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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/2025 has been entered.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
In its recent decision, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. {“Alice Corp.’’), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._(2012) {Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract idea. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). The basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Next, determine if the claim is directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). The two-part test provided in Alice Corp. to determine whether a claim directed towards an abstract idea is statutory under § 101 requires an evaluation to determined 1) whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas reference in Alice Corp. include:
- Fundamental economic principles
- Certain methods of organizing human activities
- An idea of itself
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
In accordance with judicial precedent, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
The claims 1-20 recite a process including receiving image surveillance data of a restricted area, identifying a person associated with an event, determining the location of the person, determining a characteristic of the person, and triggering an alert referencing the characteristic of the person, therefore it recites at least one of the enumerated categories, a process, eligible subject matter in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A(i) -Focus of the Claim
As a result, the claims 1-20 will be reviewed under Step 2A(i) to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claims recite triggering an audio alert indicating a characteristic of a person associated with an event, and after the alert determining the person has moved, thus the organization of human activity such as surveillance of human behavior.
The court have ruled that receiving and authenticating identity data to permit access was abstract since the functions were claimed generically rather than offering a "'concrete, specific solution" See Prisnz Technologies LLC v. T-Afobile USA, 696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir.2017). Abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, storing the data in memory, and notifying the user of the results. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"). Moreover, the reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of information and analysis of information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset, such as rules) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
The process of receiving images of persons in restricted area, and outputting an alert is a method of organizing human activity, as considered under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii) -Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In this instance, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely detect persons in images, locate and identify the persons, identify characteristics of the persons, output information and trigger an audio alert. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer or image analysis technical field; the claims are not implemented with or used with a particular machine; the claims do not transform an article to a different state or thing when locating an object in images and triggering an audio alert; and the claims do not provide a meaningful way of analyzing image regions in the image analysis technical environment.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05( d), only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look under Step 2B to determine; (3) whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (WURC) in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Having determined claims 1-20 is directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination, add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Revised Guidance.
It is possible that a claim that does not ‘‘integrate’’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element. Along these lines, the Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test because the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘‘significantly more’’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as nonexclusive examples:
- Improvements to another technology or technical field
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Examples that are not enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive example:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry
The additional elements recited in claims 1-20 are well-understood, routine, and conventional steps in image analysis and ruled based surveillance. The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to viewing images and determining location of people.
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F .3d at 1340 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F .3d at 1372 (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.").
The claims state processing circuitry. However, the claims merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer elements to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter."); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],' either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps").
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 14-16 recite a machine learning system trained to identify persons and associated events. According to the MPEP Section 2106, simply mentioning "machine learning" in a patent claim is generally not enough to guarantee patentable subject matter; the claims must clearly define a specific, practical application of machine learning that goes beyond a generic or abstract idea, often requiring detailed description of the training process, data inputs, and specific outputs to avoid rejection under Section 101 for being too abstract. The machine learning language in the claims does not go beyond the abstract idea of identifying events in images.
In claims 1-20, the steps of receiving images using processing circuitry, and outputting detection results is not an improvement to a fundamental practice and/or method of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than generalized steps well-known and routine in the art such as image detection and object localization. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, with steps that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 1-20 are ineligible. The Examiner suggests the applicant further define the audio alert devices as described in paragraphs 0021-0022 of specification, and machine learning model as described in paragraph 0044 of specification.
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 6-9, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brand et al. (US 11,024,105).
Regarding claim 6, Brand teaches a system, comprising: at least one device comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive video surveillance data associated with an area of a premises (see col. 5 lines 39-47, Brand discusses video surveillance of restricted areas);
identify, by applying at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, a triggering event (see figure 5F, col. 10 lines 50-56, col. 24 lines 2-4, Brand discusses Machine learning algorithms analyzing video data):
in response to the triggering event, apply the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data to: identify a person associated with the triggering event (see col. 12 lines 11-13, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses identifying unauthorized persons in a secured area);
determine a location of the person within a restricted area (see col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses identifying unauthorized persons in a secured area); and
identify, at least one non-facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event (see col. 5 lines 39-47, Brand discusses detecting badge data associated with a person in a restricted area);
generate a first audio message referencing the at least one non-facial characteristic of the person and the location of the person within the restricted area, the first audio configured to instruct the person to leave the restricted area of the premises (see figure 5D, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses visual or audio message informing the unauthorized individual to step back from the barrier); and
cause audio playback of the first audio message (see figure 5D, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses visual or audio message informing the unauthorized individual to step back from the barrier).
Regarding claim 7, Brand teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, by applying the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, an event type associated with the triggering event; identify the person associated with the triggering event further based at least in part on the event type; and the first audio message referencing information of the event type (see figure 5D, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses visual or audio message informing the unauthorized individual to step back from the barrier).
Regarding claim 8, Brand teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by applying the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, an object with which the person is interacting; and the first audio message referencing the identity of the object with which the person is interacting (see figure 5D, col. 12 lines 23--25, Brand discusses detecting a person attempting to operate machinery without having the appropriate training/certification or required supervisor or assistants).
Regarding claim 9, Brand teaches wherein the at least one non-facial characteristic of person associated with the triggering event includes at least one of: an item of clothing worn by the person;
a gender of the person; a hairstyle of the person; an identification of an object with which the person is interacting; or a type of a weapon being held by the person (see figure 5D, col. 12 lines 23--25, Brand discusses detecting a person attempting to operate machinery without having the appropriate training/certification or required supervisor or assistants).
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 9 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. (US 11,024,105) in view of Meganathan et al. (US 2017/0193774).
Regarding claim 1, Brand teaches a system, comprising: at least one device comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive video surveillance data associated with a restricted area of a premises (see figure 5F, col. 10 lines 50-56, col. 24 lines 2-4, Brand discusses Machine learning algorithms analyzing live video data of prohibited locations):
identify, by applying at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, a triggering event associated with the restricted area (see figure 5F, col. 10 lines 50-56, col. 24 lines 2-4, Brand discusses Machine learning algorithms analyzing video data):
in response to the triggering event, apply the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data to: identify a person associated with the triggering event (see col. 12 lines 11-13, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses identifying unauthorized persons in a secured area);
determine a location of the person within the restricted area (see col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses identifying unauthorized persons in a secured area); and
identify, a characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event (see figure 5D, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses dynamic message, an unauthorized individual can be identified by badge number, name, or other indicator);
generate a first audio message referencing the characteristic of the person and the
location of the person within the restricted area, the first audio message configured to instruct the person to leave the restricted area of the premises (see figure 5D, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses visual or audio message informing the unauthorized individual to step back from the barrier);
cause audio playback of the first audio message (see figure 5D, col. 26 lines 4-16, Brand discusses visual or audio message informing the unauthorized individual to step back from the barrier).
Meganathan teaches after audio playback of the first audio message, determine the person has moved outside the restricted area (see para. 0069, Meganathan discusses generating an alert when a person has entered a restricted area, further tracking the person and generating an alert when the person has exited the restricted area).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Meganathan to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand, while the teaching of Meganathan continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event and eliminate the need for human security intervention. The Brand and Meganathan systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Meganathan teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: the person has moved outside the restricted area; generate an additional audio message referencing the characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event and the movement of the person outside the restricted area, the additional audio message acknowledging that the person has left at least the restricted area; and cause playback of the additional audio message (see para. 0069, Meganathan discusses generating an alert when a person has entered a restricted area, and continuously tracking the person and generating an alert when the person has exited the restricted area).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Meganathan to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human intruder detection and security surveillance.
Regarding claim 12, Brand does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the person has moved outside the restricted area; generate an additional audio message referencing the at least one characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event and the movement of the person outside the restricted area, the additional audio message acknowledging that the person has left at least the restricted area; and cause audio playback of the additional audio message.
However, Meganathan teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the person has moved outside the restricted area; generate an additional audio message referencing the at least one characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event and the movement of the person outside the restricted area, the additional audio message acknowledging that the person has left at least the restricted area (see para. 0069, Meganathan discusses generating an alert when a person has entered a restricted area, further tracking the person and generating an alert when the person has exited the restricted area); and
cause audio playback of the additional audio message (see para. 0069, Meganathan discusses generating an alert when a person has entered a restricted area, further tracking the person and generating an alert when the person has exited the restricted area).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Meganathan to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand, while the teaching of Meganathan continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event and eliminate the need for human security intervention. The Brand and Meganathan systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 12 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. (US 11,024,105) in view of Meganathan et al. (US 2017/0193774) in view of Bapat et al. (US 2020/0226416).
Regarding claim 2, Brand and Meganathan do not expressly disclose wherein the characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event comprises at least one of: an item of clothing worn by the person; a gender of the person; or a hairstyle of the person. However, Bapat teaches wherein the characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event comprises at least one of: an item of clothing worn by the person; a gender of the person; or a hairstyle of the person (see para. 0028, Bapat discusses playing an audible alert that comprises a verbal warning to the person. The verbal warning may include reference to activity of the person, and one or more detected qualities of the person e.g., the color and/or type of the person's clothing).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand and Meganathan with Bapat to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand and Meganathan in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand and Meganathan, while the teaching of Bapat continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event and eliminate the need for human security intervention. The Brand, Meganathan, and Bapat systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. (US 11,024,105) in view of Meganathan et al. (US 2017/0193774) in view of Jones et al. (US 10,789,820).
Regarding claim 3, Brand and Meganathan do not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by applying the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, a facial characteristic of the person associated with triggering event; and the first audio message being based on the facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event.
However, Jones teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by applying the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, a facial characteristic of the person associated with triggering event(see col. 13 lines 7-13, Jones discusses cameras performing facial recognition on the person approaching the property); and
the first audio message being based on the facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event (see col. 8 lines 50-53, col. 19 lines 41-44, Jones discusses output voice commands instructing the person to vacate the restricted area based on the identification of the person).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand and Meganathan with Jones to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand and Meganathan in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand and Meganathan, while the teaching of Jones continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event and eliminate the need for human security intervention. The Brand, Meganathan, and Jones systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. (US 11,024,105) in view of Meganathan et al. (US 2017/0193774) in view of Loke et al. (US 2023/0410512) (WO2022098305 published 5/12/2022).
Regarding claim 4, Brand and Meganathan do not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a severity level of the triggering event; and the generating of the first audio message being based at least in part on a vocal profile associated with the severity level.
However, Loke teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a severity level of the triggering event (see para. 0083, Loke discusses defining a relationship between position information of a human detected in images and event severity); and
the generating of the first audio message being based at least in part on a vocal profile associated with the severity level (see para. 0083, Loke discusses notification system may output different messages and activate different audio and visual alarms based on the level of severity of the event).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand and Meganathan with Loke to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human intruder detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand and Meganathan in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand and Meganathan, while the teaching of Loke continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event associated with different audible alarms and eliminating the need for human security intervention. The Brand, Meganathan, and Loke systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. (US 11,024,105) in view of Jones et al. (US 10,789,820).
Regarding claim 10, Brand does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive biometric data associated with the triggering event; and identify the person associated with the triggering event further based at least in part on the biometric data.
However, Jones teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive biometric data associated with the triggering event; and identify the person associated with the triggering event further based at least in part on the biometric data (see col. 13 lines 7-55, Jones discusses cameras performing facial recognition on the person approaching the property, and trained convolutional neural network analyzing facial features of a person visiting a region).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Jones to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human intruder detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand, while the teaching of Jones continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event associated with different audible alarms and eliminating the need for human security intervention. The Brand and Jones systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 14, Brand does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by applying the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, a facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event; and the generating of the first audio message based at least on the facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event.
However, Jones teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by applying the at least one machine learning model to the video surveillance data, a facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event (see col. 13 lines 7-55, Jones discusses cameras performing facial recognition on the person approaching the property, and trained convolutional neural network analyzing facial features of a person visiting a region); and
the generating of the first audio message based at least on the facial characteristic of the person associated with the triggering event (see col. 8 lines 50-53, col. 19 lines 41-44, Jones discusses output a voice commands instructing the person to vacate the restricted area based on the identification of the person).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Jones to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human intruder detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand, while the teaching of Jones continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event associated with different audible alarms and eliminating the need for human security intervention. The Brand and Jones systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 11, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. (US 11,024,105) in view of Loke et al. (US 2023/0410512) (WO2022098305 published 5/12/2022).
Regarding claim 11, Brand does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a first severity level of the triggering event; and the generating of the first audio message being based at least in part on a vocal profile associated with the first severity level.
However, Loke teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a first severity level of the triggering event (see para. 0083, Loke discusses defining a relationship between position information of a human detected in images and event severity); and
the generating of the first audio message being based at least in part on a vocal profile associated with the first severity level (see para. 0083, Loke discusses notification system may output different messages and activate different audio and visual alarms based on the level of severity of the event).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Loke to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human intruder detection and security surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Brand in this manner in order to improve human detection and security surveillance by applying a machine learning model to identify an intruder and automatically generating an audio alarm based on the severity of a triggering event, therefore removing the need for human security personnel. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Brand, while the teaching of Loke continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of identifying the identity of an visitor using a machine learning algorithm to determine the severity of a security event associated with different audible alarms and eliminating the need for human security intervention. The Brand and Loke systems perform video surveillance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 13, Loke teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect, using additional surveillance data, a movement of the person from the area to a different area of the premises; determine a second severity level based at least in part on the movement of the person and at least one characteristic of the different area, the second severity level is one of: a higher severity level than the first severity level when the different area to which the person moved is farther from an exit of the premises than the area; or a lower severity level than the first severity level when the different area to which the person moved is closer to the exit of the premises than the area (see para. 0083, Loke discusses activating different audio alarms based on the level of severity of the event and the position of the person).
The same motivation of claim 11 is applied to claim 13. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Brand with Loke to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform human intruder detection and security surveillance.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 11 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Madden et al. (US 2022/0027637) discusses generating an audio message that instructs the person to leave the property.
Madden et al. (US 11,322,010) discusses deep learning techniques to identify the actions of the one or more persons within the monitored area.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR o