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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1, 19 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 10 of Remarks, the applicant argues that Goldstein discloses broad concepts of user identification, behavior monitoring, thresholds, and directional deterrence, but not for the specific claimed arrangement that ties the unknown-identity determination and the particular suspicious behavior of frequency at which the entity moves past an object or area to the threshold-triggered targeted operation of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it is noted that the claimed “frequency” of claim 1 is met by a single detection of a user moving past an object or an area being monitored by the camera-enabled device (i.e., a frequency of 1). Figure 8 of Goldstein discloses where a user is identified, behavior and proximity relative to an object are determined and a deterrent response is dynamically performed based on the identification and determinations. Therefore, Goldstein discloses the argued limitations of claims 1, 19 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Goldstein et al. (hereafter Goldstein)(PgPub 2022/0057519).
Regarding claim 1, Goldstein discloses a method (Figures 1 and 3), comprising: monitoring a
physical environment using a camera-enabled device installed in the physical environment (Figure 1,
Element 104 and Paragraphs 0063, 0064, 0066, 0078, 0080, 0087 and 0088 where a subject area, such
as a building or dwelling, is monitored by a camera-enabled device installed in the subject area); determining one or more parameters based at least in part on the monitoring, the one or more parameters comprising an unknown identity of an entity, or a predefined suspicious behavior of the entity, or a combination thereof (Figure 1, Elements 136, 144, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0054, 0080, 0084, 0088, 0091, 0098, 0099, 0127, 0128, 0129, 0140-0148, 0610 and 0611 where a user is identified and a behavior of the user is monitored. When the user is not identified, he/she is deemed to have an unknown identity); wherein the unknown identity is an identity of the entity that fails to match a profile of one or more known occupants associated with the physical environment (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0055, 0066, 0073, 0080, 0128, 0130, 0137, 0140-0148 and 0273 where facial recognition is used to identify a user to a known identity profile. When the user is not identified, he/she is deemed to have an unknown identity), and wherein the predefined suspicious behavior includes at least a frequency at which the entity moves past an object or an area being monitored by the camera-enabled device (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0062, 0074, 0087, 0088, 0091, 0120 and 0586 where user(s) are tracked relative to a valuable object in a defined area); and dynamically performing an operation directed, from a component installed in the physical environment and associated with the camera-enabled device, at the entity to affect the physical environment of the entity based at least in part on the one or more parameters satisfying one or more thresholds (Figure 1, Elements 152, 164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0143-0148, 0237, 0240 and 0266 where directive sound is directed at the user in order to deter the user).
Regarding claim 2, Goldstein discloses wherein the one or more thresholds are set to deter the
entity while reducing a probability of taking a severe action for a low risk event (Figure 1, Elements 152,
164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0143-0148, 0152, 0237, 0240, 0265 and 0266 where directive sound is
directed at the user in order to deter the user. The intensity of the directive sound is variable based on a
determined deterrence level).
Regarding claim 3, Goldstein discloses determining that the predefined suspicious behavior is
unaffected by the operation; and dynamically escalating performance of the operation of the
component associated with the camera-enabled device at the entity to affect the physical environment
of the entity in response to determining that the predefined suspicious behavior is unaffected (Figure 1,
Elements 152, 164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0129, 0143-0148, 0152, 0237, 0240, 0265 and 0266 where
directive sound is directed at the user in order to deter the user. The intensity of the directive sound is
variable based on a determined deterrence level and user response).
Regarding claim 4, Goldstein discloses determining that the one or more parameters subsequently fail to satisfy the one or more thresholds in response to performing the operation; and
dynamically lowering an intensity of performance of the operation in response to determining that the one or more parameters subsequently fail to satisfy the one or more thresholds (Figure 1, Elements 152,
164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0129, 0143-0148, 0152, 0237, 0240, 0265 and 0266 where directive sound
is directed at the user in order to deter the user based on user threat level. The intensity of the
directive sound is variable based on a determined deterrence level and user response).
Regarding claim 5, Goldstein discloses processing inputs from the camera-enabled device using
facial recognition to determine whether the identity of the entity matches a profile of one or more
known occupants associated with the physical environment, wherein the identity of the entity is
unknown in response to determining the identity of the entity fails to match the profile of the one or
more known occupants (Paragraphs 0073, 0080, 0128, 0130, 0137 and 0273 where facial recognition is
used to identify an authorized/trusted user).
Regarding claim 6, Goldstein discloses processing inputs from the camera-enabled device using
license-plate recognition to determine whether the identity of the entity matches the profile of the one
or more known occupants, wherein the identity of the entity is unknown in response to determining
both the facial recognition and the license-plate recognition fail to match the identity of the entity to the
profile of the one or more known occupants (Paragraphs 0073, 0080, 0128, 0130, 0137, 0273, 0362 and
0366 where facial recognition and license plates are used to identify an authorized/trusted user).
Regarding claim 8, Goldstein discloses wherein the operation comprises emitting a sound warning the entity to leave the physical environment (Figure 1, Elements 152, 164, Figure 8 and
Paragraphs 0143-0148, 0237, 0240 and 0266 where directive sound is directed at the user in order to
deter the user).
Regarding claim 9, Goldstein discloses wherein the sound is selected based on the predefined
suspicious behavior of the entity (Figure 28 and Paragraphs 0143-0148, 0237, 0240, 0266 and 0541
where deterrent sounds are selected based on behavior of the user).
Regarding claim 10, Goldstein discloses wherein the sound comprises one or more of a whistle
sound, a dog barking sound, a sound of shouting, a sound of laughter, and a warning message (Paragraph 0239).
Regarding claim 11, Goldstein discloses dynamically selecting the sound using machine learning
based on which historical sounds have successfully deterred previous entities (Figure 4 and Paragraphs
0132, 0187 and 636 where machine learning is used to determine successful deterrents).
Regarding claim 12, Goldstein discloses predicting an event based on the unknown identity of
the entity and the predefined suspicious behavior of the entity; and selecting the sound to deter the
entity from performing the predicted event (Figure 1, Elements 152, 164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0143-
0148, 0237, 0240, 0266 and 0541 where directive sound is directed at the user in order to deter the
user).
Regarding claim 13, Goldstein discloses setting a direction to emit the sound based at least in
part on the monitoring (Figure 1, Elements 152, 164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0143-0148, 0237, 0240
and 0266 where directive sound is directed at the user in order to deter the user).
Regarding claim 14, Goldstein discloses tracking movement of the entity based at least in part
on the monitoring and adjusting the direction to emit the sound based on the tracked movement of the
entity (Figure 1, Elements 152, 164, Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0062, 0074, 0087, 0088, 0091, 0120, 0143-
0148, 0237, 0240, 0266 and 0586 where directive sound is directed at the user in order to deter the
user).
Regarding claim 15, Goldstein discloses wherein the sound comprises one or more of an ultrasonic and an infrasonic frequency (Paragraphs 0237, 0240, 0496 and 0525).
Regarding claim 16, Goldstein discloses wherein at least one of the one or more thresholds
comprises a duration for which the entity remains within a predefined geo-boundary (Paragraphs 0088
and 0137 where user proximity to various boundaries is detected to determine threat/behavior level).
Regarding claim 17, Goldstein discloses wherein the operation comprises emitting a sound, the
method further comprising adjusting one or more parameters of the sound based on the duration for
which the entity remains within the predefined geo-boundary (Figure 28 and Paragraphs 0088, 0137,
0143-0148, 0237, 0240, 0266 and 0541 where selective, directional sound is emitted at the user when
the user is detected at various boundaries).
Regarding claim 18, Goldstein discloses wherein at least one of the one or more thresholds
comprises a distance at which the entity is disposed from a predefined object (Paragraphs 0062, 0074,
0087, 0088, 0091, 0120 and 0586 where user(s) are tracked relative to valuable objects and a
threat/behavior level is determined).
Apparatus claim 19 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as
claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 19 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the
same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection for claim 1 which discloses all of the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al. (hereafter Goldstein)(PgPub 2022/0057519) and in view of Merkley et al. (US 11,594,034).
Regarding claim 7, Goldstein discloses wherein the entity is one of a person, an animal, an object, ad event or combination thereof (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0055, 0066, 0073, 0080, 0128, 0130, 0137, 0140-0148 and 0273 where facial recognition is used to identify a user to a known identity profile). Goldstein does not specifically disclose wherein the frequency at which the entity moves past the object or area further comprises a frequency of multiple passes of the entity walking past the object or area, and wherein the predefined suspicious behavior further includes a person looking over their shoulders. In the same field of endeavor, Merkley discloses a smart monitoring system where suspicious behavior is determined based on multiple passes of an entity walking past an object or area and a person looking over their shoulders (Column 20, lines 20-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the suspicious behavior determination criteria of Merkley to the automated threat detection and deterrence apparatus of Goldstein, motivation being to further aid in determining suspicious behavior amongst plural users relative to a valuable object which increases safety and security. Furthermore, such a modification involves routine skill in the art, was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights