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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The below claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 11 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claims 1 and 11 includes abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) below.
“1. An apparatus for sensor data verification, the apparatus comprising:
a memory including instructions; and
processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions
to:
receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a
sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene;
create a marker of the portion of the first sensor data by hashing a
measurement of the portion of the first sensor data;
receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene; and
communicate a trust score computed for the second sensor data by
comparing the second sensor data to the portion of the first
sensor data, wherein the trust score is determined on a
verification of the portion of the first sensor data based on the
marker of the portion of the first sensor data.”
“11. An apparatus for sensor data verification, the apparatus comprising:
a memory including instructions; and
processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions
to:
receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a
sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene;
create a marker of the portion of the first sensor data by hashing a
measurement of the portion of the first sensor data;
receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene; and
communicate a trust score computed for the second sensor data by
comparing the second sensor data to the portion of the first
sensor data, wherein the trust score is determined on a
verification of the portion of the first sensor data based on the
marker of the portion of the first sensor data.”
The highlighted steps indicated as abstract ideas are considered to be equivalent to mathematical steps and fundamental aspect of mathematics or directed to mental processes performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation and opinion).
Under step 2A prong 2, the claims do not comprise any particular field of use and claims do not direct to any practical application.
The steps of “receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a
sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene”, “receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene” and “receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene” and “receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene” as recited in claim 11, just insignificant additional steps of receiving data.
Under step 2B: The steps of “receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene”, “receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene” and “receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene” and “receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene” as recited in claim 11, are just insignificant additional steps of receiving data.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11 comprises the” memory including instructions”; and
“processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions” these are merely a general computer and generic pieces of the computer and software running on the computer. The general computer and software running on the computer do not make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea. All of these additional elements are generic computer and generic components of the computer, which are in light of Alice considered as not being significantly more.
Also, claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19 and 20 merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, more particularly mathematical calculations or mental steps as recited. Claim 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, and 16 just additionally describes the type of data. Claims 7 and 17 describe a physical dimension of a subject, which is insignificant additional steps. Thus claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Alter et al., (US Pub.20240338988A1), hereinafter Alter in view of Gopalakrishna et al., (US 20240096051), hereinafter Gopalakrishna.
Regarding Claim 1, Alter discloses an apparatus for sensor data verification, the apparatus comprising:
a memory including instructions (para [0031], where The controller 74 may include a memory 76 and processor 78 (e.g., processing circuitry). The memory 76 may include volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM), optical drives, hard disc drives, solid-state drives, or any other non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions to operate the attraction system 50. The processor 78 may be configured to execute such instructions); and
processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions (para [0031], where memory 76 may include volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM), optical drives, hard disc drives, solid-state drives, or any other non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions to operate the attraction system 50. The processor 78 may be configured to execute such instructions…the processor 78 may include one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one or more general purpose processors) to: receive a communication that includes first sensor data from a sensor, a portion of the first sensor data pertaining to a scene;
the portion of the first sensor data (para [0024], where the respective notable attributes of different groups of guests may be sufficiently unique to distinguish a particular group of guests from other groups of guests. For this reason, notable attributes of respective sensor data of respective locations may be compared to one another to identify progress of a group of guests navigating the queue area (e.g., based on operation of the attraction system to iteratively entertain guests));
receive second sensor data pertaining to the scene(para [0024], where the respective notable attributes of different groups of guests may be sufficiently unique to distinguish a particular group of guests from other groups of guests… the second sensor data indicates progression of the guests from the first location to the second location); and
communicate a trust score computed for the second sensor data by comparing the second sensor data to the portion of the first sensor data, wherein the trust score is determined on a verification of the portion of the first sensor data based on the marker of the portion of the first sensor data (Abstract, where first sensor data indicative of one or more first notable attributes associated with a first group of guests in the queue area… determine a confidence score associated with a match between the first group of guests and the second group of guests based on comparison between the first sensor data and the second sensor data; para [0054], where compare the second sensor data 114 to the first subsequent sensor data, determine a confidence score associated with the comparison, and determine that the second group 115 of guests 58 associated with the second sensor data 114 matches the additional group of guests associated with the first subsequent sensor data based on the confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score; e.g., the portion of the first sensor data is equally to the first group of people in area, the verification of the portion is equally to the notable attributes associated with first/second group of guests).
Alter does not disclose create a marker of the portion of the first sensor data by hashing a measurement of the first sensor data.
Gopalakrishna discloses create a marker of the portion of the first sensor data by hashing a measurement of the portion of the first sensor data (para [0043], where deep fake detection process 60 includes having hidden cryptographic messages 61 included in traffic signs. That is, the present disclosure contemplates utilizing object stenography or Quick Response (QR) codes in order to validate the authenticity of traffic signs; para [006], where hidden object can be a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Web Token (JWT). The JWT can be embedded in the content using Least Significant Bit (LSB) steganography; para [0035], where certificates of all involved in the video, includes a stamping step 52 that includes generation of a hash from all of the certificates of all involved in the video and the hash is embedded as a hidden object within the video; and Fig. 2, #53, where detect hidden object…. Include some indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to create a marker of the portion of the first sensor data by hashing a measurement, as taught by Gopalakrishna into Alter in order to provide a security for protecting sensitive data.
Claim 11 is analyzed and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Additionally, in Claim 11, Alter discloses at least one machine readable medium including instructions for sensor data verification (para [0035], where the controller 74 may verify whether respective notable attributes indicated by different sensor data may be associated with the same group of guests 58), the instructions, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations (para [0031], where the controller 74 may include a memory 76 and processor 78 (e.g., processing circuitry). The memory 76 may include volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM), optical drives, hard disc drives, solid-state drives, or any other non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions to operate the attraction system 50. The processor 78 may be configured to execute such instructions. For example, the processor 78 may include one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one or more general purpose processors, or any combination thereof), and receiving, at a device (para [0039], where the controller 74 may receive sensor data).
Claims 2-4, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter in view of Gopalakrishna, as applied above and further in view of Hoang (US Pub.20070156767A1), hereinafter Hoang.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Alter and Gopalakrishna disclose the apparatus of claim 1/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 11, further Alter disclose wherein portion of the first sensor data, as recited in claim 1.
Alter and Gopalakrishna do not disclose wherein the trust score is determined from a previous trust score.
Hoang discloses the trust score is determined from a previous trust score computed of the first sensor data (para [0096], where compute the trust score for the received relationship data set and possibly re-compute the trust score for the previously stored relationship data set in the master reference store).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the trust score is determined from a previous trust score, as taught by Hoang in combination of Alter and Gopalakrishna in order to provide a security for protecting sensitive data.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Alter and Gopalakrishna disclose the apparatus of claim 2/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 12, further Alter disclose wherein the previous trust score is determined based on a context of the apparatus upon receipt of the first sensor data (para [0024], where determination that the confidence score is above a threshold value, a duration of time between capture of the first sensor data and capture of the second sensor).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Alter and Gopalakrishna disclose the apparatus of claim 3/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 13, further Alter discloses wherein the context is at least one of time or distance between creation of the first sensor data by the sensor and the apparatus (para [0024], where determination that the confidence score is above a threshold value, a duration of time between capture of the first sensor data and capture of the second sensor).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Alter in view of Gopalakrishna, and Hoang, as applied above and further in view of Karagiannis et al., (US Pub. 20230033951A1), hereinafter Karagiannis.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Alter and Gopalakrishna and Hoang disclose the apparatus of claim 3/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 13, but do not disclose wherein the context includes other sensor data received by the apparatus from other sensors that pertain to the scene.
Karagiannis discloses the context includes other sensor data received by the apparatus from other sensors that pertain to the scene (para [002], where data from cameras and sometimes other types of sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the other sensors that pertain to the scene, as taught by Karagiannis in combination of Alter and Gopalakrishna and Hoang in order to increase robustness regarding consistent maps.
Claims 6-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter in view of Gopalakrishna, as applied above and further in view of Buibas et al., (US Pub. 20210272086A1), hereinafter Buibas.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Alter and Gopalakrishna disclose the apparatus of claim 1/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 11, but do not disclose wherein the scene is defined by space and time.
Buibas discloses the scene is defined by space and time(para [0018], where time sequence of images is captured over a time period and analyzes the time sequence of images from each camera and the 3D model of the store to detect a person in the store based on the time sequence of images; para [0208], where person at one point in time and space to a different point in time or space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the scene is defined by space and time, as taught by Buibas in combination of Gopalakrishna and Alter in order to better analyzes camera images to track people with specific details and their interactions with items.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Alter and Gopalakrishna and Buibas disclose the apparatus of claim 6/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 16, wherein Alter further disclose space is defined by physical dimensions of a subject, an aspect of the subject being measured by the first sensor data (para [0021], where notable attributes may include various features or characteristics of guests, such as a body dimension (e.g., a height), para [0032], where the notable attributes may include a body dimension (e.g., a height, a wingspan), a body weight).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Alter and Gopalakrishna and Buibas disclose the apparatus of claim 6/at least one machine readable medium of claim 16s, but do not disclose wherein space is as a subset of the first sensor data.
Alter discloses a subset of the first sensor data (para [0022], where subset of these notable attributes).
Further, Buibas discloses space (para [0018], where time sequence of images is captured over a time period and analyzes the time sequence of images from each camera and the 3D model of the store to detect a person in the store based on the time sequence of images; para [0208], where person at one point in time and space to a different point in time or space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide space data, as taught by Buibas into subset of Alter and further into Gopalakrishna in order to better analyze camera images to track people with specific details and their interactions with items.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Alter in view of Gopalakrishna, Buibas as applied above and further in view of
Anumalasetty et al., (Pat.10020076B1), hereinafter Anumalasetty.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Alter and Gopalakrishna and Buibas disclose the apparatus of claim 6/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 16, Alter disclose wherein the portion of the first sensor data, as recited in claim 1.
Alter and Gopalakrishna and Buibas do not disclose sensor data is
determined by the time, the first sensor data being sliced based on the time to
produce the portion of the first sensor data.
Anymalasetty discloses sensor data is determined by the time, the first sensor data being sliced based on the time (Col. 12, Lines 36-40, where sensor data at a particular time slice (e.g., 4 P.M.) and/or a series of time slices (e.g., 4 P.M to 9 P.M.), the trigger component stores the sensor data corresponding to the time slice)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide sliced data, as taught by Anymalasetty to produce the portion of sensor data of Alter and further in combination of Gopalakrishna and Buibas in order to improve accuracy in sampling rate and reduce data volume.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Alter in view of Gopalakrishna, Buibas and Anumalasetty as applied above and further in view of Yeo et al., (US Pub. 20230244946A1), hereinafter Yeo.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Alter in view of Gopalakrishna, Buibas and Anumalasetty disclose the apparatus of claim 9/ at least one machine readable medium of claim 19, but do not disclose wherein the marker is an entry in a vector,
other entries in the vector being other markers created from other portions of other
sensor data that correspond to the space and the time.
Yeo discloses the marker is an entry in a vector, other entries in the vector being other markers created from other portions of other sensor data that correspond to the space and the time (para [0046], where multivariate time series data representative of sensor data obtained over time, transform the set of multivariate time series data into a set of signature vectors in an embedding space, and train a neural network to estimate a probability distribution of the set of signature vectors in the embedding space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide entry in a vector as taught by Yeo in combination of Alter and Gopalakrishna and Buibas and Anymalasetty in order to easily operate in a single entry and simplify the scan of the entire dataset.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights