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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 07/28/2025. Claims 1, 31, and 32 are presently amended. Claim 2 is presently cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-18, 31, and 32 remain pending and are considered herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant has forgotten to include the body of the claim. This is only an objection as opposed to a rejection because the claim can easily be corrected by copy pasting the body of claim 31 into claim 32. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will examine the claims accordingly. 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, 3-18 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-18 and 31-32 recite:
Claims 1 and 3-18: An assistance device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory.
Claim 31: An assistance method
Claim 32: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an assistance program for causing a computer to execute processing of:
Therefore, the claims are directed to the potentially eligible subject matter categories, since claims 1-18 and claim 32 are directed to an apparatus, and claim 31 is directed to a process. Therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2 of the 2 step analysis.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 31, and 32 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: An assistance device being connected to a plurality of monitoring systems configured to monitor different locations, the assistance device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory.
Claim 31: An assistance method performed by an assistance device connected to a plurality of monitoring systems configured to monitor different locations, the assistance method
Claim 32: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an assistance program executable by an assistance device to perform processing, the assistance device connected to a plurality of monitoring systems configured to monitor different locations the processing comprising:
Claims 1, 31, 32: extract(ing) personal information being capable of discriminating a target user holding a target account, based on account information to be acquired from the target account in cyberspace;
-extract(ing) position information related to the target user, based on the account information;
-select a monitoring system based on a congestion degree around the extracted position information;
-output(ing) the extracted personal information and the extracted position information as assistance information for assisting crime prevention around the position information in physical space.
-Transmit(ting) a trigger signal to activate at least one specific monitoring camera among the selected monitoring system, based on the extracted position information and/or personal information.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 31, and 32 are directed to the abstract idea category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes concepts related to “fundamental economic principles or practices,” “commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The present invention falls under both “legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” Firstly, the claim as a whole is directed to a legal obligation, where the “legal obligation” at hand is the enforcement of the law. The claims describe the extraction of data regarding a target user in order to gather evidence to find and enforce any law which the individual might have broken. In the summary of the present disclosure paragraph [0004] the applicant states,
“According to a related technique such as Patent Literature 1, it is possible to monitor a suspicious person in physical space (real space) by using a suspicious person list prepared in advance. However, the related technique does not consider a crime using cyberspace, and it is difficult to efficiently perform monitoring or investigation in the physical space by using information in the cyberspace.”
This excerpt further supports the idea that the invention is directed towards performing monitoring or investigations on individuals who have not complied with the law, because the problem the invention aims to solve pertains to being able to fulfill the duties of an investigator or law enforcement officer.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole is also directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The claims describe the process of gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location, and providing their information to help prevent crime. This is a basic, longstanding practice performed by investigators through manual searching through sources and using logic to determine the possible locations an individual can be located at and providing the information to officers. Therefore the invention manages the personal interactions between the investigator, the target individual, and law enforcement. More specifically, in the process described by the bolded limitations, the social interactions of the target individual are being monitored by the investigator, and the investigator provides instructions to law enforcement to help them manage the social activities and behaviors of people within the area to prevent a potential crime. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), these certain methods of organizing human activity would be considered an abstract idea, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 31, and 32 recite the following additional elements:
- An assistance device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions in claim 1
- and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory in claim 1
- An assistance method performed by an assistance device connected to a plurality of monitoring systems in claim 31
- A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an assistance program executable by an assistance device to perform processing in claim 32
-the assistance device being connected to a plurality of monitoring systems in claims 1, 31, 32
-cyberspace in claims 1, 31, and 32
-one specific monitoring camera among the selected monitoring system in claims 1, 31, 32
The additional elements listed above are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity. In this case, the abstract idea of “Gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location, and providing their information to help prevent crime” is being performed on the generic computing devices listed above (memory storing instructions, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium). Please see MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information on Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception. Furthermore, the additional element of the assistance device being connected to monitoring systems such as a monitoring camera, is merely a high-level “apply it,” element as it merely uses cameras in their ordinary capacity to perform the task that they are meant to perform. For example, “transmitting a trigger signal to activate at least one specific monitoring camera,” merely refers to initiating the recording of videos on a camera.
In addition, the fields of use and technological environments of cyberspace are generally being linked to the abstract idea in a manner than does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Please refer to MPEP 2106.05(h) for technological environment and field of use. Even when considering the additional elements individually, or as a combination and evaluating the claims as a whole, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements listed above are repeated as follows:
- An assistance device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions in claim 1
- and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory in claim 1
- An assistance method performed by an assistance device connected to a plurality of monitoring systems in claim 31
- A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an assistance program executable by an assistance device to perform processing in claim 32
-the assistance device being connected to a plurality of monitoring systems in claims 1, 31, 32
-cyberspace in claims 1, 31, and 32
-one specific monitoring camera among the selected monitoring system in claims 1, 31, 32
These additional elements have not been found to include significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Prong 2 rejection, specifically because additional elements of assistance devices, processors, memory, CRMs, and monitoring systems(monitoring camera) are generic computing devices are used to carry out the abstract idea of “gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location, and providing their information to help prevent crime.” These are generic computing devices as stated in paragraph [0129],
“Each configuration according to the above-described example embodiment is configured by hardware or software, or both, and may be configured by one piece of hardware or software, or may be configured by a plurality of pieces of hardware or software. Each device and each function (piece of processing) may be achieved by a computer 20 including a processor 21 such as a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory 22 being a storage device, as illustrated in Fig. 14. For example, a program for performing a method (monitoring assistance method or the like) according to the example embodiment may be stored in the memory 22, and each function may be achieved by executing a program stored in
the memory 22 by the processor 21.”
Therefore, the claims do not purport any improvement to the computing devices themselves, since the functions are claimed to be performed on generic processors, memory, and computer readable mediums, which are all performing steps which define the abstract idea. Furthermore, the technological environment and field of use of cyberspace is being generally applied to the abstract idea. Note the word “generally” is used because the claims do not meaningfully limit the use of the abstract idea on the cyberspace in any way. It simply states that the abstract idea of “gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location, and providing their information to help prevent crime” is to be performed on the cyberspace. The field of cyberspace technology is not being improved upon itself, nor are any computers, technology, or other technical fields. Please refer to MPEP 2106.05(a) for information regarding Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field. Even when considering the additional elements individually, or as a combination and evaluating the claims as a whole, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and significantly more as not been found. Therefore, representative claims 1, 31, and 32 are patent ineligible under 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 3-18 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
-Claims 3, 4, 5 simply limit the types of data included within “account information” to include a related account or an alternative account. Similarly, claim 13 limits account information to include personal or posted information, and claim 14 limits personal information to include “any one of biological information, soft biometric information, belongings, a name, and attribute information of the target user.” This is more of the same abstract idea of “gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location, and providing their information to help prevent crime” since all of the data specified in the dependent claims fall within the scope of “personal information” and “information to prevent crime.” The only additional element is cyberspace which has been repeated from representative claim 1. Since cyberspace is still only being used as the field to the generally apply the abstract idea, the additional elements have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and have not been found to include significantly more.
-Claims 6, 7, and 9 add the additional steps of determining the alternative account using either “account information of the target account and related account”(claim 6), “position information”(claim 8) or “content information”(claim 8) Similarly, claim 10 adds the additional step of extracting the personal information and position information based on account information. Given the generality of the steps, this is more of the same abstract idea of “gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location, and providing their information to help prevent crime” wherein the additional steps still fall under the scope of “gathering personal information.” The additional limitations processors and memory are still performing the abstract idea in their ordinary capacity therefore the additional elements have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and have not been found to include significantly more.
-Claim 8 adds the additional step of “specify hierarchical position information acquired by hierarchizing the acquired position information according to a granularity level of a position, specify the alternative account, based on the specified hierarchical position information.” This additional step further limits the abstract idea since it still falls within the “deducing their potential location” step. Furthermore, this claim individually in particular is a mathematical concept which is an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) because the process described is exclusively a textual replacement for the mathematical task of “hierarchal multi-granularity classification.” Therefore, in combination with the claims it depends on, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location using hierarchal multi-granularity classification, and providing their information to help prevent crime.” The additional limitations processors and memory are still performing the abstract idea in their ordinary capacity therefore the additional elements have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and have not been found to include significantly more.
Claims 11 and 12 add an extra step which uses “reliability” to perform the process of claim 10. It further states that reliability is “based on person attribute information.” The use of reliability as a metric without any meaningful method of determining or scoring it, is a way of managing personal behavior as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) because judging the reliability of individuals is simply an assessment of their interactions. Therefore, individually claims 11 and 12 are more of the same abstract idea and in combination with the claims they depend on the abstract idea is now, “gathering personal information about a user and measuring the reliability of the information, deducing their potential location using hierarchal multi-granularity classification, and providing their information based on reliability to help prevent crime.” The additional limitations processors and memory are still performing the abstract idea in their ordinary capacity therefore the additional elements have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and have not been found to include significantly more.
Claims 15-18 add multiple additional steps which are given an individual abstract idea analysis as follows, where the additional elements are italicized and the abstract idea is in bold:
(Claim 15)- wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the position information, based on projection of an acquired image to be acquired from the account information.
(Claim 16)- specify the position information, based on collation between the acquired image and a plurality of position images to which position information is associated in advance.
(Claim 17)- collate a position image related to the target account among the plurality of position images with the acquired image.
(Claim 18)- wherein the acquired image is a ground view image captured in a ground view, and the plurality of position images are a plurality of bird's-eye view images captured in a bird's-eye view.
The bolded claims listed analyzed individually are still directed to the abstract of “certain methods of organizing human behavior” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04. Because the claims perform functions that result in determining the location of a user through data, they are still a recitation of managing personal behavior. Monitoring the location of a user is a way to manage personal behavior. In combination with the claims they depend on the abstract is now “gathering personal information about a user, deducing their potential location using projection from various image angles, and providing their collated information to help prevent crime,” which still falls under more of the same abstract idea category of “certain methods of organizing human activity” according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The additional limitations processors and memory are still mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on generic computing components, therefore the claims have not been integrated into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parampottil; Isaac (US 10165073 B1) hereinafter Parampottil, in view of Sotodate et al. (US 20180018504 A1) hereinafter Sotodate.
Regarding Claims 1, 31, and 32:
Parampottil discloses a method of accessing social media accounts related to an inmate using telephone numbers associated with the inmate. From there more information is gathered from the posts, interactions, and otherwise to detect potential evidence of crimes to provide to investigators. Parampottil teaches:
(Claim 1 Preamble) An assistance device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to;(Parampottil [Col. 17 Lines 8-12] In various embodiments, computer system 300 may be a single-processor system including one processor 310, or a multi-processor system including two or more processors 310 (e.g., two, four, eight, or another suitable number).[Col. 17 Lines 24-34] System memory 320 may be configured to store program instructions and/or data accessible by processor 310. In various embodiments, system memory 320 may be implemented using any suitable memory technology, such as static random access memory (SRAM), synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM), nonvolatile/Flash-type memory, or any other type of memory. As illustrated, program instructions and data implementing certain operations, such as, for example, those described in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2, above, may be stored within system memory 320 as program instructions 325 and data storage 335, respectively.)
(Claim 31 Preamble) An assistance method performed by an assistance device comprising: (Parampottil[Col. 1 Lines 18-24] This controlled-environment facilities, specifically to multiple controlled-environment facility investigative data aggregation and analysis systems and methods, and particularly to multiple controlled-environment facility investigative data aggregation and analysis system access to, and use of, social media data.)
(Claim 32 Preamble) A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an assistance program executable by an assistance device to perform processing: (Parampottil[Col. 3 Lines 7-19] In various embodiments, one or more of the techniques described herein may be performed by one or more computer systems. In other various embodiments, a tangible computer-readable storage medium may have program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by one or more computer systems, cause the one or more computer systems to execute one or more operations disclosed herein. [Col. 17 Lines 38-50] Generally speaking, a computer-readable medium may include any tangible or non-transitory storage media or memory media such as magnetic or optical media—e.g., disk or CD/DVD-ROM coupled to computer system 300 via I/O interface 330, Flash memory, random access memory (RAM), etc. Program instructions and data stored on a tangible computer-accessible medium in non-transitory form may further be transmitted by transmission media or signals such as electrical, electromagnetic, or digital signals, which may be conveyed via a communication medium such as a network and/or a wireless link, such as may be implemented via network interface 340.)
Body of Claim 1 as a representative claim also applicable to claims 31 and 32:
- extract(ing) personal information being capable of discriminating a target user holding a target account, based on account information to be acquired from the target account in cyberspace; (Parampottil[Col. 13 Lines 8-24] Similarly, in accordance with embodiments of the present systems and methods, further social media data may be gathered for aggregation and analysis by centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system 175 by gathering information related to contacts of the resident and each non-resident maintained on the resident’s and non-resident’s accessed social media site/account, including, for example, telephone numbers and/or other possible information for each of the contacts that may afford access to view a social media site of the contact or others, such as a login, name, username, handle, account name, or the like. These further telephone numbers and/or further login information may be used to access social media sites/accounts of each contact to gather information related to a respective resident for incorporation into the centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system.[Col. 13 Lines 44-49] For example, centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system 175 may continue to monitor accessed social media sites/accounts of each non-resident to gather further information related to a respective resident. Thereby, embodiments of the present systems and methods may also monitor the social media target for an activity event.) Parampottil’s “further telephone numbers or further login information” are mapped to the personal information and account information. Parampottil’s “social media target” is mapped to the target account in cyberspace.
-extract(ing) position information related to the target user, based on the account information; (Parampottil[Col. 2 Lines 4-7] Public forums can include blogs, podcasts, message feeds, community forum threads, posts to virtual bulletin boards, status updates, location check-ins, timeline, tagging, social media payments, logins, tag, etc.[Col. 5 Line 66 – Col. 6 Line 7] Another example could be a message within social media that shows an investigation target checking into a location at a specific time. Further with respect to this example, the target may have checked into a movie theater at a specific time, which may be different than information they may have disclosed to investigators. In a further example, the lead may contain evidence that there is another connection, another contact, that may be associated with a target, or the like.)
-output(ing) the extracted personal information and the extracted position information as assistance information for assisting crime prevention around the position information in physical space. (Parampottil [Col. 12 Lines 46-57] The use of predictive models using investigative tools may analyze or identify patterns of various individuals, such as through mention of an inmate in social media accounts of a non-resident, as well as other information available to identify a list of potential suspects for a particular investigation, such as through the use of calling information, purchasing information, e-mail and/or postal mail communications, known associates, known physical attributes (e.g., presence and content of tattoos, hair style, apparel color and style), addresses and/or areas known to particular individuals, particular key words from communications, and/or the like.[Col. 12 Lines 36-41] In accordance with embodiments of various centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system investigative tools, the fact that a call was placed by a particular inmate to a particular known associate may indicate that a criminal act is likely being contemplated, thereby providing a predictive model for investigative reporting.) Parampottil’s “calling information,...known physical attributes” are mapped to the extracted personal information. Parampottil’s “addresses and/or areas known to particular individuals” are mapped to the position information. The investigation of a criminal act being contemplated and predicting it, teaches assisting crime prevention around the position information in physical space. Physical space is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “real life” as opposed to cyberspace.
However, Parampottil fails to teach:
-the assistance device is connected to a plurality of monitoring systems configured to monitor different locations, the assistance method
--select a monitoring system based on a congestion degree around the extracted position information;
-transmit a trigger signal to activate at least one specific monitoring camera among the selected monitoring system, based on the extracted position information and/or personal information.
Alternatively, Sotodate discloses a monitoring system with a plurality of monitoring cameras and a management device that enables selection of a particular monitoring camera to trigger a check result to acquire information in areas of interest. Sotodate teaches:
-the assistance device is connected to a plurality of monitoring systems configured to monitor different locations, the assistance method (Sotodate [0002] In recent years, incidents, such as kidnapping, lost child, and snatching, frequently occur. Therefore, a plurality of monitoring cameras are installed in roads and buildings in a district. In a case where the plurality of monitoring cameras are installed, the incidents are prevented from occurring or the incidents are early resolved based on videos captured by the plurality of monitoring cameras. [0022] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a schematic configuration of monitoring system 5 according to a first embodiment. Monitoring system 5 includes a plurality of monitoring cameras 10 which are installed for each of areas RA, RB, and RC, and management device 30 which is installed in head office HO. The plurality of monitoring cameras 10 are connected to management device 30 through network 50 such that data communication is possible.) The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of assistance device covers the same scope as “Sotodate’s” management device since they are both devices that merely control the set of the monitoring systems. The plurality of monitoring systems in the claim limitation is mapped to Sotodate’s plurality of monitoring camera’s spread throughout different locations.
--select(ing) a monitoring system based on a congestion degree around the extracted position information; (Sotodate [0042] High frequency determination processor 34 determines a high frequency area according to a well-known clustering algorithm... [0043] The high frequency area is, for example, an area where monitoring cameras 10, which capture images that are assumed to include the feature quantities of a victim or a suspect as the check results, are concentrated (widespread) over a prescribed density. [0064] As a result of the high frequency area determination, for example, information of monitoring cameras 10A, which exist in dotted-line frame h1 included in the map information between 13 and 14 o'clock illustrated in FIG. 7, is extracted. [0128] In addition, in a case where dotted-line frame h0, h1, or h2 which indicates the range of the high frequency area, is close to a peripheral edge of the area, a neighboring area, which is adjacent to the close peripheral edge, may be designated as a search range for the victim and the suspect. For example, since dotted-line frame h1 is close to the peripheral edge of area A (a distance from the peripheral edge is included in a prescribed distance) between 13 and 14 o'clock, processor 32 may cause monitoring cameras 10B installed in area B to extract the feature quantity between 14 and 15 o'clock, together with monitoring cameras 10A installed in area A.) The BRI of congestion degree based on the present specification [0050], is any measure of an area with a high degree of foot traffic/concentration. Since Sotodate’s High Frequency determination is based on a high concentration, then it satisfies the limitation. Sotodate’s extraction of camera data from cameras within the high frequency areas, as done in at least [0064] and [0128] satisfies the select a monitoring system based a congestion degree around the extracted position information limitation.
-transmit a trigger signal to activate at least one specific monitoring camera among the selected monitoring system, based on the extracted position information and/or personal information. (Sotodate [0044] The map illustrates camera locations of monitoring cameras 10, which capture the images (that is, images which include coinciding feature quantities as the check results using the search key) in which the feature quantities of the victim and the suspect are detected, in each of the areas. In addition, map controller 36 may deliver the search key, which is used to check the feature quantities of the images in monitoring cameras 10, to communication device 31. Also, the search key includes, for example, time information, in which the images where the feature quantities of the victim and the suspect are detected are captured, and camera location information. [0092] Management device 30 transmits first feature information (for example, the search key, the feature quantity of the victim) relevant to a first person (for example, the victim) to one or more first monitoring cameras (for example, monitoring cameras 10 which are installed in area RA). Each of the first monitoring cameras performs a first check (for example, the victim check) with respect to a first image, which is captured by the first monitoring cameras (self-monitoring cameras) using the received first feature information, and transmits a first check result to management device 30 [0095] In addition, management device 30 may transmit second feature information (for example, the search key and the feature quantity of the suspect) relevant to the specified second person to one or more third monitoring cameras (f.sub.or example, monitoring cameras 10 installed in areas RA, RB, and RC) including the first monitoring cameras. Each of the third monitoring cameras may perform a third check (for example, suspect check) with respect to a third image, which is captured by the third monitoring cameras (self-monitoring cameras), using the received second feature information, and may transmit a third check result to management device 30.) The search key being transmitted from the management device to the monitoring cameras in Sotodate is a trigger signal with position and personal information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Parampottil by integrating Parampottil’s monitoring feature’s into Sotodate’s integrate camera monitoring system. By adding Parampottil’s use of social media information to perform monitoring and tracking as part of Sotodate’s search key, one would easily arrive at the predictable outcome the assistance device being connected to plurality of monitoring systems to select a monitoring system based on congestion degree, and transmit a signal to activate the selected camera based on the search key information(which would include Parampottil’s social media extracted information in a hypothetical combination.) One would be motivated to perform this combination by the shared benefit of reducing the processing load of the management/assistance device and to rapidly detected a suspected person. (Sotodate [0005])
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Parampottil and Sotodate teaches the assistance device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Parampottil teaches:
- wherein the account information includes account information of the target account or account information of a related account being related to the target account. (Parampottil[Col. 13 Lines 29-40] Even further social media data may be gathered for aggregation and analysis by centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system 175 by gathering information related any subsequent contacts maintained by any accessed social media account, including, for example, telephone numbers and/or other possible login information for each of any subsequent contacts and using these further phone numbers and/or this login information to access any social media accounts of these subsequent contacts to gather resident information for incorporation into the centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system to provide further leads.) Parampottil teaches gathering information of subsequent contacts through their social media account. This teaches the above limitation, where the inmate’s social media account is mapped to the target account and subsequent contacts are mapped to the related accounts related to the target account.
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Parampottil and Sotodate teaches the assistance device according to claim 3.
Furthermore, Parampottil teaches:
-wherein the related account is an account having a connection with the target account in the cyberspace.(Parampottil[Col. 15 Lines 38-50] It may be useful for controlled-environment administration or criminal investigators to monitor or review information posted by such non-residents associated with an inmate, or in the name of inmates, on social media platforms. A further aspect of gathering information, such as at 206, may call for monitoring (such as by periodically re-accessing) the accessed media accounts of each non-resident to gather further information related to a respective resident, such as in the manner described in detail above. For example, social media monitoring engine, or the like (such as may be a part of centralized investigative data aggregation and analysis system 175) may monitor the social media target for an activity event.) Information posted by non-residents associated with an inmate is mapped to the related account having a connection with the target account.
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Parampottil and Sotodate teaches the assistance device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Parampottil teaches:
- wherein the account information includes profile information or posted information. (Parampottil [Col. 4 Lines 50-64] Non-residents, with whom residents may communicate may use social media to simply communicate with friends or family. On the other hand, such non-residents may use social media for various nefarious purposes, including perpetrating crimes, promoting crime, boasting about crimes, conspiring to commit crimes, intimidation or taunting of government officials, witnesses, or victims of crimes, etc., with or without reference to the inmate. Such social media accounts may include blogs, business networks, enterprise social networks, forums, microblogs, photo sharing sites, product and/or service review sites, social bookmarking, social gaming, social networks, video sharing sites, virtual worlds, texting/messaging, group texting/messaging, location check-ins, status updates, tags, or the like.)
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Parampottil and Sotodate teaches the assistance device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Parampottil teaches:
- wherein the personal information includes any one of biological information, soft biometric information, a name, and attribute information of the target user.(Parampottil[Col. 12 Lines 46-57] The use of predictive models using investigative tools may analyze or identify patterns of various individuals, such as through mention of an inmate in social media accounts of a non-resident, as well as other information available to identify a list of potential suspects for a particular investigation, such as through the use of calling information, purchasing information, e-mail and/or postal mail communications, known associates, known physical attributes (e.g., presence and content of tattoos, hair style, apparel color and style), addresses and/or areas known to particular individuals, particular key words from communications, and/or the like.[Col. 15 Line 38-42] It may be useful for controlled-environment administration or criminal investigators to monitor or review information posted by such non-residents associated with an inmate, or in the name of inmates, on social media platforms.) Parampottil’s “physical attributes” anticipates biological information, soft biometric information, and attribute information.
Claims 5-7, 9-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parampottil in view of Sotodate (US 20180018504 A1), further in view of Hoffman et al. (US 8131745 B1) hereinafter Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Parampottil and Sotodate teaches the assistance device according to claim 3.
Furthermore, Parampottil teaches:
-the related account(Parampottil[Col. 15 Lines 38-43] It may be useful for controlled-environment administration or criminal investigators to monitor or review information posted by such non-residents associated with an inmate, or in the name of inmates, on social media platforms.)
However, neither Parampottil nor Sotodate teach or suggests:
-wherein the related account includes an alternative account different from the target account being held by the target user.
Alternatively, Hoffman discloses a user correlation system which matches/compares account data to assign an association score that determines the likelihood that two accounts are associated with the same user, which teaches:
-an alternative account different from the target account being held by the target user.(Hoffman[Col. 1 Line 49-54] A user correlation system uses aggregated data and matching/comparison in order to assign an association score that determines likelihood that unique identifiers are associated with the same user. The user correlation system aggregates data and then returns a score representing the confidence that multiple unique identifiers are associated to the same person. [Col. 11 Line 60 – Col. 12 Line 3] A fifth mechanism gathers and compares UID information on email signatures. Many emails include a signature at the footer of an incoming email. The signature can include UIDs such as the email address (which may or may not match the "From" email address), phone numbers, IM accounts, accounts at multiple web sites, URLs, and more. The signature may also include identifiers such as the name of the person sending the email, an employer's name, address, slogan, legal notice, graphic, etc. Two or more emails with the exact or similar signatures may be associated with the same individual.) The limitation alternative account is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of an account that is different from the first account but is also held by the same user of the first account. Hoffman teaches this limitation because Hoffman teaches determination of accounts being owned by the same person.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify the combination of Parampottil and Sotodate by adding Hoffman’s feature of analyzing the related account to determine if the related account is also owned by the owner of the target account. One would be motivated to add this feature as it would provide the benefit of further providing investigative leads, substantive information regarding if a post was made by the target user. This would further allow the system to be used to more effectively identify illegal and forbidden activities and prevent wrongdoings or crimes.(Hoffman [Col. 1 Lines 59-62])
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Parampottil, Sotodate and Hoffman teach the assistance device according to claim 5.
However, neither Parampottil nor Sotodate teach or suggest:
-wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the alternative account, based on account information of the target account and account information of the related account.
Alternatively, Hoffman teaches:
-wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the alternative account, based on account information of the target account and account information of the related account. (Hoffman [Col. 11 Lines 4-15] FIG. 7 displays the flow necessary to determine a confidence value for CV calculation scheme 400B in FIG. 5. Such comparisons between social network/communication sites include photos, username, name, location, interests, and key friends. An email address Email1 when searched on a social networking SITE A, may bring up Profile1 with a certain username, age, group of friends, and any other information. Another email address Email2 when searched on a social networking SITE B, may bring up Profile2 with a similar username, age, circle of friends, etc. In this case, a confidence level is assigned indicating that these two or more email addresses can be linked together to the same individual.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify the combination of Parampottil, Sotodate and Hoffman by further adding Hoffman’s feature of analyzing the account information of the target account and the related account to determine if the related account is also owned by the owner of the target account. One would be motivated to add this feature as it would provide the benefit of further providing investigative leads, substantive information regarding if a post was made by the target user. This would further allow the system to be used to more effectively identify illegal and forbidden activities and prevent wrongdoings or crimes.(Hoffman [Col. 1 Lines 59-62])
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Parampottil, Sotodate, and Hoffman teach the assistance device according to claim 6.
However, neither Parampottil nor Sotodate teach or suggest:
-wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the alternative account, based on position information acquired from account information of the related account.
Alternatively, Hoffman teaches:
-wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the alternative account, based on position information acquired from account information of the related account.(Hoffman[Col. 11 Lines 50-58]A fourth mechanism gathers and compares information on a UID's web footprint. Most UIDs have a web footprint. In other words, while searching for UID1 on various web sites, an individual's self-reported age, self-reported location, verified location, blog comments, blog links (i.e. blogger friends), profile information, name, etc. may be obtained. Some of this information is obtained outside of conventional social networking sites. This information is compared with the information obtained for UID2.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify the combination of Parampottil, Sotodate and Hoffman by further adding Hoffman’s feature of analyzing the position information of the related account to determine if the related account is also owned by the owner of the target account. One would be motivated to add this feature as it would provide the benefit of further providing investigative leads using location information which provides more accuracy since it adds another potential data point. This would further allow the system to be used to more effectively identify illegal and forbidden activities and prevent wrongdoings or crimes.(Hoffman [Col. 1 Lines 59-62])
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Parampottil, Sotodate and Hoffman teach the assistance device according to claim 6.
However, neither Parampottil nor Sotodate teach or suggest:
-wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the alternative account, based on content data acquired from account information of the related account.
Alternatively, Hoffman teaches:
-wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the at least one memory to specify the alternative account, based on content data acquired from account information of the related account.(Hoffman[Col. 2 Lines 44-50] A unique identifier (UID) is an identifying component that is granted for a human to use, verified by that human, and unique such that there is only one identifier in existence in the space of online, internet activity. Such UIDs may include: email addresses, website usernames, instant messenger or chat screen names, telephone numbers, and blog and website URLs. [Col. 3 Lines 58-63] ) For example, data 120 can be any information accessed over the Internet 119, any other Internet related data, or other data source such as information collected from website profiles, blog comments, forums, or anywhere else an email address, email signatures, email headings, etc. that may leave a trace of access by the unique identifier 122.) Hoffman’s data included profiles, blog comments, and forums are mapped to the “content data” acquired from account information since content data is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of any data that comes from social media content(such as posts or comments).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify the combination of Parampottil, Sotodate and Hoffman by further adding Hoffman’s feature of analyzing the content