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 Amendment
The amendment was filed on 2/19/2026.
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed under Remarks on pages 1-4 on 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants on page 1 regarding 35 USC 101 state that:
PNG
media_image1.png
212
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Capturing an image by a physical camera is taken as an additional element under Step 2A prong two. Have an image captured by a camera is well known in the art and there are no specifics on how this image is received, other than “capture a snapshot for identifying the object”, in claim 21. Specification paragraph [0025] states “…these predictions can then be used to proactively configure certain cameras to subsequently capture the person in optimal conditions (e.g., time, position, zoom, pan, and/or luminance). For example, if the person could not be identified using facial recognition based on the first camera stream, the predictions about the future state of the person can be used to proactively configure another camera to capture the person in circumstances that are optimal for successful facial recognition.”; paragraph [0060] states “…Certain information or metadata can still be captured for purposes of tracking the person, however, such as physical characteristics that allow the person to be recognized in subsequent video feeds or frames (e.g., clothing color, hair color, height), along with situational or behavioral characteristics that allow the person’s future behavior to be predicted.”; paragraph [0071] states “The metadata can then be used to track the car (e.g., based on physical characteristics), predict where the car is going (e.g., based on its current position, direction of travel, and speed), and proactively configure the appropriate cameras in the parking lot to continue tracking and capturing the car as it travels to a parking spot. In this manner, the car’s eventual parking spot can be identified.”. Therefore, from these and other parts of the specification, it is clear that once we know something about the object/subject being tracked in the image, we can use that information to know where it is going or what the next step is. For the cat in Figs. 6 example, if it turns left, we know it is going to park somewhere on the left side; if it turns, direction of travel with speed, to the right, then it will part on the right side, knowing that the camera is installed on both sides of the garage/parking lot for tracking/imaging.
On page 2 Applicants state that:
PNG
media_image2.png
314
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
350
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cameras are placed at multiple locations to detect and track objects in the environment. The camera 1 for example can detect and track the objects once that object comes into the view. If/when this object is moving and going towards camera 2, this camera can detect and track the objects, knowing that it is coming to its field of view. There are no specifics on how these camera are coordinated to track the object and capture the snapshot. In the car parking example, if the camera senses car coming to its way, then it will begin to track and capture. As argued by the Applicants, the claims fails to recite a “specific architecture”. There are no specific arrangement recited in the pending claims that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of object tracking and identification in multi-camera environments. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicants state on page 3 that:
PNG
media_image4.png
294
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kant at paragraph [0023] discloses that “The object detection or tracking system can also identify characteristics such as predictive behaviors of one or more of the objects. The predictive behaviors can include predicted future locations of the objects (e.g., based on a direction of motion or other criteria such as a relationship between objects or a present location of an object) as well as other activity associated with one or more objects. The system 100 can include at least one recording device 105, such as a video camera, surveillance camera, still image camera, digital camera, or other computing device (e.g., laptop, tablet, personal digital assistant, or smartphone) with video or still image creation or recording capability.”. Kant discloses recording devices 105, as seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Paragraph [0024] suggests that these recording devices 105 can be “present in a department store and the images created by the recording devices 105 can include background objects 110 such as clothing racks, tables, shelves, walls, floors, fixtures, goods, or other items that generally remain in a fixed location unless disturbed. In an outdoor setting, the images can include, among other things, background objects such as streets, buildings, sidewalks, utility structures, or parked cars. Transient objects 110 can include people, shopping carts, pets, or other objects (e.g., cars, vans, trucks, bicycles, or animals) that can move within or through the field of view of the recording device 105.”
Kant further teaches that the recording devices can also be “placed in a variety of public or private locations and can generate or record digital images of background or transient objects 110 present with the fields of view of the recording devices 105. For example, a building can have multiple recording devices 105 in different areas of the building, such as different floors, different rooms, different areas of the same room, or surrounding outdoor space. The images recorded by the different recording devices 105 of their respective fields of view can include the same or different transient objects 110. For example, a first image (recorded by a first recording device 105) can include a person (e.g., a transient object 110) passing through the field of view of the first recording device 105 in a first area of a store. A second image (recorded by a second recording device 105) can include the same person or a different person (e.g., a transient object 110) passing through the field of view of the second recording device 105 in a second area of a store.” (see paragraph [0025]).
It is clear from these and other part of Kant’s reference that Kant discloses the limitations recited in claim 21.
With regard to claim 24, Applicants argue stating that:
PNG
media_image5.png
208
818
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above and further supported at paragraphs [0036, 0052-0053, and so on throughout the reference] that Kant discloses “a second camera to capture the object in a second video stream at a second time,…wherein the second camera is selected from the plurality of cameras and configured to capture the object based on the predicted behavior of the object and a position of the second camera”. Kant at paragraph [0036] notes that the system can includes two or more cameras. Further paragraphs in the description discloses that “For example, the object 378 can be a woman who is middle aged, wearing pants, with a characteristic that the object 378 is not associated with any other objects as part of a family unit in any other images analyzed by the data processing system 120, or with a predicted behavioral characteristic that the object 378 present in Aisle 2 is likely to also visit a different aisle in the same store. (For example, from statistical analysis the data processing system 120 can determine that a middle aged woman who visits Aisle 2 is also likely to visit Aisle 4.)”, see paragraph [0073], paragraphs [0077-0078] and onwards throughout the reference. Videos being captures (hence the frames/images within the video) are noted to be at a different time. First camera inherently captures first image at a first time and second camera captures second image at a second time, paragraph [0026, 0052-0053, 0060, etc.].
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 21 is – a system – used as an example. Claims 29 and 38 recite a non-transitory machine-accessible storage medium and a method, respectively, having a memory and a physical processor. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 21. A system, comprising: (a) interface circuitry to communicate with a plurality of cameras deployed in an environment; and (b) processing circuitry to: (c) coordinate, via the interface circuitry, the cameras to track an object in the environment and capture a snapshot for identifying the object, wherein the cameras are coordinated to track the object and capture the snapshot based on predicted behavior of the object and positions of the cameras, wherein the predicted behavior is predicted based on actual behavior of the object captured by one or more of the cameras; and (d) cause identification of the object based on the snapshot captured by one or more of the cameras. [emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a system, non-transitory machine-accessible storage medium, and a method, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The steps of (c) and (d) (above in emphasized claim 21) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. (c) further recites wherein the cameras are coordinated to track the object and capture the snapshot. This can simply be that one camera is located at one side and another at other side. They both capture and track same object from different field of view. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data and determining/identifying a shape/object/person being tracked in an image. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, can not perform. The tracking and predicting, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses the user thinking that the once the image is received, behavior can be determined/predicted. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the section of an image that represents that behavior/shape/orientation. Thus, these limitations are a mental process.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (c)“coordinate” and “identification”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of (a) and (b) system/memory/processor/camera to track an object (i.e., “data”) at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “coordinating”/”identifying”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “camera”. A camera/sensor is well known in the field, and receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only steps of (c) and (d) with elements of (a) and (b), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Therefore, the claims 21, 29, and 38 are ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 22-28, 30-37 and 39-40, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 21 and not repeated herewith.
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 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 21, 23-24, 27-29, 31-33, 36-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0275376 to Kant.
With regard to claim 21 Kant discloses a system (system 100, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), comprising: interface circuitry to communicate with a plurality of cameras deployed in an environment (camera 105 communicating to processing system 120 via network 125); and processing circuitry (processing system 120) to: coordinate, via the interface circuitry, the cameras to track an object in the environment and capture a snapshot for identifying the object, wherein the cameras are coordinated to track the object and capture the snapshot based on predicted behavior of the object and positions of the cameras (paragraph [0023] - an object detection or tracking system identifies or tracks at least one object that appears in multiple different video or still images…The object detection or tracking system can also identify characteristics such as predictive behaviors of one or more of the objects; Fig. 5 paragraphs [0073, 0077-0078, 0085-0090]), wherein the predicted behavior is predicted based on actual behavior of the object captured by one or more of the cameras (paragraph [0023] - The predictive behaviors can include predicted future locations of the objects (e.g., based on a direction of motion or other criteria such as a relationship between objects or a present location of an object) as well as other activity associated with one or more objects; Fig. 5 paragraphs [0085-0090]); and cause identification of the object based on the snapshot captured by one or more of the cameras (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 5; object detect 205 can identify object 110, for example; paragraphs [0051-0061, 0087, 0090] throughout the reference).
With regard to claim 23 Kant discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine the predicted behavior of the object using a machine learning model, wherein the actual behavior of the object is supplied as input to the machine learning model, and wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict future object behavior based on actual object behavior (paragraphs [0043, 0045, 0116]).
With regard to claim 24 Kant discloses wherein the processing circuitry to coordinate, via the interface circuitry, the cameras to track the object in the environment and capture the snapshot for identifying the object is further to: detect the object in a first video stream at a first time, wherein the first video stream is captured by a first camera of the plurality of cameras (first recording device, throughout the reference, starting at paragraph [0020]); determine, based on the first video stream, the actual behavior of the object (paragraph [0023]); determine, based on the actual behavior of the object, the predicted behavior of the object (paragraph [0023]); and configure, via the interface circuitry, a second camera to capture the object in a second video stream at a second time, wherein the second time is after the first time, and wherein the second camera is selected from the plurality of cameras and configured to capture the object based on the predicted behavior of the object and a position of the second camera (second recording device, throughout the reference, starting at paragraph [0021, 0025, 0036, 0052-0053, etc.]).
With regard to claim 27 Kant discloses wherein the actual behavior of the object indicates a current position and a direction of travel (paragraphs [0023-0024, 0074, 0089]).
With regard to claim 28 Kant discloses wherein the plurality of cameras comprise one or more smart cameras, wherein the one or more smart cameras comprise at least some of the interface circuitry and the processing circuitry (paragraph [0023] smart phone having smart cameras; Figs. 1 and 2 with processing circuitry).
With regard to claims 29 and 38, claims 29 and 38 are rejected same as claims 21 and 27 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 21 and 27 are equally applicable to claims 29 and 38, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 21 and 27 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 31, claim 31 is rejected same as claim 23 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 23 are equally applicable to claim 31, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 23 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 32-33 and 40, claims 32-33 and 40 are rejected same as claim 24 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 24 are equally applicable to claims 32-33 and 40, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 24 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 36, claim 36 is rejected same as claim 27 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 27 are equally applicable to claim 36, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 27 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 37 Kant discloses wherein the actual behavior of the object further indicates an orientation or a speed (paragraphs [0060, 0089]).
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22, 25-26, 30, 34-35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0275376 to Kant in view of US 2006/0197839 to Senior et al. (hereafter, “Senior”).
With regard to claim 22, Kant discloses the system of claim 21. However, Kant does not expressly teach to adjust, based on the predicted behavior of the object and the positions of the cameras, one or more settings of one or more of the cameras to capture the snapshot for identifying the object, wherein the one or more settings comprise at least one of: a zoom setting; or a pan setting.
Senior teaches to adjust, based on the predicted behavior of the object and the positions of the cameras, one or more settings of one or more of the cameras to capture the snapshot for identifying the object, wherein the one or more settings comprise at least one of: a zoom setting; or a pan setting (paragraphs [0023, 0035, 0037, 0041, etc. throughout the reference], see Fig. 3 where window 124 for displaying the video feeds from one or more steered and zoomed cameras). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant’s reference to have adjust settings of a camera with zoom or pan settings parameters of Senior’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide functionality as moveable zoom cameras, which can also be high-resolution, for delivering detailed images of events of interest, as suggested by Senior at paragraphs [0005-0007].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Senior with Kant to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 25, Kant discloses the system of claim 24 including wherein the object is a person (Figs. 1 and 2) and the processing circuitry to cause identification of the object based on the snapshot captured by one or more of the cameras is further to: cause an identity of the person to be determined based on the [facial] snapshot captured by the second camera (paragraphs [0020, 0021, 0023 and so on throughout the reference]). However, Kant does not expressly teach the snapshot comprises a facial snapshot captured by the second camera, wherein the facial snapshot includes a face of the person. Senior teaches the snapshot comprises a facial snapshot captured by the second camera, wherein the facial snapshot includes a face of the person (paragraphs [0046-0047]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant’s reference to have adjust settings of a camera with zoom or pan settings parameters of Senior’s reference.
With regard to claim 26, Kant discloses the system of claim 24. However, Kant does not expressly teach wherein: the object is a vehicle; the snapshot comprises a license plate snapshot captured by the second camera, wherein the license plate snapshot includes a license plate of the vehicle; and the processing circuitry to cause identification of the object based on the snapshot captured by one or more of the cameras is further to: cause a license plate number of the vehicle to be determined based on the license plate snapshot captured by the second camera.
Senior teaches wherein: the object is a vehicle; the snapshot comprises a license plate snapshot captured by the second camera, wherein the license plate snapshot includes a license plate of the vehicle; and the processing circuitry to cause identification of the object based on the snapshot captured by one or more of the cameras is further to: cause a license plate number of the vehicle to be determined based on the license plate snapshot captured by the second camera (vehicle, paragraph [0041], license plate recording system, paragraph [0050]).
With regard to claims 30 and 39, claims 30 and 39 are rejected same as claim 22 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 22 are equally applicable to claims 30 and 39, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 22 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 34 and 35, claims 34 and 35 are rejected same as claims 25 and 26, respectively, and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 25 and 26 are equally applicable to claims 34 and 35, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 25 and 26 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights