DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/360,462 is responsive to communications filed 3 February 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 19 November 2025.
Claims 1–26 and 28–30 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1, 10, 16, and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claims 1–15, 22, and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US 2015/0279182 A1 (“Kanaujia”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256823 A1 (“Ito”). Claims 24–28 and 30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kanaujia in view of Ito an in view of P. Kumari, N. Nandyala, A.K.S. Teja, N. Goel, & M. Saini, “Dynamic Scheduling of an Autonomous PTZ Camera for Effective Surveillance”, 17 IEEE Int’l Conf. on Mobile Ad Hoc & Sensor Sys. 437–445 (Dec. 2020) (“Kumari”). Claims 16–21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kanaujia in view of Ito and in view of Mobile Pro Systems, “Commander 3400 Full-Sized Mobile Surveillance Trailer” (Online, https://www.mobileprosystems.com/mobile-surveillance-trailer-commander-3400/) (archived version of 7 June 2020) (“Mobile Pro”). Claim 29 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kanaujia in view of Ito, Kumari, and Mobile Pro.
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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been considered. The rejections of claims 1, 10, 16, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered. Specifically with respect to the allegation that “Kanaujia does not appear to teach or suggest that . . . sensors generate events” (Rem. 15), the examiner notes that Applicant is careful to quote Kanaujia (titled “Complex event recognition in a sensor network”) selectively, avoiding references to extracting “events” from the environment by visual processing module 151 from sensors 15. Kanaujia ¶ 0041. Worse still, Applicant admits that in Kanaujia, “Visual processing module 151 may further identify some objects as appearing or disappearing at an entrance point”. Rem. 15 (quoting Kanaujia ¶ 0041). However, Kanaujia ¶ 0041 describes “moving, stopping, and disappearing” as types of “events”. Considering this, Applicant’s allegation that Kanaujia does not teach sensors generating “events” without further explanation strains credulity, if not the presumption of good faith. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(1) (signing correspondence before the Office is a certification that all statements made therein are true or believed to be true).
With respect to the amended material directed to audio and visual output devices that are components of the mobile unit, distinct from a user device, US 6,028,626 A (“Aviv”) teaches these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–15, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0279182 A1 (“Kanaujia”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256823 A1 ( “Ito”) and in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,028,626 A (“Aviv”).
Kanaujia, directed to a network of sensors for a surveillance system, teaches with respect to claim 1 a system, comprising:
a . . . unit including:
one or more sensors configured for capturing data (¶ 0033, sensors 15 include cameras) and
generating events based on the data (Title, “Complex event recognition”, ¶ 0041, visual processing module 151 uses learned models to identify “events” from sensors 15); and
a controller for filtering the events based on one or more predefined settings to generate a number of pertinent events (Fig. 3, ¶ 0041; visual processing module 151 that receives sensor information and performs processing such as object tracking and classification based on learned models; ¶ 0045, determining suspicious events); and
a complex event processing (CEP) system communicatively coupled to the . . . unit (Title “Complex event recognition”; Fig. 3, ¶ 0045; scene analysis module 155 that provides outputs such as an alarm), the CEP system configured to:
receive the number of pertinent events (id.); and
generate actions including at least a first action and a second action based on at least one pertinent event of the number of pertinent events (id.).
The claimed invention differs from Kanaujia in that the claimed system specifies that the unit including the sensors and controller is a mobile unit remote from a server. Kanaujia only teaches outputting to third mobile devices, not back to the mobile device that contains the sensors. However, Ito, directed to an AI-powered security system, teaches with respect to claim 1:
a mobile unit including one or more sensors for capturing data (¶ 0027, surveillance camera may be a mobile camera that is not fixed),
a server remote from the mobile unit and including a complex event processing (CEP) system communicatively coupled to the mobile unit (¶ 0028, Fig. 1; camera 21 connected through wired or wireless communication means to analysis system including image input unit 31 and image processing unit 32) . . .
wherein a message is conveyed from the server to a user device based at least partially on the second action (¶ 0031, external alert sent based on “event”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use mobile PTZ cameras as the Kanaujia cameras, as taught by Ito, in order to surveil various areas in their range. Ito ¶ 0027.
The claimed invention further differs from Kanaujia in that the claimed invention specifies output devices within the mobile unit itself that includes a first output device that outputs audio and a second output device that outputs video. Ito specifies controlling the mobile cameras, but not this kind of output. However, Aviv, directed to a surveillance system, teaches with respect to claim 1:
a number of output devices for generating one or more of a number of possible responses (9:23–31, loudspeaker and light at the site of a CCD/TV camera);
wherein operation of first and second output devices of the number of output devices is controlled to generate at least one response of the number of possible responses based at least partially on the first action (9:1–23, alarm state is generated based on analysis of camera frames to determine an alert status if a crime is happening),
the at least one response including an audio output via the first output device (9:28–31, loudspeaker playing warning announcement) and
a visual output via the second output device (9:32, turning on strong light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kanaujia or Ito further to include a warning system at the location of the camera, as taught by Aviv, in order to deter crime. Aviv 9:28–31.
Regarding claim 2, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 1, the CEP system further configured to receive a number of rules (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0043–44, rules for constructing Markov logic network),
wherein the CEP is further configured to generate the actions based on one or more rules of the number of rules (¶ 0045, labelling video or alerting user based on Markov logic network).
Regarding claim 3, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a front-end device coupled to the CEP system (Kanaujia ¶ 0034, I/O device 133),
the CEP system further configured to receive a second number of events from the front-end device (id., user interacting with the system using the I/O device).
Regarding claim 4, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 3, further comprising a message store configured to receive the second number of events from the front-end device (Kanaujia ¶ 0038, labelled example objects and scenes; ¶ 0095, database for Markov logic network).
Regarding claim 5, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) system (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0029–30, Markov logic network) configured to:
receive data from the mobile unit (¶ 0034, input component of “I/O device”); and
generate a second number of events based on the received data (¶ 0038, receiving labelled exemplary objects and scenes),
wherein the CEP is configured to receive the second number of events (id., components of processor 139).
Regarding claim 6, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a message store configured to receive the number of events from the mobile unit (Kanaujia ¶ 0038, labelled example objects and scenes; ¶ 0095, database for Markov logic network).
Regarding claim 7, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the actions generated via the CEP system is a higher-order event fed back into the CEP system (Kanaujia ¶ 0081, “Higher level inference for detecting complex events will progressively use more meaningful information as generated from low-level inference to make decisions”).
Regarding claim 8, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the syetem of claim 1, the CEP system further configured to receive data (Kanaujia Fig. 3, receiving sensor information),
wherein the CEP is further configured to generate the actions based on at least some of the received data (id., visual processing, Markov chain, and scene analysis).
Regarding claim 9, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the CEP system comprises a cloud-based processor (Ito ¶ 0029, video analysis system 3 may be cloud service) configured to:
receive the number of pertinent events (Fig. 3, image input unit 31); and
generate the actions (id., image processing unit 321 performing various functions including target detection, feature extraction, incident taction, and event calculation).
Regarding claim 10, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches a method of operating a surveillance system, the method comprising:
capturing data via one or more sensors of a . . . surveillance unit (¶ 0033, sensors 15 include cameras):
generating, based on captured data, a number of events (Fig. 3, ¶ 0041; visual processing module 151 receives sensor information and performs processing such as object tracking and classification);
filtering the number of events based on one or more predefined settings to generate a number of pertinent events (id., identifying events; ¶ 0045, determining suspicious events)
receiving, at a complex event processing (CEP) system (Fig. 3, Markov logic network 160 or scene analysis module 155), a number of rules and the number of events (¶¶ 0043–44, rules for constructing Markov logic network);
generating, via the CEP, actions including at least a first action and a second action based on the one or more number of events and at least one rule of the number of the rules (¶ 0045, scene analysis module 155 that provides outputs such as an alarm).
The claimed invention differs from Kanaujia in that the claimed system specifies that the surveillance unit including the sensors is a mobile surveillance unit. Kanaujia only teaches outputting to third mobile devices, not back to the mobile device that contains the sensors. However, Ito, directed to an AI-powered security system, teaches with respect to claim 10:
a mobile surveillance unit (¶ 0027, surveillance camera may be a mobile camera that is not fixed),
a complex event processing (CEP) system remote from the mobile surveillance unit (¶ 0028, Fig. 1; camera 21 connected through wired or wireless communication means to analysis system including image input unit 31 and image processing unit 32) . . . and
conveying a message to a user device based at least partially on the second action (¶ 0031, external alert sent based on “event”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use mobile PTZ cameras as the Kanaujia cameras, as taught by Ito, in order to surveil various areas in their range. Ito ¶ 0027.
The claimed invention further differs from Kanaujia in that the claimed invention specifies output devices within the mobile unit itself that includes a first output device that outputs audio and a second output device that outputs video. Ito specifies controlling the mobile cameras, but not this kind of output. However, Aviv, directed to a surveillance system, teaches with respect to claim 10:
controlling operation of first and second output devices of a number of output devices of the mobile surveillance unit (9:23–31, loudspeaker and light at the site of a CCD/TV camera)
to generate one or more of a number of possible responses based at least partially on the first action (9:1–23, alarm state is generated based on analysis of camera frames to determine an alert status if a crime is happening),
the at least one response including an audio output via the first output device (9:28–31, loudspeaker playing warning announcement) and
a visual output via the second output device (9:32: turning on strong light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kanaujia or Ito further to include a warning system at the location of the camera, as taught by Aviv, in order to deter crime. Aviv 9:28–31.
Regarding claim 11, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising receiving, at the CEP, a second number of events from a front-end device (Kanaujia ¶ 0034, input inherent to “I/O device”; ¶ 0038, receiving labelled exemplary objects and scenes).
Regarding claim 12, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising receiving, at a message store, the number of events (Kanaujia ¶ 0038, labelled example objects and scenes; ¶ 0095, database for Markov logic network).
Regarding claim 13, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising receiving, at the CEP, a second number of events from an artificial intelligence (AI) system (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0029–30, learning at Markov logic network).
Regarding claim 14, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the method of claim 10, wherein generating, via the CEP, the actions comprises generating at least one higher-order event (Kanaujia ¶ 0081, “Higher level inference for detecting complex events will progressively use more meaningful information as generated from low-level inference to make decisions”).
Regarding claim 15, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the method of claim 14, wherein generating, via the CEP, the actions comprises generating the actions based on the at least one higher-order event (Kanaujia Fig. 3, visual processing, Markov chain, and scene analysis based on received sensor information).
Regarding claim 22, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed by a processing device of a system, cause the system to perform or control performance of operations comprising (Kanaujia ¶ 0035, computer-readable storage device that stores program instructions):
[steps of the claim 10 method] (claim 10 rejection supra).
Regarding claim 23, Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 22, the operations comprising at least one of:
receiving, at the CEP, a second number of events from an artificial intelligence (AI) system (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0029–30, learning at Markov logic network).
Claims 24–26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv, and in view of P. Kumari, N. Nandyala, A.K.S. Teja, N. Goel, & M. Saini, “Dynamic Scheduling of an Autonomous PTZ Camera for Effective Surveillance”, 17 IEEE Int’l Conf. on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Sys. 437–445 (Dec. 2020) (“Kumari”).
Regarding claim 24, Kanaujia teaches a surveillance system, comprising:
. . . one or more output devices (¶0034, mobile I/O device) and
and one or more sensors (¶ 0033, cameras); and
at least one controller configured to control operation . . . responsive to data sensed via the one or more sensors (¶ 0045, Markov logic network that outputs video label or user alert).
The claimed invention differs from Kanaujia first in that the claimed system specifies that the surveillance unit including the sensors is a mobile surveillance unit remote from a server. Kanaujia only teaches outputting to third mobile devices, not back to the mobile device that contains the sensors. However, Ito, directed to an AI-powered security system, teaches with respect to claim 1:
a server remote from the mobile unit and the controller and configured to convey a message to a user device responsive to the data (¶ 0031, external alert sent based on “event”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use mobile PTZ cameras as the Kanaujia cameras, as taught by Ito, in order to surveil various areas in their range. Ito ¶ 0027.
The claimed invention differs further from Kanaujia in that the claimed invention specifies output devices within the mobile unit itself that includes a first output device that outputs audio and a second output device that outputs video. Ito specifies controlling the mobile cameras, but not this kind of output. However, Aviv, directed to a surveillance system, teaches with respect to claim 24:
at least one controller configured to control operation of first and second output devices of the number of output devices responsive to data sensed via the one or more sensors (9:1–31, loudspeaker and light at the site of a CCD/TV camera that are activated based on analysis of camera frames to determine an alert status if a crime is happening),
wherein the operation . . . includes an audio output via the first output device (9:28–31, loudspeaker playing warning announcement) and
a visual output via the second output device (9:32, turning on strong light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kanaujia or Ito further to include a warning system at the location of the camera, as taught by Aviv, in order to deter crime. Aviv 9:28–31.
The claimed invention differs lastly from Kanaujia in that it specifies the operation of the mobile unit “varies based on a customized schedule”. Ito discloses remotely directing a camera to control PTZ and tracking, but not based on a schedule as claimed. However, Kumari, directed to scheduling a PTZ camera, teaches with respect to claim 1:
wherein the at least one operation varies based on a customized schedule (Abstract, use learning to create optimal PTZ touring schedule based on greater surveillance in more sensitive locations at particular installation location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to customize scheduling the Ito PTZ camera, as taught by Kumari, in order to optimize surveillance of highest sensitivity locations. Kumari §§ 1, 3.
Regarding claim 25, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Kumari teaches the surveillance system of claim 24, wherein the one or more output devices include one or more lights, one or more speakers, or any combination thereof (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0033–34, lighted screen and speaker on smartphone).
Regarding claim 26, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Kumari teaches the surveillance system of claim 25, wherein the controller is configured to control, responsive to the data, at least one item selected from the group consisting of:
an intensity of illumination of at least one light of the one or more lights (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0033–34, message displayed on smartphone screen);
a blinking pattern of at least one light of the one or more lights (id.);
a color displayed by at least one light of the one or more lights (id.); and
an audible message conveyed via a speaker of the one or more speakers (id., speaker on smartphone).
Regarding claim 28, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Kumari teaches the surveillance system of claim 24, wherein the mobile unit comprises the one or more sensors . . . comprising a . . . camera (Kanaujia ¶ 0033, cameras).
Regarding claim 30, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Kumari teaches the surveillance system of claim 24, wherein the mobile unit includes at least one power outlet from providing power to an external device (¶¶ 0033–34, smartphone power outlet, such as USB-C port).
Claims 16–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaujia in view of Ito and Aviv, and in view of Mobile Pro Systems, “Commander 3400 Full-Sized Mobile Surveillance Trailer” (Online, https://www.mobileprosystems.com/mobile-surveillance-trailer-commander-3400/) (archived version of 7 June 2020) (“Mobile Pro”).
Regarding claim 16, Kanaujia teaches a system comprising:
one or more sensors configured for capturing data (¶ 0033, sensors 15 include cameras) and
generating events based on the data (Title, “Complex event recognition”, ¶ 0041, visual processing module 151 uses learned models to identify “events” from sensors 15); . . . and
a controller for filtering the events based on one or more predefined settings to generate a number of pertinent events (Fig. 3, ¶ 0041, visual processing module 151 that receives sensor information and performs processing such as object tracking and classification; ¶ 0045, determining suspicious events); and
. . . a complex event processing (CEP) system communicatively coupled to the mobile unit (Fig. 3, ¶ 0045; scene analysis module 155 that provides outputs such as an alarm), the CEP system configured to:
receive the number of pertinent events (id.); and
generate actions including at least a first action and a second action based on at least one pertinent event of the number of pertinent events (id.).
The claimed invention differs from Kanaujia first in that the claimed system specifies that the unit including the sensors is a mobile unit, and the mobile unit is controlled by a generated action. Kanaujia only teaches outputting to third mobile devices, not back to mobile device that contain the sensors. However, Ito, directed to an AI-powered security system, teaches with respect to claim 1:
a mobile unit . . . comprising one or more sensors configured for capturing data (¶ 0027, surveillance camera may be a mobile camera that is not fixed),
a complex event processing (CEP) system remote from the mobile unit and communicatively coupled to the head unit (¶ 0028, Fig. 1; camera 21 connected through wired or wireless communication means to analysis system including image input unit 31 and image processing unit 32),
wherein a message is conveyed from the server to a user device based at least partially on the second action (¶ 0031, external alert sent based on “event”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use mobile PTZ cameras as the Kanaujia cameras, as taught by Ito, in order to surveil various areas in their range. Ito ¶ 0027.
The claimed invention further differs from Kanaujia in that the claimed invention specifies output devices within the mobile unit itself that includes a first output device that outputs audio and a second output device that outputs video. Ito specifies controlling the mobile cameras, but not this kind of output. However, Aviv, directed to a surveillance system, teaches with respect to claim 1:
a number of output devices for generating one or more of a number of possible responses (9:23–31, loudspeaker and light at the site of a CCD/TV camera);
wherein operation of first and second output devices of the number of output devices is controlled to generate at least one response of the number of possible responses based at least partially on the first action (9:1–23, alarm state is generated based on analysis of camera frames to determine an alert status if a crime is happening),
the at least one response including an audio output via the first output device (9:28–31, loudspeaker playing warning announcement) and
a visual output via the second output device (9:32, turning on strong light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kanaujia or Ito further to include a warning system at the location of the camera, as taught by Aviv, in order to deter crime. Aviv 9:28–31.
The claimed invention lastly differs from Kanaujia in that the claimed invention specifies the system is a mobile unit including a trailer, a mast, and a head unit. Neither Kanaujia or Ito teaches this specific form factor. However, such a device was known in the art as a mobile surveillance unit (MSU) at the time of effective filing. Mobile Pro, a sales page for mobile surveillance units, teaches a mobile unit including:
a trailer (“Mobile Pro Systems places great emphasis on the physical stability of the trailer”),
a mast coupled to the trailer (“MPS uses a proprietary mast design that includes rollers at the mast section tops”); and
a head unit coupled to the mast (“This locks the mast together when fully extended creating a stable camera platform”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to implement the Kanaujia or Ito system as a mobile surveillance unit, as taught by Mobile Pro, to enable “easy and rapid deployment”.
Regarding claim 17, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Mobile Pro teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the CEP system comprises a cloud-based CEP system (Ito ¶ 0029, video analysis system 3 may be cloud service).
Regarding claim 18, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Mobile Pro teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the actions include and/or cause at least one of:
placement of a phone call (Kanaujia ¶¶ 0033, 0045; alerting the user).
Regarding claim 19, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Mobile Pro teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the CEP system is further configured to receive a number of rules (¶¶ 0043–44, rules for constructing Markov logic network),
wherein the actions are based on one or more rules of the number of rules (¶ 0045, labelling video or alerting user based on Markov logic network).
Regarding claim 20, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Mobile Pro teaches the system of claim 15, comprising a front-end device configured to receive data responsive to the one or more actions (¶ 0033–34, smartphone).
Regarding claim 21, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, and Mobile Pro teaches the system of claim 16, further comprising an application programming interface (API), the CEP system configured to receive an event from the API (¶¶ 0034, 0037; I/O interface).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kanaujia in view of Ito, Aviv, Kumari, and Mobile Pro.
Regarding claim 29, Kanaujia in view of Ito, Kumari and Mobile Pro teaches the surveillance system of claim 24, wherein the mobile unit comprises:
trailer (“Mobile Pro Systems places great emphasis on the physical stability of the trailer”),
a mast coupled to the trailer (“MPS uses a proprietary mast design that includes rollers at the mast section tops”); and
a head unit including the one or more output devices and the one or more sensors (“This locks the mast together when fully extended creating a stable camera platform”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to implement any of the Kanaujia, Ito, or Kumari system as a mobile surveillance unit, as taught by Mobile Pro, to enable “easy and rapid deployment”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2022/0150442 A1
GB 2416084 A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487