DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on February 27, 2023. Claims 1-80 were pending. A preliminary amendment was filed on May 25, 2023. Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 16, 18-20, 22, 24-25, 27-32, 34-52, 55, 57-58, 60, and 62-80 were cancelled. Claims 4, 7-8, 11-15, 17, 21, 23, 26, 33, 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 were amended. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17, 21, 23, 26, 33, 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 2/27/2023 and 12/19/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claim 21 recites “the determined distance” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 56 is dependent upon cancelled claim 55. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claim 56 recites “the high-risk activity” in lines 2-3 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 59 is dependent upon cancelled claim 57. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claim 59 recites “the determined distance” in line 4 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 61 is objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claim 61 recites “the determined distance” in line 4 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17, 21, 23, 26, 33, 53-54, 56, 59, and 61are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17, 21, 23, 26, 33, 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a method.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental Processes
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “identifying a set of entities in the environment using the sensor data, the set of entities including one or more entities; determining a high-risk action associated with the set of entities using the sensor data, wherein the high-risk action is associated with an interaction between the user and at least one entity of the set of entities; measuring a distance, using the sensor data, between the at least one entity of the set of entities and the reference location; generating an alert when the measured distance drops below a threshold distance, wherein the alert is indicative of the high-risk action;” is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the claims are directed to concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgment). In the currently pending claims, a person (through visual observation) can evaluate the distance between one or more individuals to keep the them safety and avoid the spread of diseases.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “identifying a set of entities in the environment using the sensor data, the set of entities including one or more entities; determining a high-risk action associated with the set of entities using the sensor data, wherein the high-risk action is associated with an interaction between the user and at least one entity of the set of entities; measuring a distance, using the sensor data, between the at least one entity of the set of entities and the reference location; generating an alert when the measured distance drops below a threshold distance, wherein the alert is indicative of the high-risk action;” is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships and interactions between people. In particular, the invention manages the distance between one or more individuals for safety and avoid different types of diseases.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing, applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of one or more sensors and mobile platform amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
The collecting and presenting steps are data gathering and outputting directed to insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17, 21, 23, 26, 33, 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. The following dependent claims: dependent claims 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 recite a display device, mobile platform. Dependent claims 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17, 21, 23, 26, 33, 53-54, 56, 59, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eswara et al. US Publication 20210391089 A1.
Claim 1:
As per claim 1, Eswara teaches a method comprising:
collecting sensor data associated with an environment using one or more sensors on a mobile platform associated with a user located within the environment, wherein a location of the user within the environment defines a reference location (paragraphs 0149-0151 “Generally, the controller 102 may receive one or more video feeds 404 from one or more cameras and/or one or more audio feeds 406 from one or more microphones. In some cases, the video feed 404 may be a visible light video, a thermal image video, or combination thereof. The video feed 404 may be acquired from a video camera or from a mobile device such as a smartphone, as desired. The video feed 404 may be acquired from a video camera and/or from a mobile device such as a smartphone, as desired. The audio feed 404 may be acquired from a dedicated microphone 114, a microphone within a video camera or from a mobile device such as a smartphone, as desired.” and “The person detection module 408 is configured to identify a person within the field of view of the camera 108 or within a range of the microphone 114. For example, the person detection module 408 may be implemented as a trained artificial intelligence model configured to analyze the video feed 404 for shapes, features, and/or movements associated with people in the field of view. In some cases, the person detection module 408 may be configured to identify specific body parts of a person, including, but not limited to, hands, arms, heads, facial features, etc. Similarly, the person detection module 408 may be may be trained to or include algorithms configured to analyze the audio feed 406 for sounds within the frequency range of the human voice (e.g., about 85 to about 255 Hertz). In some cases, the person detection module 408 may be configured to identify a person within the video and/or audio feeds 404, 406, although this is not required. In some cases, the person detection module 408 may use facial recognition or voice recognition to identify the person. In other cases, the person detection module 408 may recognize an identity of the person using an identifier carried by the person, such as, but not limited to an identification card or an access badge. The video and/or audio feeds 404, 406 may be stored in a storage medium 410 such as, but not limited to, a network video recorder (NVR) and/or a video management server (VMS), although this is not required.”);
identifying a set of entities in the environment using the sensor data, the set of entities including one or more entities (paragraph 0004 and 0150-0151 “In one example, a method for monitoring a risk of spread of an illness in a building may comprise capturing video of a surveilled area in the building, identifying individuals in the captured video, and performing behavior analytics on the individuals identified in the captured video.” and “The person detection module 408 is configured to identify one or more persons that are present in the space monitored by the camera 108 and/or microphone 114.”);
determining a high-risk action associated with the set of entities using the sensor data, wherein the high-risk action is associated with an interaction between the user and at least one entity of the set of entities (paragraphs 0004 and 0006-0007 “In one example, a method for monitoring a risk of spread of an illness in a building may comprise capturing video of a surveilled area in the building, identifying individuals in the captured video, and performing behavior analytics on the individuals identified in the captured video. The behavior analytics may include determining a risky behavior metric that identifies a measure of risky behavior of the individuals identified in the captured video that is based at least in part on a distance between two of the individuals identified in the captured video and a time that the distance between the two of the individuals is below a predetermined distance threshold. An alert may be issued when the risky behavior metric exceeds a risk threshold.”);
measuring a distance, using the sensor data, between the at least one entity of the set of entities and the reference location (paragraphs 0004 and 0171 “The video 510 may be analyzed by a social distancing module 512 which may be stored in a memory 130 of the controller 102. The social distancing module 512 may be configured to use person detection, face detection, background subtraction, etc. to first identify or isolate an individual or person in the captured video. When two or more people are within the field of view, the social distancing module 512 is configured to compute the distance between each of the detected people within the frame. The social distancing module 512 may then compare the computed distances to one or more predetermined acceptable distance thresholds.”);
generating an alert when the measured distance drops below a threshold distance, wherein the alert is indicative of the high-risk action (paragraphs 0004, 0006, 0009 “In one example, a method for monitoring a risk of spread of an illness in a building may comprise capturing video of a surveilled area in the building, identifying individuals in the captured video, and performing behavior analytics on the individuals identified in the captured video. The behavior analytics may include determining a risky behavior metric that identifies a measure of risky behavior of the individuals identified in the captured video that is based at least in part on a distance between two of the individuals identified in the captured video and a time that the distance between the two of the individuals is below a predetermined distance threshold. An alert may be issued when the risky behavior metric exceeds a risk threshold.”);
and presenting the alert on an interface associated with the mobile platform (paragraphs 0019, 0023, and 0158 “The alert 422 may be sent to a device of the supervising party, such as, but not limited, a cell phone, a tablet computer, a laptop or desktop computer, a security console, a radio, etc.”).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein the at least one entity is a person in the environment (paragraph 0148).
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, Eswara teaches the method of claim 4 as described above and further teaches wherein determining the high-risk action includes:
determining an infection risk score associated with the person using the sensor data (paragraph 0157);
and identifying that interaction with the person is the high-risk action when the infection risk score is above an infection risk threshold (paragraphs 0157 and 0179).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, Eswara teaches the method of claim 5 as described above and further teaches wherein determining the infection risk score includes:
detecting one or more symptom-related actions based on the sensor data (paragraph 0152);
and calculating the infection risk score based on the detected one or more symptom-related actions (paragraph 0157).
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, Eswara teaches the method of claim 5 as described above and further teaches further comprising updating the threshold distance based on the infection risk score (paragraph 0171).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein the at least one entity is a surface, and wherein determining the high-risk action includes determining that the surface is a high-touch surface (paragraphs 0014-0016).
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches further comprising determining an environmental condition using the sensor data, wherein determining the high-risk action is further based on the environmental condition (paragraphs 0014-0016).
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, Eswara teaches teach the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches further comprising:
determining an environment type of the environment using the sensor data (paragraphs 0051 and 0168);
and setting the threshold distance based on the environment type (paragraph 0168).
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches further comprising:
determining a geolocation associated with the environment (paragraphs 0051 and 0168);
accessing a rule based on the geolocation (paragraphs 0051 and 0168);
and setting the threshold distance based on the rule (paragraphs 0051 and 0168).
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches further comprising:
identifying rule signage using the sensor data, wherein the rule signage is a sign present in the environment indicative of a desired amount of distancing between individuals (paragraph 0171);
determining a rule based on the rule signage (paragraph 0171);
and setting the threshold distance based on the rule (paragraph 0171)
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein presenting the alert includes presenting information about reducing a risk of infection after engaging in the high-risk action, wherein the information about reducing the risk of infection includes an instruction to deploy a facial covering (paragraphs 0005, 0018-0019), and wherein the method further comprises:
detecting deployment of the facial covering using the sensor data (paragraphs 0005, 0018-0019);
and ceasing to present the instruction to deploy the facial covering in response to detecting deployment of the facial covering (paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 21:
As per claim 21, Eswara teaches teach the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches further comprising automatically deploying a facial covering when the determined distance between the at least one entity and the reference location drops below the threshold distance (paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 23:
As per claim 23, Eswara teaches teach the method of claim 21 as described above and further teaches wherein deploying the facial covering includes i) moving a face shield from a stowed position to a deployed position, wherein the face shield covers at least a portion of a face of the user when in the deployed position (paragraphs 0018-0019);
ii) moving a facemask from a stowed position to a deployed position, wherein the facemask covers a mouth and nose of the user when in the deployed position (paragraphs 0018-0019);
iii) generating an air curtain around a portion of a face of the user (paragraphs 0018-0019);
or iv) any combination of i-iii (paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 26:
As per claim 26, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches further comprising:
storing information associated with the high-risk action in response to the measured distance dropping below the threshold distance (paragraph 0004);
and generating a summary of detected high-risk actions that occurred within a period of time, wherein generating the summary includes accessing the stored information associated with the high-risk action, wherein the summary of detected high-risk actions includes i) a score based on a count of the detected high-risk actions (paragraph 0152);
ii) a listing of types of high-risk actions associated with each of the detected high-risk actions (paragraph 0152);
iii) a listing of types of entities associated with each of the detected high-risk actions (paragraph 0152);
or iv) any combination of i-iii (paragraph 0152).
Claim 33:
As per claim 33, Eswara teaches the method of claim 26 as described above and further teaches wherein the detected high-risk actions includes high-risk actions associated with entities not within a predefined cohort of entities (paragraph 0152).
Claim 53:
As per claim 53, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein presenting the alert includes presenting an augmented reality alert on a display device of the mobile platform, wherein presenting the augmented reality alert includes presenting at least a portion of an entity ring centered at the at least one entity, and wherein a radius of the entity ring is indicative of the threshold distance or a supplemental threshold distance from a center of the at least one entity (paragraph 0132).
Claim 54:
As per claim 54, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein presenting the alert includes presenting an augmented reality alert on a display device of the mobile platform, wherein presenting the augmented reality alert includes presenting at least a portion of a reference ring centered at the reference location, and wherein a radius of the reference ring is indicative of the threshold distance or a supplemental threshold distance from a center of the at least one entity (paragraph 0132).
Claim 56:
As per claim 56, Eswara teaches teach the method of claim 55 as described above and further teaches wherein presenting the alert includes presenting an augmented reality alert on a display device of the mobile platform, wherein the high-risk activity is associated with particulates projected from the at least one entity, wherein the method further comprising comprises determining an expected path of travel associated with the particulate projection, and wherein presenting the augmented reality alert wherein indicating the occurrence of the projection of the particulates includes indicating the path of travel associated with the projected particulates (paragraph 0132).
Claim 59:
As per claim 59, Eswara teaches teach the method of claim 57 as described above and further teaches wherein presenting the alert includes presenting an augmented reality alert on a display device of the mobile platform, the method further comprising presenting an additional augmented reality alert associated with the at least one entity before the determined distance drops below the threshold distance, wherein the at least one entity includes a moving entity, the method further comprising calculating a probable path of the at least one entity, wherein the additional augmented reality alert is indicative of the probable path of the at least one entity (paragraph 0132).
Claim 61:
As per claim 61, Eswara teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein presenting the alert includes presenting an augmented reality alert on a display device of the mobile platform, the method further comprising presenting an additional augmented reality alert associated with the at least one entity before the determined distance drops below the threshold distance, wherein the additional augmented reality alert:
i) is indicative that the at least one entity includes a high-touch surface (paragraphs 0014-0016);
ii) is indicative of a need to perform handwashing (paragraphs 0014-0016);
iii) is indicative of a percentage of completion of handwashing (paragraphs 0014-0016);
iv) is based on an accessed health rating or cleanliness rating of a commercial establishment associated with the environment (paragraphs 0014-0016);
v) is based on a number of individuals in the environment determined using the sensor data (paragraphs 0014-0016);
vi) is indicative that a threshold number of individuals for the environment has been exceeded (paragraphs 0014-0016);
vii) is indicative of a path determined, using the sensor data, between the entities of the set of entities, wherein the path is calculated to maintain at least the threshold distance between the path and each entity of the set of entities (paragraphs 0014-0016);
viii) includes an overlay indicating a point on a floor of the environment that is within a queue or at an end of the queue, the queue comprising a subset of the set of entities, wherein the point on the floor is at least the threshold distance spaced apart from a nearest entity within the subset of entities comprising the queue (paragraphs 0014-0016);
or ix) any combination of i-viii (paragraphs 0014-0016).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fisher-Stawinski et al. US Publication 20230081225 A1 Dynamic Geofencing-Enable Physiological Risk Monitoring System in Physical and Mixed Reality Environments
Fisher-Stawinski discloses according to one embodiment, a method, computer system, and computer program product for tracking positions and characteristics of one or more individuals in proximity to a user to dynamically assess a threat of physiological harm to the user is provided. The present invention may include identifying, by one or more sensors integrated into one or more wearable devices on the person of a user, one or more individuals in proximity to the user; generating a dynamic threshold corresponding to each of the one or more individuals; responsive to identifying one or more characteristics of the individual, updating the dynamic threshold; and responsive to a distance between an individual of the one or more individuals and the user falling below the dynamic threshold associated with the individual, transmitting an alert to the user.
Adam US Publication 20210357654 A1 Systems and Methods for Identifying Persons of Interest
Adam discloses systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable mediums directed to tracing a person of interest (POI) using video. As provided herein, images of a POI are obtained, such as from a data store, and then the POI is identified in one or more video frames of a monitored video feed by comparing the monitored video frames to the images of the POI using facial recognition techniques. If the POI is identified, additional persons within a prescribed distance threshold of the POI are determined and identified using facial recognition techniques. Thereafter, a list of each identified person within the distance threshold of the POI is generated and may be transmitted to a desired recipient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights