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 03/03/2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Applicant (on pg. 11, lines 13-15) argues/remarks that Smith strictly relies on calculating hardware positional differences rather than performing digital media analysis to check the clarity of recorded content, thus failing to teach or suggest determining a “content-based quality level”.
The Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with the argument/remark above; because Smith in [0198] teaches that forwarded information is received by an incident recorder and based on the forwarded information the incident recorder notifies its operator to reorient. Further, it should also be noted that orientation is relative to a field of view. As expressed in several instances, by Smith (in [0051], [0083], and [0113]), a field of view or a field of sensitivity is considered to be directly related to a positional orientation of an author/operator and belonging sensing devices.
4. Applicant (on pg. 11, lines 22-28), further argues/remarks that Steinberg does not teach a policy that dictates a required checklist of physical evidence that a user must proactively capture within their camera’s field of view to successfully complete a task.
The Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with the argument/remark above; because 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.
Thus, Steinberg teaches a required checklist of physical evidence that is evident within some form of the applications that are said to be performed through the use of a laptop, to include the capturing of a field of view through the use of a camera.
5. Further, on (pg. 12, 1-27), Applicant argues/remarks Smith relies on hardware orientation sensors rather than analyzing the digital content of the recording, its system is inherently incapable of determining what objects are in the field of view, and therefore cannot generate a diagnostic alert that identifies a specific evidentiary object that failed to meet a specified content-based quality level.
The Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with the statement above. Clearly, Smith teaches either a field of view or a field of sensitivity with regards to the tools at a user’s disposal so to gather information; as stated above. A field of view being explicitly a “parameter” of addressing, Smith meets to teach addressing a field of view that is evaluated based on provided data.
6. Steinberg’s primary objective is to selectively gate and suppress audio output to “reduce a cognitive load on the user, not to provide granular, diagnostic compliance alert detailing which specifies objects from a task list are missing or of low quality. Therefore, neither Smith nor Steinberg, individually or in combination, teaches or suggest an alert that identifies the specific evidentiary object that failed the content-based quality level.
The Office Action’s rational fails to recognize the fundamental technical and functional distinction between background data processing and an active user interaction designed to enforce evidentiary policy. Claim 1 requires providing an electronic alert to the user…indicating that the one or more audio and/or video recordings are not in compliance.
The Examiner, respectfully, disagrees. As stated above, 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. As stated, in [0090], a temporary gating can be viewed as being pat of a larger event. Though Steinberg isn’t focused on teaching evidentiary quality of electronic data, Steinberg clearly teaches the provision of information that is electronically provided, with respect of “a field of view”, as part of a workflow. For example, [0066] teaches the use of microphone or an imaging device that are used for further processing and transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 Smith et al. (US 2009/0251311 A1; further referred to as Smith).
9. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is rejected for reasons related to claim 12 (see claim 12
below).
10. Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is rejected for reasons related to claim 14 (see claim 14
below).
11. Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is rejected for reasons related to claim 15 (see claim 15
below).
12. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected for reasons related to claim 16 (see claim 16
below).
13. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected for reasons related to claim 17 (see claim 17
below).
14. Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected for reasons related to claim 18 (see claim 18
below).
15. Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for reasons related to claim 19 (see claim 19
below).
16. Regarding claim 9, Steinberg in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 8 (see claim
8 above), further comprising:
refraining from providing the electronic alert when the at least one other audio and/or
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 (…Smith teaches in [0198] that an incident recorder 209 notifies its operator, by audible or visible indication, of a present error in comparison to a desired orientation of a particular provided information by an operator. Thus, it can reasonably be determined that the teaching of Smith would not generate such an alert if an error is not present.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an electronic communication system as
taught by Steinberg in view of Smith can help alleviate a burden of a workload that can
be automated in such a manner as taught by the references…).
17. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected for reasons related to claim 19 (see claim 19
below).
18. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for reasons related to claim 20 (see claim 20
below).
19. 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 audio and/or video recordings
from one or more audio and/or video recorders operated by a user while the user is performing
an assigned task (…[0018] teaches that communication devices (e.g., radio 104, video
capture device 106) are 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 can be 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 audio and/r 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;
determine whether each of the evidentiary objects included in the list is recorded in the
one or more audio and/or video recordings at the quality level specified in the evidentiary policy;
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 audio and/or video
recordings,
provide an electronic alert to the user via a corresponding user device indicating that the
one or more audio and/or video recordings are not in compliance with the evidentiary policy established corresponding to the particular type of the assigned task.
Smith teaches an electronic control device that automates a report of an incident
wherein validation of an incident report includes verifying the accuracy and completeness of the
incident report.
Therein Smith teaches:
the evidentiary policy further specifying a content-based quality level with which each of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is to be recorded (…Smith teaches in [0198] that an incident recorder 209 notifies its operator, by audible or visible indication, of a present error in comparison to a desired orientation of a particular provided information by an operator. As expressed in several instances, by Smith (in [0051], [0083], and [0113]), a field of view or a field of sensitivity is considered to be directly related to a positional orientation of an author/operator and a belonging sensing devices. …);
determine, by analyzing a portion of the one or more audio and/or video recordings, whether each of the specific evidentiary objects included in the list is recorded in the
one or more audio and/or video recordings at the quality level specified in the evidentiary policy
(…Smith in [0198] teaches that forwarded information is received by an incident recorder and based on the forwarded information the incident recorder notifies its operator to reorient. Thus, the incidence recorder is viewed as having an ability to analyze forwarded information; wherein the information may be a video or audio. As expressed in several instances, by Smith (in [0051], [0083], and [0113]), a field of view or a field of sensitivity is considered to be directly related to a positional orientation of an author/operator and belonging sensing devices…); and
responsive to determining that 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 audio and/or video recordings (…as stated in [0198] the incident recorder makes a determination to indicate a present error regarding a particular provided information (audio/video…),
provide an electronic alert to the user via a corresponding user device indicating that the
one or more audio and/or video recordings are not in compliance with the evidentiary policy
established corresponding to the particular type of the assigned task by identifying the at least one specific evidentiary object that failed to meet the content-based quality level (…Smith teaches in [0198] that an incident recorder 209 notifies its operator, by audible or visible indication, of a present error regarding a particular provided information. . As expressed in several instances, by Smith (in [0051], [0083], and [0113]), a field of view or a field of sensitivity is considered to be directly related to a positional orientation of an author/operator and belonging sensing devices (video/audio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that the teachings of Smith could have been
easily incorporated into the teachings of Steinberg, so to automate and expedite the process of recording data relative to an incident or a task…).
20. Regarding claim 14, Steinberg in view of Smith teaches the electronic computing device
of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
process the one or more audio and/or video recordings using an analytics engine to
detect at least one audible and/or visual object recorded in the one or more audio and/or video
recordings (…wherein Steinberg in [0022] and [0024] teaches the analysis of voice/audio
recorded and video for storage or further analysis. [0077] further teaches that the
electronic computing device may include a natural language processing engine
configured to determine the intent/content of an oral query. [0072] also teaches a neural
network model which may determine, based on past training, the identity of a sensor, the
sensor information, and/or particular notification contents…);
determine that the at least one audible and/or visual object is included in the list of specific evidentiary objects identified in the evidentiary policy (…the determination to include a particular data (be it audible, video, or text) seems to relate to the development of a
particular program/software thus to include such requirement. Steinberg would read on
the limitation to have the ability to determine such functionality because as taught in
[0077, 0078], oral, video, and text based communication is a functionality which is carried
out by the infrastructure of the disclosed electronics of Steinberg (Fig. 1 and 2)…);
Smith further teaches an electronic processor configured to:
compute a measure of quality with which the at least one audible and/or visual object is
recorded in the one or more audio and/or video recordings (…Smith teaches in [0198] that an
incident recorder 209 notifies its operator, by audible or visible indication, of a present
error in comparison to a desired orientation of a particular provided information by an
operator. Hence, this is evident of some measure of quality that is provided by the teaching of Smith…);
determine whether the measure of quality associated with the at least one audible and/or
video object meets the specified content-based quality level required by the evidentiary policy for the particular type of assigned task (…In [0198] Smith teaches the ability to provide an indication of error, therefore this is evidentiary of an ability to distinguish between data that is not erroneous and one that is...); and
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 audio and/or video recordings when the measure of quality associated with the at least one audible and/or visual object does not meet the specified content-based quality level (…Smith in [0198] teaches that data which is erroneous can be adjusted until proper orientation is achieved. Thus, this reads on a limitation that erroneous data is rather discarded until a proper adjustment is made.
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 notification of error as taught by Smith
would further enhance the teachings of Steinberg’s thus to aid a user of the electronic
device in the process of gathering data relative to a task at hand...).
21. Regarding claim 15, Steinberg in view of Smith 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
audible and/or visual object does not meet the specified content-based quality level required by
the evidentiary policy established for the particular type of assigned task (…Smith teaches in
[0198] that an incident recorder 209 notifies its operator, by audible or visible indication,
of a present error in comparison to a desired orientation of a particular provided
information by an operator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that an alerting means to aware a user of the
electronic device, as taught by Smith, could have been employed in the teaching of
Steinberg thus to further aid a user of the electronic device of Steinberg’s teaching in the
process of gathering data…).
22. Regarding claim 16, teaches the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12
above), wherein: the electronic processor is configured to:
process the one or more audio and/or video recordings using an analytics engine to
detect a plurality of audible and/or visual objects recorded in the one or more audio and/or video
recordings (…[0074] teaches that based on the analysis of the neural network outputs are
generated on a sensor by sensor basis including but not limited to discarding a
generated speech-output events translating the generated speech-output events to
another communication medium (including redirecting the translated speech-output
events to another device), queuing the generated speech-output events (in a time-based
order or priority-based order), or some combination of two or more of the foregoing...);
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 audible and/or visual objects recorded in the one or more audio and/or video recordings (…Steinberg in [0073] teaches a stored
inverse mapping may map particular sensors, particular sensor information, and/or
particular notification contents to a corresponding set of one or more (or all) speech-
output functions to not gate during a time period associated with an event. Therefore
corresponding comparisons can be used in the determination of information content,
thereby identify the presence of sought for information…); 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 audio and/or 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 audible and/or visual objects recorded in the one or more audio and/or video recordings (…Steinberg in [0073] teaches a stored inverse mapping may map particular sensors, particular sensor information, and/or particular notification contents to a corresponding set of one or more (or all) speech-output functions to not gate during a time period associated with an event. Therefore corresponding comparisons can be used in the determination of information content, thereby identify the presence of sought for information…).
23. Regarding claim 17, Steinberg in view of Smith 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 audible and/or visual objects recorded in the one or more audio and/or video recordings (…Steinberg in [0077] teaches the electronic computing device receives signals representative of the oral query or statement from a
microphone 220 and analyzes the signals to determine the content of the oral query or
statement. The electronic computing device may include a natural language processing
(NLP) engine configured to determine the intent and/or content of the oral query or
statement. The electronic computing device may also be configured to determine a
response to the oral query (for example, by retrieving stored data or by requesting data
from a database such as one of the databases 164 ) and provide a response to an output
device of the communication device 200 (for example, one or more of the speaker 222 via
a generated audio response and the screen 205 via a generated text based response),
and/or may be configured to determine some other action to take in light of the content
of the oral query and/or statement. Hence the response of the electronic computing
device is easily configurable to conditional logic of a programming which facilitates a
response based on parameters that are present or else are not present…).
24. Regarding claim 18, Steinberg in view of Smith 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 audio and/or video recorders (…Steinberg in [0077] teaches
that the electronic computing device may be configured to determine a response to an
oral query (for example, by retrieving stored data or by requesting data from a database
such as one of the databases 164 ) and provide the response to an output device of the
communication device 200 (for example, one or more of the speaker 222 via a generated
audio response and the screen 205 via a generated text based response), and/or may be
configured to determine some other action to take in light of the content of the oral query
and/or statement. Thus, it would be within the ability of Steinberg’s disclosed reference
to provide a feedback relative to conditions of a sensor and the content of its
information. For example, [0081] teaches a threshold detected change in a sensory
output and thus provides a response which is indicative for some type of adjustment.
Hence it is obvious that the conditions of the programming can be applied to different
situational events and tasks…).
25. Regarding claim 19, Steinberg in view of Smith 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 audio and/or video
recording from either the one or more audio and/or video recorders operated by the user or from
another audio and/or video recorder operated by at least one other user while the user is
performing the assigned task (…[0072] teaches speech-output function that maps
particular sensors and their information and contents wherein responses are prioritized.
Therein one or more intermediary mappings may be provided, such as a first mapping
that maps particular single or sets of sensor(s), particular sensor information(s), and/or particular notification content(s) to a particular context or situation, and a second mapping that maps particular contexts or situations…);
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 audio and/or video recording (…[0074] teaches that based on the analysis of the neural network outputs are generated on a sensor by sensor basis including but not limited to discarding a generated speech- output events translating the generated speech-output events to another communication medium (including redirecting the translated speech-output events to another device), queuing the generated speech-output events (in a time-based order or priority-based
order)...).
Smith further teaches an electronic device configured to:
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 audio and/or video recording (…Smith teaches in [0198] that an incident recorder 209 notifies its operator, by audible or visible indication, of a present error regarding a particular provided information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention that the teachings of Smith could have been easily
incorporated into the teachings of Steinberg, so to automate and expedite the process of
recording data relative to an incident or a task…).
26. Regarding claim 20, the electronic computing device of claim 12 (see claim 12 above),
wherein:
the one or more audio and/or video recorders is a body-worn camera (… Steinberg, in
[0025], teaches a body worn camera that may include the video camera 112 and/or microphone noted for capturing audio and/or video…).
Conclusion
27. 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