conference provider, a second multimedia stream from the received multimedia streams (deCharms, ¶0206: “receive the current information from the second user device 806 (824) and can determine an updated safety level”) based on the one or more monitored identifying characteristics; (deCharms, ¶0203: “information may include the type of incident, their comments, and photos, video or audio or other types of information”) determine, by the video conference provider, a second client device location of a second client device associated with the second multimedia stream; (deCharms, ¶0205: “additionally provide updated information (e.g., location) regarding the second user device 806”) and generate, by the video conference provider, a map of the first location and the second location. (deCharms, ¶0005: “displaying on a map the locations of users #2 who have begun using an application based on a recommendation from the user in color #1”).
Regarding claim 13, deCharms in view of Bodbyl, in further view of Whitaker teaches, The system of claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: responsive to the incident alert, transmit, by the video conference provider, a request to join an authorized agency device to the identification session; (deCharms, ¶0011: “transmitting real-time video from the mobile computing device to the other computing device; receiving a request to connect a mobile computing device with a responder service”) and join, by the video conference provider, the authorized agency device to the identification session. (deCharms, ¶0146: “emergency responders or police officers carrying mobile devices running the software provided for here may receive real time alerts when an event has taken place near them, including mapped information of its location, photo, video, audio or other information collected about the event.”)
Regarding claim 14, deCharms in view of Bodbyl, in further view of Whitaker teaches, The system of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: transmit, by the video conference provider, the map of the first location and the second location to the authorized agency device. (deCharms, ¶0152: “The user's mapped location may be updated on the responder's device 404 in substantially real time, and may be presented to the responder using coordinates”).
Regarding claim 16, it recites a computer-readable medium including processor-executable instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of the computer-readable medium of claim 16 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of the method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine deCharms, Bodbyl and Whitaker presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. deCharms additionally teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to (deCharms, ¶0312: “computer-readable medium” refers to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor”).
Regarding claim 17, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: compare, by the video conference provider, the one or more identifying characteristics to the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics; (deCharms, ¶0005: “determining an identity of an assailant involved in the incident based on comparison of the one or more features with information stored in one or more data sources”) determine, by the video conference provider, a match confidence of the one or more identifying characteristics to the set of one or more monitored identifying characteristics; (Bodbyl, ¶0131: “generate performance metric values based on the analysis. Performance metrics can include, for example, accuracy, latency, confidence”) and generate, by the video conference provider, the incident alert based on the match confidence. (Bodbyl, ¶0020: “determined likelihood can be quantified in the form of a risk score that can then be utilized to inform other processes associated with a premises security system, such as prioritizing alarms, routing alarms to certain operators, generating predictive alarms, etc.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker using the additional teachings of Bodbyl to introduce a metric score. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of generating an alarm based on the metric score. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts deCharms, Bodbyl and Whitaker to obtain the invention of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: responsive to the incident alert, transmit, by the video conference provider, a request to join an authorized agency device to the identification session; (deCharms, ¶0011: “transmitting real-time video from the mobile computing device to the other computing device; receiving a request to connect a mobile computing device with a responder service”) and join, by the video conference provider, the authorized agency device to the identification session. (deCharms, ¶0146: “emergency responders or police officers carrying mobile devices running the software provided for here may receive real time alerts when an event has taken place near them, including mapped information of its location, photo, video, audio or other information collected about the event.”)
Regarding claim 19, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute further processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: determine, by the video conference provider, a first client device location of a first client device associated with the first multimedia stream; (deCharms, ¶0109: “In the case of an assailant, criminal, or other person, location or item involved in the incident, information captured/obtained by the user's computing device may be used to identify that person, location”) and transmit, by the video conference provider, a signal to control equipment of the first client device corresponding to the first multimedia stream. (deCharms, ¶0015: “the computing device can further include a permissions module that is programmed to determine whether the responder computing device is permitted to remotely control operation of the computing device; and a processor that is configured to perform, based on the determining, the one or more operations”).
Regarding claim 20, deCharms in view of Bodbyl and in further view of Whitaker teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions to identify, by the video conference provider, the one or more identifying characteristics in the first multimedia stream further comprise processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium to: (deCharms, ¶0312: “computer-readable medium” refers to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor”) analyze each of the received multimedia streams for one or more of: one or more keywords; (deCharms, ¶0294: “through keyword and/or phrase analysis, and/or natural language processing”) one or more audio signatures; or one or more visual signatures. (deCharms, ¶0078: “a variety of appropriate techniques, such as voice recognition, facial recognition”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-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, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights