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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
As of claim 1, line 9, “fulfilment a target state” should be --fulfilment of a target state—
As of claim 1, line 10, “wherein target state” should be –wherien the target state--, since term “target state” is already introduced in line 9.
As of claim 10, line 12, “fulfilment a target state” should be --fulfilment of a target state—
As of claim 10, line 13, “wherein target state” should be –wherien the target state--, since term “target state” is already introduced in line 12.
As of claim 17, line 12, “fulfilment a target state” should be --fulfilment of a target state—
As of claim 17, line 13, “wherein target state” should be –wherien the target state--, since term “target state” is already introduced in line 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldstein et al. (US Pub 2022/0057519).
As of claims 1, 10 and 17, Goldstein discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting, using one or more sensors, a behavior of a non-compliant entity over a threshold in a monitored area, wherein the threshold is determined by processing an input of the sensor using a processing algorithm (via using one or more sensors to determine a behavior descriptor associated with a subject 308; see fig. 1, 4, paragraphs [0137]-[0138], [0144]);
deploying, using an intervention actuator, a response, into the monitored area, wherein the response is based on the input of the sensor (via deploying a deterrent into the monitored area and to the subject; see paragraph [0151])
identifying, using an adaptation algorithm, a reaction of the non-compliant entity to the response (via tracking the behavior of the subject after deploying the deterrent; see paragraph [0153]); and
determining, using the processing algorithm, fulfilment a target state by the non- compliant entity, wherein target state comprise a change in behavior by the non-compliant entity (see paragraph [0153], “one or more escalation triggers that may cause a modification of states and/or outputs to generate a more aggressive deterrent may include a reduction in distance from apparatus 100 and/or an object, person, and/or area to be guarded, an amount of time spent in an unauthorized area, a speed, velocity, acceleration, and/or direction of movement of subject, time spent at a given speed, and/or any threat level and/or behavioral determination as described in this disclosure. De-escalation triggers may include, without limitation, modifications to less threatening behavior, reduction in determined threat level, compliance with instructions issued from apparatus 100, departure from subject area and/or an unauthorized area, reduction in speed, velocity, acceleration”).
As of claims 2, 11, 13 and 18, Goldstein discloses that the response is selected from a database (via selecting a deterrent from a deterrent database; see paraqgrpah [0298], [0301] and [0526]).
As of claims 3, 14 and 19, Goldstein discloses that the response is generated based on the input of the sensor (via using one or more sensors to determine a behavior descriptor associated with a subject 308 and generating a deterrent; see fig. 1, 4, paragraphs [0137]-[0138], [0144]).
As of claims 4, 12 and 20, Goldstein discloses that when the reaction of the non-compliant entity is not the target state, deploying, a second response from the database, the second response based on the reaction of the non-compliant entity (see paragraph [0153], “one or more escalation triggers that may cause a modification of states and/or outputs to generate a more aggressive deterrent may include a reduction in distance from apparatus 100 and/or an object, person, and/or area to be guarded, an amount of time spent in an unauthorized area, a speed, velocity, acceleration, and/or direction of movement of subject, time spent at a given speed, and/or any threat level and/or behavioral determination as described in this disclosure. De-escalation triggers may include, without limitation, modifications to less threatening behavior, reduction in determined threat level, compliance with instructions issued from apparatus 100, departure from subject area and/or an unauthorized area, reduction in speed, velocity, acceleration”).
As of claims 5 and 15, Goldstein discloses repeating deploying a response and identifying the reaction until the target state is reached (De-escalation triggers may include, without limitation, modifications to less threatening behavior, reduction in determined threat level, compliance with instructions issued from apparatus 100, departure from subject area and/or an unauthorized area, reduction in speed, velocity, acceleration”; see paragraph [0153]).
As of claim 6, Goldstein discloses a timeout sequence in response to not reaching the target state after deploying a set number of responses (via determining time period of the deployed deterrents and calibrate deterrents to avoid harming potential assailants; see paragraph [0056], [0222], [0284], [0297]-[0299]).
As of claim 7, Goldstein discloses that the target state comprises the non- compliant entity following a command deployed as the response (via desired or commanded outcome; see paragraph [0097] and [0153]).
As of claim 8, Goldstein discloses the processing algorithm processes a visual input (via processing input from an imaging device 104; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0055]).
As of claims 9 and 16, Goldstein discloses a learning algorithm that evaluates how the response affects the non-compliant entity (via a deterrent effects classifier 456. configured to classify one or more images or data from sensors to determine success or failure of a deterrent used on the subject 308; see paragraph [0132]).
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 1-20 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is a method claim, claim 10 is a computer program product claim and claim 17 is a system claim. For analysis, attention will be directed to claim 1.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting, using one or more sensors, a behavior of a non-compliant entity over a threshold in a monitored area, wherein the threshold is determined by processing an input of the sensor using a processing algorithm; deploying, using an intervention actuator, a response, into the monitored area, wherein the response is based on the input of the sensor; identifying, using an adaptation algorithm, a reaction of the non-compliant entity to the response; and determining, using the processing algorithm, fulfilment a target state by the non- compliant entity, wherein target state comprise a change in behavior by the non-compliant entity..
The abstract idea is directed to the “deploying”, “identifying” and “determining” steps.
The remainder steps are then analyzed in Prong 2 of step 2a.
Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The same steps are then analyzed in Step 2b.
Step 2b. The additional steps do not add significantly more and do not seem to be unconventional elements or unconventional combination of elements. The claim recites the step of deploying, identifying and determining, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As of claim 1, 10 and 117, claims include additional elements “one or more sensors” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 further recite human activity and hence do not add any particular machine, particular transformation or meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more and therefore they are rejected as well.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jentoft (US 9,472,067) discloses a security system wherein a deterrent is deployed to a non-compliant entity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights