Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
2. Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 07/06/2026, are acknowledged. Amended claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Amtrup et al. (US 2017/0104885 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Steinberg (US 2019/0034157 A1) in view of Amtrup et al. (US 2017/0104885 A1).
6. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is rejected for reasons related to claim 12 (see claim 12 below).
7. Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is rejected for reasons related to claim 14 (see claim 14
below).
8. Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is rejected for reasons related to claim 15 (see claim 15
below).
9. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected for reasons related to claim 16 (see claim 16
below).
10. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected for reasons related to claim 17 (see claim 17
below).
11. Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected for reasons related to claim 18 (see claim 18
below).
12. Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for reasons related to claim 19 (see claim 19
below).
13. Regarding claim 9, Regarding claim 9, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the method of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), further comprising:
refraining from providing the electronic alert when the at least one other video recording when the at least one of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is recorded with the specified quality level in the at least one other audio and/or video recording (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5 (506), teaches that in response to a satisfied condition of the predetermined quality control criteria, an image is captured automatically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
14. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected for reasons related to claim 19 (see claim 19 below).
15. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for reasons related to claim 20 (see claim 20 below).
16. Regarding claim 12, an electronic computing device (…Steinberg in [0063] teaches
communication device 200, Fig. 2…), comprising:
a communications interface (…[0065] teaches communication unit 202, Fig. 2…); and
an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the communications interface (…[0067] teaches electronic processor 213 coupled to unit 202, Fig. 2…),
the electronic processor configured to:
acquire, via the communications interface, one or more video recordings
from one or more audio video recorders operated by a user while the user is performing
an assigned task (…[0018] teaches that communication devices (e.g., video
capture device 106) configured to communicate information to and from
communication devices. Further, [0012] teaches an electronic computing device
associated with a user and via one or more coupled sensors which is responsive to
detecting events (wherein an event may be viewed as a task)…);
identify a particular type of the assigned task (…[0081] teaches that the electronic
computing device may determine that a user is or is likely experiencing an event/task…);
retrieve, via the communications interface, an evidentiary policy established
corresponding to the particular type of the assigned task (…[0060] teaches database(s) 164
accessible via an IP network which stores information. [0077] further teaches electronic
computing device may be configured to determine a response to an oral query and
provide a response, by retrieving stored data or by requesting data from database 164, to
a communication device (in audio or text based response). Evidentiary policy
is viewed as information that is stored in a database and may be accessible in a
manner similar to the teachings of Steinberg…),
the evidentiary policy identifying a list of specific evidentiary objects required to be
present within a field of view of the one or more video recorders and digitally recorded in association with the particular type of the assigned task performed by the user
(…Steinberg, in [0026], teaches a laptop 114 used in order to conduct various operations
(e.g., a workflow application, a forms or reporting tool application, a health information
database application, an arrest record database application, and or other types of
applications that require user interaction. [0027] further teaches that video cameras may
be incorporated in the laptop, so to provide an ability to capture video and or audio; wherein a field of view of an object is essential so to store and/or for transmission and
analysis…).
Steinberg does not further teach:
the evidentiary policy further specifying a quality level with which each of the evidentiary
objects included in the list is to be recorded (…however, Amtrup teaches a video capture interface in which captured information, according to one or more predefined quality assurance metrics, is determined to be acceptable or unacceptable, in [0088]; [0018] specifies examples by which video capturing can be enhanced by using a bounding box and additionally by physically stabilizing an image/video capture device…).;
determine, by analyzing a portion comprising a frame of the one or more video recordings using a video analytics engine comprising an object classifier to detect the specific evidentiary object, whether each of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is recorded in the one or more video recordings at the content-based quality level specified in the evidentiary policy by computing a measure of quality for each detected specific evidentiary object based on the analysis of the frame in which the specific evidentiary object is recorded (…wherein Amtrup, in, [0053], teaches object classification depicted in a digital image in part on characteristics of the object and or using feature vectors to perform classification; Amtrup further teaches, in [0088], teaches the video capture interface in which captured information, according to one or more predefined quality assurance metrics, is determined to be acceptable or unacceptable. [0119] gives examples of predefined quality control criteria; Fig. 5 presents a method flowchart for determining a predetermined quality control criteria…);
and
responsive to determining that at least one of the evidentiary objects included in the list
is not recorded with the specified quality level in the one or more of the video recordings, provide an electronic alert to the user via a corresponding user device indicating that the one or more audio video recordings are not in compliance with the evidentiary policy established corresponding to the particular type of the assigned task by identifying that at least one specific evidentiary object that failed to meet the content-based quality level (…wherein Amtrup teaches operation 506 in the method flowchart of Fig. 5, as a result of a failure of one or more predetermined quality control criteria, displaying an indication of the failure on the mobile device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
17. Regarding claim 14, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
detect, using the video analytics engine, at least one visual object recorded in the one or more video recordings (…wherein Amtrup, in [0019], teaches frame analysis to detect a target object such as a person or other objects…);
determine that the at least one visual object is included in the list of specific evidentiary objects identified in the evidentiary policy, wherein the at least one visual object is the detected specific evidentiary object (…wherein Amtrup teaches the flowchart, as depicted in Fig. 5, wherein frames of captured video data are analyzed so to determine whether an object exhibits one or more defining characteristics is within a viewfinder…);
compute the measure of quality with which the at least one visual object is recorded in the one or more video recordings (…wherein Amtrup, in [0119-0122], teaches different parameters of predefined quality control criteria…);
determine that the at least one of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is not recorded with the specified content-based quality level in the one or more of the video recordings when the measure of quality associated with the at least one visual object does not meet the specified content-based quality level (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5, teaches that in response to determining that a frame fails one or more predetermined quality control criteria, displaying an indication of the failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
18. Regarding claim 15, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 14 (see claim 14 above), wherein:
the electronic alert indicates that the measure of quality associated with the at least one visual object does not meet the specified content-based quality level required by the evidentiary policy established for the particular type of assigned task (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5, teaches that in response to determining that a frame fails one or more predetermined quality control criteria, displaying an indication of the failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
19. Regarding claim 16, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein: the electronic processor is configured to:
detect, using the video analytics engine, a plurality of visual objects recorded in the one or more video recordings (…wherein Amtrup, in [0153], teaches that captured images or video frames are processed to classify objects depicted in the image or frames, extracting data from the objects, and displaying pertinent information to a user…);
determine whether each of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list identified in
the evidentiary policy is represented in at least one of the visual objects recorded
in the one or more audio and/or video recordings (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5 (504), teaches that analysis is made to determine whether an object of one or more defining characteristics is depicted in a viewfinder…); and
determine that the at least one of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is
not recorded in the one or more of the video recordings when the at least one of
the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is not represented in at least one of the visual objects recorded in the one or more recordings (…wherein Amtrup, in [0151], teaches that if an object is not detected, or does not satisfy a quality control criteria, an indication of failure may be displayed via the mobile device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
20. Regarding claim 17, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 16 (see claim 16 above), wherein:
the electronic alert indicates that the at least one of the specific evidentiary objects
included in the list is not represented in any of the visual objects recorded in the one or more video recordings (…wherein Amtrup, in [0151], teaches that if an object is not detected, or does not satisfy a quality control criteria, an indication of failure may be displayed via the mobile device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
21. Regarding claim 18, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein:
the electronic alert further includes a recommendation for the user to adjust a position or
configuration of the one or more video recorders (…wherein Amtrup, in [0158], teaches that the mobile application queries the device accelerometer and or gyroscope to determine orientation of the device and thereby provides a user a proper orientation position for optical capture orientation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
22. Regarding claim 19, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein: the electronic processor is configured to:
acquire, prior to providing the electronic alert, at least one other video recording from either the one or more video recorders operated by the user or from another video recorder operated by at least one other user while the user is performing the assigned task (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5 (504), teaches analyzing a plurality of frames of video data…);
determine whether the at least one of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is recorded with the specified content-based quality level in the at least one other video recording (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5 (504), teaches a determination is made whether an object depicted within the viewfinder satisfies one or more predetermined quality control criteria…);
provide the electronic alert when the at least one of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is not recorded with the specified content-based quality level in the at least one other video recording (…wherein Amtrup, in Fig. 5 (506), teaches displaying an indication of a failure in response to determining a frame fails a predetermined quality control criteria.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quality control criteria, as taught by Amtrup, can enhance the automation of image capture by predetermining quality control criteria which satisfy an acceptable image quality in such operations as taught by Steinberg…).
23. Regarding claim 20, Steinberg in view of Amtrup teaches the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein the one or video recorder is a body-worn camera (…Steinberg, in [0025], teaches a body worn camera that may include the video camera 112 noted for capturing video…).
Conclusion
24. 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 SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
