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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 – 8 and 13 – 24 beyond formalities and 112 Rejections.
The pending claims are 1 – 8 and 13 – 24 [Page 10 lines 1 – 5].
Applicant amended the Drawings to address Examiner’s Drawing Objections [Page 10 lines 6 – 11].
Applicant amended the Abstract and Title of Invention to address Examiner’s Specification Objections [Page 10 lines 12 – 21]. Applicant’s arguments are considered persuasive and Specification Objection (a) in the sole interest to expedite prosecution.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112 Rejections [Page 11 lines 1 – 5]. Examiner reconsiders the 112 Rejections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant does NOT comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis section. In view of the apparent agreement of the Examiner’s conclusion of “processor” no invoking Functional Analysis under 112(f), the section is deleted in the interest of brevity.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 11 lines 6 – 14].
Second, the Applicant recites amended independent claim 1 [Page 11 line 15 – Page 12 line 7] and lists portions of the amended independent claim allegedly not taught by the references [Page 12 lines 8 – 13].
Third, the Applicant provides their summary of Renkis [Page 12 line 14 – Page 13 line 12] and contends Renkis does not render obvious the amended “voice features of pre-registered persons” feature of the amended independent claim [Page 13 lines 12 – 17]. However, Renkis in Column 19 lines 9 – 41 teaches audio inputs for a cloud / server to register / save for latter access with specific characterizations / annotations in which Figures 3 – 4 provides realization of such an input capture system for later comparison / matching [Column 19 lines 42 – 53] for search / matching. While the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s analysis, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution a new reference will be cited against the claims.
Fourth, the Applicant contends Date does not render obvious features of the amended independent claim [Page 13 line 18 – Page 14 line 14]. While the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s rather narrow view of the cited portions of Date which render obvious voice / audio matching (e.g. Paragraph 119) in which the voice is used to detect abnormal situations; the Examiner in the sole interest to expedite prosecution cites a new reference against the claims.
Fifth, the Applicant contends Wang does not render obvious at least the voice feature portions of the amended independent claims [Page 14 lines 15 – 23]. However, Renkis in at least the cited portions and Column 19 renders obvious registered / known people with audio signatures in which the abnormal detection of Wan in at least Paragraph 118 is combinable and with Date. While the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s analysis, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution a new reference will be cited against the claims.
Sixth, the Applicant concludes the claims are allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 15 lines 1 – 6].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; however, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution in view of the amended claims a new reference is cited against the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 9th, 2023; December 12th, 2024; and January 7th, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed February 5th, 2026). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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(s) 1, 3 – 8, 13 – 14, 16 – 19, and 21 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renkis (US Patent #11,120,274 B2 referred to as “Renkis” throughout), and further in view of Date, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0061044 A1 referred to as “Date” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s November 9th, 2023 IDS], Wang, et al. (CN-112825553-A referred to as “Wang” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s January 7th, 2026 IDS – the Examiner provides the relied upon translation as NPL], and Numamoto (JP 5560397 B2 referred to as “Numamoto” throughout).
Regarding claim 13, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 5 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 21, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 22, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 23, see claim 5 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 24, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 1, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
at least one memory storing instructions [Renkis Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 (see at least the serves and ICDs as well as reference characters 120, 170, 310, 320, 860, 862, 890, and 900) as well as Column 10 lines 11 – 57 (input devices has memory and processor), Column 16 lines 46 – 65 (serve has memory / processor), Column 27 lines 18 – 55 and Column 28 lines 17 – 49 (processor / memory with instructions to execute)]; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to [Renkis Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 (see at least the serves and ICDs as well as reference characters 120, 170, 310, 320, 860, 862, 890, and 900) as well as Column 10 lines 11 – 57 (input devices has memory and processor), Column 16 lines 46 – 65 (serve has memory / processor), Column 27 lines 18 – 55 and Column 28 lines 17 – 49 (processor / memory with instructions to execute)]:
acquire a predetermined voice uttered by a person due to the occurrence of an abnormal situation in a monitoring target area [Renkis Figures 3 – 5 (see at least reference character 630) as well as Column 10 lines 9 – 31 and Column 13 lines 19 – 23 (ICDs have microphones), Column 10 lines 58 – 67 (audio capture), Column 17 lines 2 – 36 (audio using to enable input capture – combine with Column 19 lines 9 – 65), and Column 24 lines 1 – 19 and Column 26 lines 2 – 41 (audio stored / analyzed); Wang Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 102, 1021, and 1022) as well as Paragraphs 61 – 64 and 87 – 89 (audio detected using predetermined models / pre-trained models as an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art in which the audio is part of detected abnormal situation / anomaly (obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art)), 101 – 109 (system to detect audio for anomaly / abnormal situation to begin detection / monitoring), and 129 – 133 (sound detected abnormal events located)];
identify the person who uttered the predetermined voice by matching features obtained from the predetermined voice with voice features of pre-registered persons [Renkis Figures 3 – 7 as well as Column 6 lines 40 – 65 (associating sound with a person as a known technique), Column 17 lines 2 – 36 (profile of person with audio associated inputs), Column 19 lines 9 – 53 (matching audio / voice characteristics of those imaged in combination with Columns 15 lines 37 – 60 and Numamoto) and Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (associating person and audio with the camera / input device to combine with Wang or Date); Date Figures 1 – 2, 7, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 42 (sound of target / person acquired), 54 – 58 (person associated with abnormal sound / situation), and 116 – 120 (sound detected abnormality examples with matching of voice characteristics); Wang Figures 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 176 – 180 and 183 – 193 (personnel / person detected making anomaly / abnormal audio); Numamoto Figure 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 21 (matching sound characteristics of a person) and 51 – 57 (see voice matching and results for the characteristics / types of sounds matched for abnormal / dangerous situations)];
search for the identified person by using previously registered features of appearance of the identified person, from a video from a camera shooting the monitoring target area [In combination with next limitation see Wang Figures 2 – 3 and 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 107 – 109 (audio data to track / identify source to image person), 166 – 170 (identify person and facial features), 176 – 180 and 183 – 196 (matching / searching for person based on sound and abnormality)] and analyze a facial expression or a motion of the person [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with gestures); Wang Paragraphs 183 – 199 (matching facial features / gestures / expressions to sound / audio source); Nomamoto Figures 4 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 43 – 47 (see at least the face image matching taught where images are registered of people)]; and
evaluate the abnormal situation in the monitoring target area based on a result of an analysis of the facial expression or the motion of the person [Renkis Figures 1 – 5 as well as Column 2 lines 21 – 41 (sensor evaluation for abnormal behavior), Column 17 line 2 – Column 18 line 32 (security status determinations made based on audio / images captured), and Column 24 lines 1 – 45 (identification of abnormal / security situations); Date Figures 1 – 2, 7, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 54 – 58 (person associated with abnormal sound / situation), 79 – 82 (face / person detected in abnormal situation) and 116 – 120 (sound detected abnormality examples); Wang Figures 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 101 – 109, 176 – 180 and 183 – 193 (personnel / person detected making anomaly / abnormal audio from analysis / models used); Nomamoto Figures 3 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (alert or hazard level set and used as a threshold for analysis) and 42 – 45 (setting risk levels as a threshold and alerting the highest danger (Paragraph 45 at least))].
The motivation to combine Date with Renkis is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of target monitoring with abnormality detection using multiple input devices [Date Paragraphs 2 – 6] in order to improve triggering / activating detection of the scene / environment [Date Paragraphs 5 – 6 and 15 – 17 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Wang with Date and Renkis is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of monitoring systems including high-traffic areas [Wang Paragraphs 1 – 5] to improve decision making and monitoring for real time performance [Wang Paragraphs 3 – 7 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Nomamoto with Wang, Date, and Renkis is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of surveillance camera systems [Nomamoto Paragraphs 1 – 3 and 19 – 21] in order to improve abnormal / criminal activity detection by integrating sound / voice with image data [Nomamoto Paragraphs 6 – 9 and 18 – 21 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 3, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
the result of the analysis includes an analysis result indicating whether the motion of the person is similar to a predefined series of motions [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with predetermined gestures / movement / human patterns combinable with the motion recognition in Date Paragraph 118); Nomamoto Paragraphs 41 – 47 (similarity computations of facial images / motions)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
Regarding claim 4, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
the result of the analysis includes an analysis result indicating whether the motion of the person is similar to a predefined gesture [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with predetermined gestures / movement / human patterns combinable with the motion recognition in Date Paragraphs 118 – 121); Nomamoto Paragraphs 41 – 47 (similarity computations of facial images / motions)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
Regarding claim 5, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
analyze at least one of the facial expression or the motion of the person [See claim 1 “analyze a facial expression …” limitation for citations in combination with the next limitation] based on the predetermined voice being detected, and wherein analyzing the facial expression or the motion of the person is not executed before the predetermined voice is detected [Renkis Column 17 lines 2 – 36 (audio using to enable input capture – combine with Column 19 lines 43 – 65 rendering obvious “not executed” claim limitation further illustrated in examples of Date Paragraphs 117 – 123), and Column 24 lines 1 – 19 and Column 26 lines 2 – 41 (audio stored / analyzed after enabling input capture / ICDs); Wang Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 102, 1021, and 1022) as well as Paragraphs 61 – 64 and 87 – 89 (audio detected using predetermined models / pre-trained models as an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art in which the audio is part of detected abnormal situation / anomaly (obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art) to initiate camera / imaging), 101 – 109 (system to detect audio for anomaly / abnormal situation to begin detection / monitoring), 129 – 133 (sound detected abnormal events located), 169 – 176, and 187 – 200 (camera locates the sound source to image of a person for further analysis); Nomamoto Figures 4 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 52 – 58 (the audio detection for a risk / hazard in S101 is done before the facial / movement analysis)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
Regarding claim 6, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] estimate a sound source position of the predetermined voice [See claim 1 first limitation for citations and additionally Wang Figures 8 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 126 – 130 (sound source localization using known techniques), 136 – 141, and 187 – 200 (camera locates the sound source to image of a person)], and
analyze at least one of the facial expression or the motion of the person [See claim 1 “analyze a facial …” limitation for citations in combination with the next two limitations] only on video data from the camera shooting the area including the sound source position [See claim 1 first limitation for citations and additionally Wang Figures 8 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 126 – 130 (sound source localization using known techniques), 136 – 141, and 187 – 200 (camera locates the sound source to image of a person for further analysis)], among a plurality of the cameras [Renkis Figures 1 and 6 – 7 (see at least reference characters 101, 102, 105, 106) as well as Column 25 line 24 – Column 26 line 13 (multiple camera system)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
Regarding claim 7, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
analyzing at least one of the facial expression or the motion of the person [See claim 1 for citations of the same / similar limitation] is performed only for a partial image including the sound source position in the image constituting the video [Date Figures 1, 2, 7, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 54 – 58 (person associated with abnormal sound / situation), 89 – 91 and 95 (occluded / objects in images analyzed / part of images considered for analysis and abnormality detection) and 116 – 121 (parts / occluded features of images analyzed / considered in the analysis of images to find a sound source location); Wang Figures 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 176 – 180, 183 – 193 (personnel / person detected making anomaly / abnormal audio for analysis and pointing the camera to generate tracking video thus partial images are used), and 195 – 205 (partial / pointing camera from initial sound to track thus rendering obvious use of partial images claimed)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
Regarding claim 8, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto. The combination teaches
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] output a predetermined signal based on the evaluation score of the abnormal situation exceeding a threshold value [Renkis Figures 1 – 4 as well as Column 14 lines 28 – 52 (alarms signaled based on situation / security situation evaluated), Column 15 lines 3 – 28, Column 16 lines 10 – 26, and Column 25 lines 4 – 23 (additional rules / evaluations for alarms); Date Figures 8 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 117 – 125 (various abnormal / security situations with criteria for gestures / expressions for outputting / signaling event); Nomamoto Figures 3 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 37 – 41 (alert or hazard level set and used as a threshold for analysis) and 42 – 45 (setting risk levels as a threshold and alerting the highest danger (Paragraph 45 at least)), and 51 – 58 (see the small, medium, large hazard levels which are obvious threshold of the “threshold value” claimed in which the alarm is based on exceeding the minimum threshold for each hazard / risk level)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
Claim(s) 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renkis, Date, Wang, Nomamoto and further in view of Ricci (WO 2014/172312 A2 referred to as “Ricci” throughout) [First Cited in Office Action mailed February 5th, 2026].
Regarding claim 15, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 2, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Numamoto teaches using databased and registration of movements and sound / voice characteristics for matching in security / surveillance applications. Ricci teaches systems analyzing facial expressions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang suing database matching considerations for sounds and registered people as taught by Numamoto with facial expression considerations taught by Ricci. The combination teaches
the result of the analysis includes an analysis result indicating whether the facial expression of the person is a predetermined facial expression [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with predetermined gestures / movement / human patterns); Wang Paragraphs 183 – 199 (matching facial features / gestures / expressions to sound / audio source); Ricci Figures 12 and 22 as well as Paragraphs 289 and 381 – 382 (facial expressions / emotions detected and compared); Nomamoto Paragraphs 41 – 47 (similarity computations of facial images / motions)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Nomamoto.
The motivation to combine Ricci with Nomamoto, Wang, Date, and Renkis is to combine features in the detecting user / presence of people and relationships / system control based on people detected [Ricci Paragraphs 3 – 6] in order to improve user experiences and communication with electronic devices [Ricci Paragraphs 6 and 22 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Ricci which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fu, et al. (US Patent #10,212,778 B1 referred to as “Fu” throughout) teaches image matching for facial and movements in a security environment / application.
References that do NOT overcome Applicant’s Priority date: Ortega Pena, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0225817 A1 referred to as “Ortega Pena” throughout) teaches in Figures 2, 6, and 11 extracting facial features for person matching and using audio cues to further identify the person detected.
References found which may raise ODP Considerations based on amendments to the claims: Kajiki (US PG PUB 2024/0087328 A1 referred to as “Kajiki” throughout) in which the claims were amended to add heat detecting features. Sendoda (US PG PUB 2021/0055705 A1 referred to as “Sendoda” throughout) was Patented but is missing features regarding motion / movement ranges of people to track.
Sendoda (US PG PUB 2021/0048336 A1 referred to as “Sendoda 36” throughout) is Abandoned and thus cannot raise ODP issues.
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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights