DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 1/14/26.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-22 are currently pending.
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-22 are rejected as set forth below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is maintained.
Applicant contends making virtual appearances results in a practical application because [0001] of the Specification describes possible benefits such as saving time and money and promoting inclusivity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant merely repeats [0001] of the Specification in verbatim without providing any analysis whatsoever. Specifically, Applicant fails to explain how saving time and money and promoting inclusivity is an example of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. See MPEP 2016.05(a).
Applicant contends the claimed invention is eligible because the claimed invention enables an unexpected use. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is unaware of any case law or section in the MPEP that states that an invention is eligible merely because it enables an unexpected use.
Applicant contends the claimed invention is eligible because security cameras are different from video conferencing equipment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Security cameras and video conferencing equipment perform the same purpose: to record videos and transmit videos remotely. Assuming arguendo that the two are fundamentally different, Applicant still fails to explain how such an assumption would result in a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is maintained.
Applicant contends LeJeune teaches away from “wherein a location of the one camera does not change from when the one camera is assigned to when the virtual appearance occurs”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Office action doesn’t rely on LeJeune to teach the limitation of “wherein a location of the one camera does not change from when the one camera is assigned to when the virtual appearance occurs” as alleged by Applicant. Second, the hovering UAV example was raised as an example to explain how LeJeune does not expressly exclude the feature of a camera being in a fixed location from when the camera is assigned to when the virtual appearance occurs. Third, teaching away only occurs when the prior art in question expressly excludes the feature in question or describe a disadvantage for using the feature. See MPEP 2145(D).
The Examiner notes that the Office action does not apply the technique of following a person in a stalking-like manner to the invention of Noonan. Instead, the Office action applies the following techniques to the invention of Noonan:
generating, using an at least one processor, a user profile for a person, the user profile being based on predetermined parameters corresponding to individualized conditions imposed on the person under at least one legally enforceable order;
identifying, using the at least one processor, a plurality of pre-deployed security cameras within a geographic region that are potentially accessible to the person for video recording relating to the individualized conditions; assigning, using the at least one processor, one camera from the plurality of pre-deployed security cameras for access by the person during a defined time period which will begin at a point in time after the assigning of the camera;
analyzing, using the at least one processor, user provided input received, during the defined time period, at the assigned camera, wherein the person is providing the user provided input as an at least one verification of compliance condition imposed under the at least one legally enforceable order.
The Examiner notes that the original embodiment of Noonan does not explicitly teach, but an alternative embodiment of Noonan teaches:
a camera that is one of a dome camera, an in-ceiling camera, a box camera, a bullet camera, a security panel-embedded camera, and a doorbell device-embedded camera; ([0135], “In an embodiment, each time a transmission is located, its position, and identification will be confirmed, as in a prison facility, each location of the transmission facility will be monitored by a CCTV camera and this information and data will be stored, each digital frame will be analyzed to determine whether positive identification can be determined1.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the alternative embodiment of Noonan to the known invention of the original embodiment Noonan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such video conferencing features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the wireless tablet so it is a dome camera results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the camera cannot be easily physically tampered with, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 1-20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claims 1, 13 recite: A computer-implemented method comprising: generating, using an at least one processor, a user profile for a person, the user profile being based on predetermined parameters corresponding to individualized conditions imposed on the person under at least one legally enforceable order; identifying, using the at least one processor, a plurality of [parole officers] pre-deployed security cameras within a geographic region that are potentially accessible to the person for a virtual appearance relating to the individualized conditions; assigning, using the at least one processor, one [parole officer] camera from the plurality of [parole officers] pre-deployed security cameras for access by the person during a defined time period which will begin at a point in time after the assigning of the [parole officer] camera, wherein a location of the one [parole officer] camera from when the one [parole officer] camera is assigned to when the virtual appearance occurs; and the one camera is one of a dome camera, an in-ceiling camera, a box camera, a bullet camera, a security panel-embedded camera, and a doorbell device-embedded camera; and analyzing, using the at least one processor, user provided input received, during the defined time period, at the assigned [parole officer] camera, wherein the person is providing the user provided input as an at least one verification of compliance condition imposed under the at least one legally enforceable order.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method and a system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of checking in with a parole officer and ensuring compliance with conditions imposed under a legally enforceable order (a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions, e.g. including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. That is, other than reciting implementing the abstract idea on a computer and using pre-deployed security cameras for a virtual appearance, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as a legal obligation, e.g. checking in with a parole officer and ensuring compliance with conditions imposed under a legally enforceable order. For example, throughout modern history a person on parole would be compelled to ensure compliance with a legally enforceable order or obligation by checking in periodically with their parole officer.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 14-16, 18, which further recite the abstract idea of checking in with a parole officer and ensuring compliance with conditions imposed under a legally enforceable order.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add 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. For example, the abstract idea is implemented on a computer. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For example, the abstract idea is generally linked to the technological environment of video conferencing.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 5, which include additional claim elements that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 6-8, 10-12, 17-20, which include additional claim elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of video conferencing.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20140018059 to Noonan in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200401800 to LeJeune.
