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 .
Priority
Priority is acknowledged from Provisional application 63/482,360 with a filing date of 01/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 01/22/2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 14-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claims recite using cameras to monitor objects, processing images from the camera with artificial intelligence, determine if a problem is occurring within the images, and reporting possible problems to a receiving point.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 1, the limitations of "determining whether a problem is occurring within the images or moving images from the camera; and reporting possible problems to a receiving point", as drafted only involves mental processes or mathematical calculations, such as determining if a problem is occurring or reporting the problems. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional steps "using one or more cameras to monitor one or more objects; processing, with AI, images or moving images from the camera", i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity. The other additional recited elements in certain other claims are just a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a processor, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claim 10.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-15 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims’ limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, using optical flow to capture motion within the images as recited in Claim 4 or looping the processing steps and collecting statistics as recited in Claim 6 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: what is being ended or looped. Claim 6 simply recites “ending or looping, and collecting statistics for animal abuse” in which it is unclear as to which steps are being ended or looped. Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which recited elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 6. Claims 13-15 are dependent upon claim 12. Examiner respectfully requests that appropriate corrections be made to clarify the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20210271885 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches "A method of using artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor situations, the method comprising: using one or more cameras to monitor one or more objects"; (Li, Paras. 4-5, teaches a video analytics system for detecting animal abuse comprising a controller coupled to receive video data from at least one camera wherein the controller processes successive video frames to identify objects of interest including at least humans and analyze movements of such objects relative to an animal, i.e., using a camera to monitor objects);
"processing, with AI, images or moving images from the camera"; (Li, Para. 7, teaches using artificial intelligence techniques in the analysis process of the video streams, i.e., processing the moving images being the video streams from the camera with AI);
"determining whether a problem is occurring within the images or moving images from the camera"; (Li, Paras. 6-7, teaches determining mathematically and objectively whether or not the analyzed movements meet predetermined criteria for possible abuse of the animal, i.e., determine whether a problem is occurring being the abuse of the animal within the moving images from the camera);
"and reporting possible problems to a receiving point"; (Li, Paras. 6-7, teaches outputting information identifying the instance of possible animal abuse via a user interface which allows the user to view video clips showing instances of possible animal abuse based on probability scores, i.e., report possible problems to a receiving point being the user interface).
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 1, wherein the monitored objects include animals"; (Li, Abstract, teaches the video analytics system processes successive video frames to identify objects of interest such as animals).
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 2, wherein the receiving point is a dashboard monitored by a human, who can review and determine whether the possible problems are actual problems"; (Li, Para. 34, teaches outputting relevant information via a user interface including a list of possible abuse instances identifying the time and probability of abuse from which the user can select an instance in order to view the corresponding video for human analysis, i.e., the receiving point is a dashboard or user interface which is monitored by a human wherein the human would determine if the possible problems indicated by probability are actual problems through the human analysis).
Regarding Claim 4, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 3, further comprising: using Optical Flow to capture motion within the images or moving images"; (Li, Para. 64, teaches the use of optical flow to compute motion speed in the unit of pixels with compensation for perspective and distance, i.e., using optical flow to capture motion within the images or video).
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 4, wherein the possible problems include forms of animal abuse"; (Li, Para. 5, teaches detecting instances of possible animal abuse, i.e., the possible problems include forms of animal abuse).
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 1, further comprising: using Optical Flow to capture motion within the images or moving images"; (Li, Para. 64, teaches the use of optical flow to compute motion speed in the unit of pixels with compensation for perspective and distance, i.e., using optical flow to capture motion within the images or video).
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 7, wherein the monitored objects include humans"; (Li, Abstract, teaches the video analytics system that processes successive video frames to identify objects of interest such as humans, i.e., monitored objects include humans);
"and wherein the possible problems reported from the images or moving images from the camera are criminal actions"; (Li, Para. 5, teaches detecting instances of possible animal abuse and outputting information identifying the instance of possible animal abuse via a user interface, i.e., the possible problems which are reported from the images include forms of animal abuse which are criminal actions).
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 8, wherein the receiving point is a dashboard monitored by a human, who can review and determine whether the criminal actions are actual criminal actions"; (Li, Para. 34, teaches outputting relevant information via a user interface including a list of possible abuse instances identifying the time and probability of abuse from which the user can select an instance in order to view the corresponding video for human analysis, i.e., the receiving point is a dashboard or user interface which is monitored by a human wherein the human would determine if the possible abuse being the criminal action indicated by probability are actually abuse through the human analysis).
Claim 10 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Finally, Li discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Li, Paragraph 5).
Claim 11 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Finally, Li discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Li, Paragraph 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Loce et al. (US 20180005042 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Li does not explicitly teach "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 1, further comprising: ending or looping, and collecting statistics for animal abuse".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Loce teaches "The method of using artificial intelligence to monitor situations of claim 1, further comprising: ending or looping, and collecting statistics for animal abuse"; (Loce, Para. 10, teaches a video system for automatically detecting an occurrence of an interaction event of two or more objects concurrently present in a surveilled area wherein the interaction event is associated with an illegal drug deal and wherein steps b-d being the detection and tracking of the objects, the processing of the trajectories of the tracked objects to extract trajectory features, and the application of predefined heuristics to the features to detect an occurrence of the interaction event are repeated for an additional common temporal sequence, i.e., additional looping of processing or ending and collecting of statistics being the extracted features for the illegal activity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Li wherein the illegal activity is animal abuse by including the looping of image processing steps and collection of features or statistics for illegal activity taught by Loce. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it determines if illegal activity has occurred (Loce, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to determine if an illegal interaction event has occurred).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 12 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Li and Loce references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Li and Loce references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Li, Paragraph 5).
Claim 13 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Li and Loce references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Li and Loce references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Li, Paragraph 5).
Claim 14 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Li and Loce references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Li and Loce references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Li, Paragraph 5).
Claim 15 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Li and Loce references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Li and Loce references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Li, Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662