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
This Office Action is in response to communications filed May 12, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-19 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-12, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutcher et al. (Cutcher; US Patent No. 10,388,132 B2) in view of Merchant (US Pub No. 2023/0186670 A1).
As per claim 1, Cutcher teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
tracking, using at least one processor, a pursuer object and a pursued object (col. 7, lines 47-65; col. 8, line 55), wherein the pursuer object is engaged in movement consistent with potentially entering a Field Of View (FOV) of at least one fixed-location camera at a future point in time (Fig. 4 & 5, Patrol Object 104, Field of View 112, Camera 120);
using analytics on first video or image data (col. 5, lines 25-28: suspect located in area to be searched by patrol).
Cutcher does not expressly teach using analytics on first video or image data corresponding to at least the pursuer object to determine a plurality of pursuit-context details;
matching, using the at least one processor,
after the selection of the specific behavior-targeted analytic, actuating the specific behavior-targeted analytic to act on second video or image data captured by the at least one fixed-location camera in generating information relevant to a potential pursuer confrontation in relation to the pursued object; and
making the generated information electronically accessible to a mobile electronic device prior to the potential pursuer confrontation,
wherein the analytics is further used to determine, based on a change in a behavior of the pursued object, an increase in a threat level to the pursuer object.
Merchant teaches using analytics on first video or image data corresponding to at least the pursuer object to determine a plurality of pursuit-context details (paragraph [0016], lines 8-15: location, environment; paragraph [0020], lines 48-49: length of time);
matching, using the at least one processor, at least one of the pursuit-context details to effect selection of a specific behavior-targeted analytic from a plurality of object behavior-targeted analytics (paragraph [0021], lines 21-51: once a change in a field of view has been detected monitoring a specific threat);
after the selection of the specific behavior-targeted analytic, actuating the specific behavior-targeted analytic to act on second video or image data captured by the at least one fixed-location camera in generating information relevant to a potential pursuer confrontation in relation to the pursued object (paragraph [0044]); and
making the generated information electronically accessible to a mobile electronic device prior to the potential pursuer confrontation (paragraph [0015]),
wherein the analytics is further used to determine, based on a change in a behavior of the pursued object, an increase in a threat level to the pursuer object (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the threat detection as taught by Merchant, since Merchant state in paragraph [0015] that such a modification would result in notifying law enforcement of a situation which requires police attention.
As per claim 2, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the pursuer object is a police officer (Cutcher, col. 5, lines 4-5) and the pursued object is a suspected perpetrator of an offence (Cutcher, col. 2, lines 5-6).
As per claim 3, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising automatically generating an audibly or visibly perceivable alert on the mobile electronic device (Cutcher, col. 8, lines 12-15).
As per claim 4, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3 wherein the generating of the audibly or visibly perceivable alert (Cutcher, col. 8, lines 12-15) is in response to detecting that a following distance (Cutcher, col. 7, lines 7-8: patrol enters a location, therefore, the patrol is following behind the suspect), determined based on a geographic-following separation of the pursued object relative to the pursuer object, has dropped below an alert-triggering threshold (Cutcher, col. 2, lines 14-36; col. 7, lines 47-65).
As per claim 5, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3 wherein the generating of the audibly or visibly perceivable alert (Cutcher, col. 8, lines 12-15) is in response to detecting that an approaching distance (Cutcher, col. 1, lines 64-65: approaching), determined based on a geographic-approaching separation of the pursuer object relative to the pursued object, has dropped below an alert-triggering threshold (Cutcher, col. 2, lines 14-36; col. 7, lines 47-65).
As per claim 8, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein:
the first video or image data corresponds to both the pursued object and the pursuer object (Merchant, paragraph [0015]), and
the analytics is further used to determine a change in mobility potential of the pursued object (Cutcher, col. 7, lines 47-65: suspect concealing themself).
As per claim 10, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising automatically generating, on the mobile electronic device, an audibly or visibly perceivable alert corresponding to the change (Cutcher, col. 8, lines 4-15: difference in images indicating the suspect is concealing themself).
As per claim 11, Cutcher teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor (col. 4, line 41);
at least one fixed-location camera configured to capture video or image data (Fig. 1, Camera 102); and
at least one electronic storage medium storing program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform (col. 4, lines 41-56):
tracking a pursuer object and a pursued object (col. 7, lines 47-65; col. 8, line 55), wherein the pursuer object is engaged in movement consistent with potentially entering a Field Of View (FOV) of the at least one fixed-location camera at a future point in time (Fig. 4 & 5, Patrol Object 104, Field of View 112, Camera 120);
analyzing additional video or image data (col. 5, lines 25-28: suspect located in area to be searched by patrol).
Cutcher does not expressly teach analyzing additional video or image data corresponding to at least the pursuer object to determine a plurality of pursuit-context details;
matching at least one of the pursuit-context details to effect selection of a specific behavior-targeted analytic from a plurality of object behavior-targeted analytics;
after the selection of the specific behavior-targeted analytic, actuating the specific behavior-targeted analytic to act on second video or image data captured by the at least one fixed-location camera in generating information relevant to a potential pursuer confrontation in relation to the pursued object; and
making the generated information electronically accessible to a mobile electronic device prior to the potential pursuer confrontation,
wherein the analyzing further includes having analytics determine, based on a change in a behavior of the pursued object, an increase in a threat level to the pursuer object.
Merchant teaches analyzing additional video or image data corresponding to at least the pursuer object to determine a plurality of pursuit-context details (paragraph [0016], lines 8-15: location, environment; paragraph [0020], lines 48-49: length of time);
matching at least one of the pursuit-context details to effect selection of a specific behavior-targeted analytic from a plurality of object behavior-targeted analytics (paragraph [0021], lines 21-51: once a change in a field of view has been detected monitoring a specific threat);
after the selection of the specific behavior-targeted analytic, actuating the specific behavior-targeted analytic to act on second video or image data captured by the at least one fixed-location camera in generating information relevant to a potential pursuer confrontation in relation to the pursued object (paragraph [0044]); and
making the generated information electronically accessible to a mobile electronic device prior to the potential pursuer confrontation (paragraph [0015]),
wherein the analyzing further includes having analytics determine, based on a change in a behavior of the pursued object, an increase in a threat level to the pursuer object (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the threat detection as taught by Merchant, since Merchant state in paragraph [0015] that such a modification would result in notifying law enforcement of a situation which requires police attention.
As per claim 12, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the system of claim 11 wherein the pursuer object is a police officer and the pursued object is a suspected perpetrator of an offence.
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 8 above) the system of claim 11 wherein:
the additional video or image data corresponds to both the pursued object and the pursuer object, and
the at least one processor is further caused to perform determining a change in mobility potential of the pursued object.
As per claim 16, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the specific behavior-targeted analytic is ambush detection, and the change in the behavior of the pursued object is consistent with a potential ambush (Cutcher, col. 7, lines 47-65: suspect concealing themself).
As per claim 17, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16 further comprising automatically generating an audibly or visibly perceivable ambush alert on the mobile electronic device (Cutcher, col. 8, lines 28-40).
As per claim 18, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the specific behavior-targeted analytic is ambush detection, and the change in the behavior of the pursued object is consistent with a potential ambush (Cutcher, col. 7, lines 47-65: suspect concealing themself).
As per claim 19, Cutcher in view of Merchant further teaches the system of claim 18 wherein the at least one processor is further caused to perform generating an audibly or visibly perceivable ambush alert on the mobile electronic device (Cutcher, col. 8, lines 28-40).
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutcher in view of Merchant as applied above, and further in view of Soo et al. (Soo; US Patent No. 11,417,105 B1).
As per claim 6, Cutcher in view of Merchant teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Cutcher in view of Araya does not expressly teach wherein:
the first video or image data is video data captured from another fixed-location camera, and
the analytics is configured to generate a notification of the pursuer object leaving an FOV of the another fixed-location camera when the pursuer object moves into a defined exit region of the FOV of the another fixed-location camera.
Soo teaches wherein:
the first video or image data is video data captured from another fixed-location camera (col. 3, line 32: multiple cameras), and
the analytics is configured to generate a notification of the pursuer object leaving an FOV of the another fixed-location camera when the pursuer object moves into a defined exit region of the FOV of the another fixed-location camera (col. 2, lines 41-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the multiple cameras and monitoring users entering and exiting a field of view of each camera as taught by Soo, since Soo states in column 2, lines 41-65 that such a modification would result in determining in which direction a suspect is travelling.
As per claim 7, Cutcher in view of Merchant, and further in view of Soo, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6 further comprising automatically displaying, on a screen of the mobile electronic device and based on the notification (Soo, col. 2, lines 49-51), live video captured by the at least one fixed-location camera (Merchant, paragraph [0031]).
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the system of claim 11 wherein:
the additional video or image data is video data captured from another fixed-location camera, and
the at least one processor is further caused to perform generating a notification of the pursuer object leaving an FOV of the another fixed-location camera when the pursuer object moves into a defined exit region of the FOV of the another fixed-location camera.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Merchant does not expressly teach the claim limitation “using analytics on first video or image data corresponding to at least the pursuer object to determine a plurality of pursuit-context details” as the prior art of Merchant discloses video or audio that is captured before any potential dispatch of police or security personnel (Remarks, pg. 7 of 10), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Merchant discloses using artificial intelligence to identify changes and objects within a monitored video/audio stream and if specific thresholds are met which correspond to a specific event a notification is sent to the police in order to apprehend those involved, i.e. the identified pursuer object at an identified location performing an identified action -- plurality of pursuit-context details (Merchant, paragraph [0015]). The claim does not contain limitations which specify the video or image data being captured before any potential dispatch of police or security personnel. Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations, the prior art of Merchant discloses the claim limitations as outlined above.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Merchant does not teach the claim limitation “matching, using the at least one processor, at least one of the pursuit-context details to effect selection of a specific behavior-targeted analytic from a plurality of object behavior-targeted analytics” (Remarks, pg. 8 of 10), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Merchant discloses identifying one or more threats within a video frame through correlating a particular gesture or facial expression within the frame with a predetermined threat type (Merchant, paragraph [0021], lines 40-52). Therefore, the prior art of Merchant teaches the claim limitation as outlined above.
The above arguments are applied to all of claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-19.
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 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 NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights