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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Amendment, filed on 09/11/2025.
This action is made FINAL.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-12, 17-18 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper Bingham et al., US 2023/0070772 A1, and further in view of Guy Bar-Nahum et al., US 2020/0162489 A1.
Independent claim 1, Bingham discloses a system with an augmented reality threat indicator overlay (Fig. 2 “136, 210”; Para 110), comprising:
a high-performance computing center, wherein the high-performance computing center includes one or more computer processors capable of machine learning to continuously update a threat prediction model, a storage device capable of storing instructions and data, and a high- performance computing center transceiver capable of sending and receiving the data (i.e. server including a threat assessment engine performing machine learning to identify threats – Para 61; storing and transmitting instructions – abstract; Para 91 – and data wirelessly – Para 166),
wherein the threat prediction model is iteratively retrained based on verified field feedback received from one or more augmented reality devices (i.e. update machine learning parameters over time based on sensor data and threat events detected – Para 62);
one or more data collection devices, wherein the one or more data collection devices gather the data and each include a collection device transceiver that is capable of sending and receiving the data to and from the high-performance computing center (i.e. camera communicates with monitoring server – Para 148; and communicates wirelessly via communication links – Para 166);
one or more augmented reality device (i.e. mobile computing device visualizing a visual representation overlaid with data from a threat assessment – Fig. 2; Para 110), wherein each augmented reality device includes an augmented reality display that is capable of overlaying a threat indicator percentage on a threat (i.e. overlay percentage of threat – Para 68, 114, 115) together with a color-coded indicator corresponding to probability ranges (i.e. use color to represent threat level – Para 68);
and an augmented reality device transceiver capable of transmitting and receiving the data from the high-performance computing center or the one or more data collection devices to update the threat indicator percentage in real-time (i.e. communication links provide wireless communication between a server and camera and a user device, e.g. mobile computing device – Para 167, 168)
Bar-Nahum discloses wherein the one or more data collection devices include both a satellite camera and a drone camera that cooperatively provide multi-perspective threat data (i.e. detecting security events using cameras - Para 17- and drones - Para 18-and using color as visual information in threat level analysis – Para 64, 115), which Bingham fails to disclose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Bar-Nahum known system wherein the one or more data collection devices include both a satellite camera and a drone camera that cooperatively provide multi-perspective threat data with the system of Bingham because threat assessment of a security event is collected from sensors, such as cameras. Thus, the combined teachings yield predictable results.
Claim 2, Bingham discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the threat prediction model is formed using supervised training, unsupervised training, or a combination thereof (i.e. The machine learning algorithms can be trained using supervised or unsupervised methods - Para 62).
Claim 3, Bingham discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more data collection devices include an augmented reality device with a camera, a hand-held or fixed camera (i.e. camera captures images and video – Para 144; Fig. 1 “118”), a drone with a camera (i.e. aerial drone may provide threat assessment – Para 91), a satellite with a camera, or a combination thereof.
Claim 4, Bingham discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the data includes one or more images, one or more videos, one or more live video feeds, or a combination thereof (i.e. camera captures images and video – Para 144).
Claim 5, Bingham discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the threat is an individual (Fig. 2 “110”), a vehicle, a device or object (Fig. 2 “111”), an aerial vehicle, a structure (Fig. 2 “226”), or a combination thereof.
Claim 6, Bingham discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more augmented reality devices are goggles, glasses, a translucent tablet (i.e. mobile device can be a tablet – Para 100), or a visor.
Claim 7, Bingham discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the supervised training or unsupervised training is performed with verified or unverified data from the one or more data collection devices (i.e. determine confidence level of assessed threats based on sensor data or audio data to train machine learning algorithms using supervised or unsupervised methods – Para 61-64).
Claim 8, Bingham discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the supervised training or unsupervised training is performed with verified data (i.e. determine confidence level of assessed threats based on sensor data or audio data to train machine learning algorithms using supervised or unsupervised methods – Para 61-64).
Claim 9, Bingham discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more augmented reality devices transmit verified data of the threat indirectly or directly to the high-performance computing center (i.e. audio verifying a threat is provided from user/mobile device to server – Fig. 1; Para 61, 126,141).
Claim 10, Bingham discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the high-performance computing center transmits verified data of the threat to the one or more data collection devices, one or more augmented reality devices, or a combination thereof (i.e. monitoring server communicates threat data to user/mobile device – Fig. 1 “115, 130, 136”).
Independent claim 11, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claims 12-20, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claims 2-10 apply herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-7653. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615