As per claims 1, 13, an original embodiment of Noonan teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a security camera that is potentially accessibly to the person for a virtual appearance, wherein a location of the one camera does not change from when the one camera is assigned to when the virtual appearance occurs; ([0159], “In this embodiment, the wireless communication of the sensors (see FIG. 10 and FIG. 16) will also carry education information and data to each of the inmate cells. Each inmate is equipped with a wireless tablet to take interactive education. In FIG. 10 the 802.15.4 will provide a dual role of sensor sync and education communication. In embodiment and fully automated wireless communications and personnel and asset tracking, the communication to the sensors will be transmitted via cat 5 cables, which will be placed to communicate with the microprocessor and the 802.11. In this configuration the 802.11 will carry the interactive education and monitoring capability. The microprocessor in that configuration will act as a throughput conduit to isolate high-speed interactive communications between the cat 5 and the 802.11. In this configuration, audio and video, live interaction is capable to perform parole hearings, live interactive education, video visitations, suicide watch, video attorney visits and video court appearances. In this configuration a video server and interactive video switching system will be deployed to handle the interactive communication.”)
The original embodiment of Noonan does not explicitly teach, but an alternative embodiment of Noonan teaches:
a camera that is one of a dome camera, an in-ceiling camera, a box camera, a bullet camera, a security panel-embedded camera, and a doorbell device-embedded camera; ([0135], “In an embodiment, each time a transmission is located, its position, and identification will be confirmed, as in a prison facility, each location of the transmission facility will be monitored by a CCTV camera and this information and data will be stored, each digital frame will be analyzed to determine whether positive identification can be determined2.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the alternative embodiment of Noonan to the known invention of the original embodiment Noonan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such video conferencing features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the wireless tablet so it is a dome camera results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the camera cannot be easily physically tampered with, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Noonan does not explicitly teach, but LeJeune teaches:
generating, using an at least one processor, a user profile for a person, the user profile being based on predetermined parameters corresponding to individualized conditions imposed on the person under at least one legally enforceable order; ([0019], “The phrase “monitored population” refers to a group of individuals and/or objects that have issued monitoring devices and are subject to common electronic location monitoring by an oversight system.”; [0022], “An “authorized individual” or “supervising authority” would be any one or more people having some type of supervisory responsibility and/or decision making relative to the monitored population or monitored individual therein. By way of non-limiting example, a parole officer would be the authorized individual relative to a parolee.”; [0053], “There are a variety of methodologies by which UAV 404 can identify a mobile device of monitored person for tracking. One way is that the mobile device may be preregistered with monitoring authority 402 as a condition of parole, such that UAV 404 can recognize the mobile device by its ID codes (e.g., MAC address).”)
identifying, using the at least one processor, a plurality of pre-deployed security cameras within a geographic region that are potentially accessible to the person for video recording relating to the individualized conditions; assigning, using the at least one processor, one camera from the plurality of pre-deployed security cameras for access by the person during a defined time period which will begin at a point in time after the assigning of the camera; ([0041]-[0043], “Referring now to FIG. 4, monitoring device 102 is shown with the monitoring authority 402 (central monitoring system 310 and/or supervisory authority 312) in concert with a UAV 404. Referring now to FIG. 5, UAV 404 may be equipped with a camera 502 with an adjustable orientation and provide video feedback to the monitoring authority 402 of a monitored person 504 wearing a monitoring device 102.”; [0053], “There are a variety of methodologies by which UAV 404 can identify a mobile device of monitored person for tracking. One way is that the mobile device may be preregistered with monitoring authority 402 as a condition of parole, such that UAV 404 can recognize the mobile device by its ID codes (e.g., MAC address).”; [0068], “In the alternative, the two UAVs 404 could communicate with each other to share and/or handoff data related to the current task.”; [0070], “By way of example, according to another embodiment of the invention UAV 404 could be used to determine whether the monitored person is at a particular location. By way of non-limiting example, the monitored person may be expected to be at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting at a certain location at a certain time, and the monitoring authority 402 wants to confirm that the monitored person is actually present there (as opposed to standing outside, which is a non-compliant location yet which may be close enough within the GPS margin of error to appear as complaint to the monitoring authority 402). Other non-limiting examples include being at work, home, parolee office or other locations as desired. Also such checks may be on pre-programmed schedule, random, user requested, or any combination therefore.”)
analyzing, using the at least one processor, user provided input received, during the defined time period, at the assigned camera, wherein the person is providing the user provided input as an at least one verification of compliance condition imposed under the at least one legally enforceable order. ([0071], “To determine whether the monitored person is at a particular location, corresponding GPS coordinates of the target location could be provided to UAV 404 at block 602, and UAV 404 proceeds to that location via blocks 604 and 606. When in range, UAV 404 would attempt to confirm the presence of the monitored person via camera (e.g., facial recognition) and/or short range communication with monitoring device 102 via blocks 608 and 612, including if necessary adjusting its position for the same at block 615.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of LeJeune to the known invention of Noonan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such video conferencing features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to generate a user profile for the person, identify a plurality of pre-deployed security cameras within a geographic region that are potentially accessible to the person, assigning one camera from the plurality of pre-deployed security cameras, and analyzing user provided input received at the assigned camera, wherein the person is providing the user provided input as a verification of compliance condition, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the most appropriate camera out of a plurality of cameras is assigned to the parolee for the parole hearing, thus improving the overall functionality of the invention.
As per claims 2, 14, LeJeune teaches:
wherein the individualized conditions include at least one mobility restriction condition, and the at least one legally enforceable order is a court order directed at least in part to restricting movement of the person. ([0076], “According to another embodiment of the invention, instead of directly tracking the monitored person 504, the UAV 404 could be used to surveil potential locations of the monitored person. By way of non-limiting example, if the monitored person was moving in a direction toward a prohibited area such as a school or a bar, then the UAV 404 could be dispatched to that location per blocks 602-606 above as a precautionary measure.”)
As per claims 3, 15, LeJeune teaches:
wherein the user profile is a parolee or probationer profile, and the restricting of the movement of the person includes at least one of: requiring the person to stay within one or more identified neighborhoods; requiring the person to stay away from schools; requiring the person to stay away from child playgrounds; requiring the person to stay away from one or more other people identified in the at least one legally enforceable order; and requiring the person to stay away from certain types of commercial establishments identified in the at least one legally enforceable order. ([0076])
As per claims 4, 16, LeJeune teaches:
wherein the defined time period matches a date amongst a plurality of dates on an appearance schedule imposed under the at least one legally enforceable order. ([0070])
As per claims 6, 17, LeJeune teaches:
wherein assignable cameras amongst the plurality of pre-deployed security cameras are dynamically varied to limit, over a predetermined timeframe, a number of same camera assignments for a series of virtual appearances on the appearance schedule. ([0068])
An intended result recitation does not impart a patentable distinction if structure or functionality are claimed with sufficient detail to achieve the claimed result. Specifically, the limitation “wherein assignable cameras amongst the plurality of pre-deployed security cameras are dynamically varied to limit, over a predetermined timeframe, a number of same camera assignments for a series of virtual appearances on the appearance schedule" contains an intended result recitation: dynamically varying the assignable cameras is claimed with sufficient detail to achieve the claimed result of limiting, over a predetermined timeframe, a number of same camera assignments for a series of virtual appearances on the appearance schedule. See MPEP 2111.04.
As per claims 7, 18, LeJeune teaches:
wherein the received user provided input to the assigned camera includes: a trigger from a user-issued Radio Frequency (RF) tag for gaining access to the assigned camera; first activity by the person in video captured by the assigned camera that evidences presence of the person during the defined time period; and second activity by the person in the video captured by the assigned camera that corresponds to the predetermined parameters. ([0030]-[0031], [0037], [0039], “A band 104 secures monitoring device 102 to a limb of the user, typically the ankle, via a locking mechanism that preferably can only be (legally) opened by an authorized individual. By way of non-limiting example, modem 204 could be a cellular modem, modem 206 could be a separate RF modem, and wireless access point detector 220 could be a distinct Wi-Fi modem and/or Wi-Fi finder component. Referring now to FIG. 3, monitoring device 102 is shown in an operating environment. Multiple satellites 302 provide the GPS timestamps that GPS receiver 202 in monitoring device 102 converts into location information. The location information represents the approximate position of the monitoring device 102, and by extension the approximate position for the monitored individual, at a particular time.”; [0055], “At block 602, UAV 404 receives a target location from monitoring authority 402. This target location may be a GPS location provided by monitoring device 102 and thus may represent the present (most current reported location) of the monitoring device, or some other GPS location in the movement history of the monitored person.”; [0070], [0071])
As per claim 8, LeJeune teaches:
verifying whether analytical results of the analyzing, which relate at least in part to analysis of the second activity, are indicative of compliance with the individualized conditions; generating a status update corresponding to the verifying of the analytical results. ([0071]-[0072], “Once the presence of the monitored person is confirmed, there are a variety of non-limiting options for UAV 404.”)
communicating an alert to a communications device of a parole or probation officer when the verifying of the analytical results indicates non-compliance with the individualized conditions. ([0005], “Often a parolee will engage in some violation of their probation which is detected by the monitoring device and/or the central monitoring system and identified for follow up by authorities (typically the police or parole officers). For example, the parolee may enter a restricted zone, be in the company of prohibited persons, consume prohibited substances, and/or be the suspect in a crime. The central monitoring system issues appropriate reports/alerts to supervisory personnel in real time or on a schedule, often depending on the nature of the infraction. Authorities may want to respond in real time, or defer action to a later time.”)
As per claims 10, 19, Noonan teaches:
wherein: the assigned camera is equipped with at least one microphone and at least one speaker employable in combination for the person to engage in bidirectional audio interactions during the virtual appearance, the bidirectional audio interactions include one or more verbal inquiries emitted via the at least one speaker, and the one or more verbal inquiries comprise part of a live stream session with a parole or probation officer. ([0159])
As per claim 11, Noonan teaches:
wherein the one or more verbal inquiries comprise part of a live stream session with a parole or probation officer. ([0159])
As per claim 12, Noonan teaches:
wherein the one or more verbal inquiries are pre-recorded, and user-responses to the verbal inquiries are received at the at least one microphone to form a recorded part of the user provided input. ([0159])
Furthermore, Applicant attempts to further limit the method by describing characteristics of the verbal inquiries. However, this is representative of non-functional descriptive material as characteristics of the verbal inquiries do not result in a functional relationship with the method and therefore cannot be used to differentiate Applicant's invention from the prior art invention. See MPEP 2111.05; In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.”). Specifically, the step of emitting verbal inquires via the speaker is carried out the same way regardless of whether the verbal inquiry is pre-recorded or live: there is no evidence the characteristics of the verbal inquiries change the efficiency or the accuracy or any other characteristic of the emitting. See Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (“Here, the descriptive material (SEQ ID NOs) recited in the claims is not functional material like the data structures in Lowry. There is no evidence that SEQ ID NOs 9-1008 functionally affect the process of comparing a target sequence to a database by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic of the comparison. Rather, the SEQ ID NOs are merely information being manipulated by a computer; the SEQ ID NOs are inputs used by a computer program that calculates the degree of similarity between a target sequence and each of the sequences in a database. The specific SEQ ID NOs recited in the claims do not affect how the method of the prior art is performed – the method is carried out the same way regardless of which specific sequences are included in the database (emphasis added).”)
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20140018059 to Noonan in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200401800 to LeJeune, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200154232 to Segal.
As per claim 5, Noonan as modified does not explicitly teach, but Segal teaches:
employing the at least one processor to dynamically update the appearance schedule to resolve a conflict introduced by a change in an employment schedule of the person. ([0017]-[0019], “In the example above, an offender may request a change to a schedule due to changes in work or school hours, treatment programs, holidays, or the like. The techniques of this disclosure are generally directed to computer-based system for managing data from BWTDs. For example, according to aspects of this disclosure, a computing system may receive a rule deviation for deviating from a rule associated with a BWTD for a prescribed duration. Based on the received request, the computing system may determine a reconfigured rule, also referred to herein as an exception, and generate alerts based on the reconfigured rule. As described herein, a reconfigured rule generally refers to a rule having different limitations than an initial rule upon which the reconfigured rule is based. That is, an initial rule may specify terms or limitations for compliance. The reconfigured rule may different terms for compliance with the initial rule.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Segal to the known invention of Noonan as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such dynamic scheduling features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to dynamically update the appearance schedule to resolve a conflict introduced by a change in an employment schedule of the person results in an improved invention because applying said technique automates any scheduling changes that would otherwise be time intensive for an administrator, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
Claims 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20140018059 to Noonan in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200401800 to LeJeune, and further in view of United States Patent No. 10810471 to Perumalla.
As per claim 21, Noonan as modified does not explicitly teach, but Perumalla teaches:
a video analytics engine that includes at least one learning machine, and the video analytics engine configured to carry out recognition of at least one of bloodshot eyes and blurred speech from video captured by the assigned camera; (col 3 lines 37-63, “As an example, a camera device may generate multiple video media streams—e.g., an H.264 stream and an MJPEG stream (and potentially one or more audio streams and/or other video streams). The camera device may have sufficient resource capabilities to execute an object detection model using the MJPEG stream (e.g., having elements that carry individual, compressed images) to thus perform inference, e.g., to identify locations of objects and to generate bounding boxes that can frame the detected objects (e.g., by overlaying the bounding boxes over the H.264 stream). As a result, elements of this stream may be delayed compared to corresponding elements of the H.264 stream, which was not processed in this manner, which could lead to an inadvertent drawing of a bounding box labeled “dog” (from the bounding box/MJPEG stream) over an incorrect object (e.g., a person) or nothing at all as depicted in the H.264 stream. As other examples, elements of streams could be processed (e.g., using one or more ML models) to perform color adjustments, add subtitles, perform a counting of objects in the stream (e.g., how many pizzas are currently displayed or have been displayed over time, etc.), detect events such as the existence of a vehicle operator who may be under the influence (e.g., via detecting drowsy eyes, sporadic behavior, twitches, etc.) or a burglary, and such processed elements need to be re-aligned with other, related streams to maintain the benefit of the processing and to avoid erroneous results.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Perumalla to the known invention of Noonan as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such video analytics features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include a video analytics engine that includes at least one learning machine, and the video analytics engine configured to carry out recognition of at least one of bloodshot eyes and blurred speech from video captured by the assigned camera, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that improper behavior that might violate parole conditions be automatically detected, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
As per claim 22, Noonan as modified does not explicitly teach, but Perumalla teaches:
a video analytics engine that includes at least one learning machine, and the video analytics engine configured to carry out, from video captured by the assigned camera, recognition of at least one of an unusual posture by the person, or unusual lack of direct eye contact by the person; (col 3 lines 37-63, “As an example, a camera device may generate multiple video media streams—e.g., an H.264 stream and an MJPEG stream (and potentially one or more audio streams and/or other video streams). The camera device may have sufficient resource capabilities to execute an object detection model using the MJPEG stream (e.g., having elements that carry individual, compressed images) to thus perform inference, e.g., to identify locations of objects and to generate bounding boxes that can frame the detected objects (e.g., by overlaying the bounding boxes over the H.264 stream). As a result, elements of this stream may be delayed compared to corresponding elements of the H.264 stream, which was not processed in this manner, which could lead to an inadvertent drawing of a bounding box labeled “dog” (from the bounding box/MJPEG stream) over an incorrect object (e.g., a person) or nothing at all as depicted in the H.264 stream. As other examples, elements of streams could be processed (e.g., using one or more ML models) to perform color adjustments, add subtitles, perform a counting of objects in the stream (e.g., how many pizzas are currently displayed or have been displayed over time, etc.), detect events such as the existence of a vehicle operator who may be under the influence (e.g., via detecting drowsy eyes, sporadic behavior, twitches, etc.) or a burglary, and such processed elements need to be re-aligned with other, related streams to maintain the benefit of the processing and to avoid erroneous results.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Perumalla to the known invention of Noonan as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such video analytics features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include a video analytics engine that includes at least one learning machine, and the video analytics engine configured to carry out, from video captured by the assigned camera, recognition of at least one of an unusual posture by the person, or unusual lack of direct eye contact by the person, results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that improper behavior that might violate parole conditions be automatically detected, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent No. 11908029 to Bullard discloses a machine and process for managing restrictions of a wireless device associated with an inmate service account. The machine and process include a kiosk operable to exchange data with the wireless device, including limited-use restrictions related to: an inmate associated with the inmate service account, a correctional facility, and/or a parole requirement. The kiosk may also unlock the wireless device when the inmate is released from the correctional facility by removing the limited-use restrictions from the wireless device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television_camera
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television_camera