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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, which are directed towards non-elected Species I, are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/3/2023 and 11/10/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 10-18 are objected to due to the following minor informalities: dependent claims 10-18 are listed as being dependent upon claim 8 which itself is a dependent claim of independent claim 1; however, it is suggested that each instance of dependence upon claim 8 in claims 10-18 be changed to reflect the actual dependence upon independent claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 9-18 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claim 1 is directed towards a method which is a recognized statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: The above mentioned independent claim recites the abstract ideas of mental processes which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). For example, to “comparing an embedding against a set of embeddings generated as part of a training operations in which a user defines multiple categories, each of which is associated with at least one embedding included in the set” encompasses observing an image/data and performing an evaluation/making a determination regarding the contents of the image in comparison with other image/data which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion which falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The abstract ideas, as claimed, are not integrated into a practical application and thus do not provide an inventive concept. The above mentioned independent claims recite additional elements of “a surveillance system”, “an edge device”, and “a model” which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than components that apply/execute the abstract ideas without limiting how they function and thus can be performed by any generic computer capable of applying the abstract ideas and are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, while “acquiring a sample generated by an edge device of a surveillance system”, “providing the sample to a model as input so as to produce an embedding”, and “outputting a prediction based on an outcome of said comparing” are mere data gathering and input/output activities recited at a high level of generality, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Step 2B: As explained in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the independent claims recite additional elements of “a surveillance system”, “an edge device”, and “a model” recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic components to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer, and “acquiring a sample generated by an edge device of a surveillance system”, “providing the sample to a model as input so as to produce an embedding”, and “outputting a prediction based on an outcome of said comparing” are mere data gathering and input/output activities recited at a high level of generality, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and insignificant extra-solution activities which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim does not point to a specific improvement in computers in their communication role or provides a specific improvement in the way computers operate (See MPEP 2016.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(d), and Berkheimer Memo).
Therefore, based on the above analysis in conjunction with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it is determined that the independent claim(s) are directed towards ineligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 10-18 are also rejected for being directed towards the abstract idea(s) of mental processes as well as insignificant pre-solution data gathering and post-solution data input/output activities that are ineligible subject matter of an abstract idea without adding significantly more than the judicial exceptions to independent claim 9.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 11 currently recites “said acquiring is performed in response to said determining”; however, it is unclear whether “said acquiring” is referring to the “acquiring a sample generated by an edge device” operation in claim 9 or the “acquisition of data generated by the surveillance system” operation in claim 11, thereby rendering the bounds and scope of the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected base claim 11 and failing to cure the deficiencies thereof.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 9-10, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeiler (US PGPub 2018/0091832) [hereafter Zeiler].
7. As to claim 9, Zeiler discloses a method (operational method as shown in Figure 4 performed within system 100 shown in Figure 1) comprising acquiring a sample (video image data) generated by an edge device (client device 104n) of a surveillance system (system 100 of Figure 1); providing the sample to a model (neural network models/subsystem 112-118) as input, so as to produce an embedding (output data produced by neural network models); comparing the embedding against a set of embeddings (data stored within training data database 134) generated as part of a training operation in which a user defines multiple categories, each of which is associated with at least one embedding included in the set; and outputting a prediction (as shown in Figures 2-3) based on an outcome of said comparing (Paragraphs 0013-0015-0025, 0029, 0032, 0036, 0051-0052, 0065-0068, video image data captured by a camera of the client device which includes a security camera is provided to a plurality of neural network subsystems that produce embeddings representing predicted objects detected within the captured video data which are then compared to representations of objects corresponding to specific categories represented by data stored within data training database created and updated by user interaction with the client device that defines categories and associations of depicted objects with particular categories in order to select an appropriate neural network model that enables identifications and predictions of object categories to be output and supplied to a user interface of the client device for validation and modification by a user).
8. As to claim 10, Zeiler discloses the prediction is representative of an assignment of the sample to a category of the multiple categories, and wherein the category corresponds to whichever embedding in the set is determined to most closely correspond to the embedding (Paragraphs 0017-0019, 0065, concepts verified from the comparison of the input video data to the data contained within the training database and produced by the corresponding neural network model are output to interfaces of the client device).
9. As to claim 13, Zeiler discloses receiving input indicative of a request from a user to initiate an inferencing phase; wherein said acquiring is performed in response to said receiving (Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0065, initiating an application hosted at a client device of a user begins the operational processes that enable video data streams to be received and processed by the various subsystems).
10. As to claim 15, Zeiler discloses causing display of the prediction on an interface (as shown in Figures 2-3) that is accessible via a computer program through which the surveillance system is manageable (Paragraphs 0020-0025, 0065, the predicted concepts are displayed on a user interface generated in accordance with a system managing application).
11. As to claim 16, Zeiler discloses the edge device includes a camera, and wherein the sample is representative of a digital image (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0051, 0065, a digital image captured by a camera is generated within the system).
12. As to claim 17, Zeiler discloses the edge device includes a microphone, and wherein the sample is representative of an audio file (Paragraphs 0015, 0018, 0024, 0052, audio signals captured by the client device between people can be used in order to generate associations between particular imaged people).
13. As to claim 18, Zeiler discloses said acquiring, said providing, said comparing, and said outputting are performed by a system implemented in the edge device (Paragraphs 0013, the operations performed by the server can also be performed by the client device).
16Claim 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 of this title, 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.
14. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (US PGPub 2018/0091832) [hereafter Zeiler] in view of Qian (US Patent 11900706) [hereafter Qian].
15. As to claim 11, it is noted that Zeiler fails to particularly disclose receiving input indicative of an acquisition of data generated by the surveillance system; and determining that one or more values included in the data match a pattern-defining parameter; wherein said acquiring is performed in response to said determining.
On the other hand, Qian discloses receiving input indicative of an acquisition of data generated by the surveillance system (surveillance system shown in Figure 4); and determining that one or more values included in the data match a pattern-defining parameter; wherein said acquiring is performed in response to said determining (Col. 9, 35-56, Col. 10, 13-65, a camera 430 is triggered to capture video images in response to data collected by external sensors 420 that indicate the presence of various activities such as object motion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include receiving input indicative of an acquisition of data generated by the surveillance system and determining that one or more values included in the data match a pattern-defining parameter, wherein said acquiring is performed in response to said determining as taught by Qian with the surveillance system operational method of Zeiler because the prior art are directed towards surveillance systems that acquire data from various sensors and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of conserving processing power of the client devices and the storage capacity of the surveillance system by enabling video/image capture of only specific categories of defined subjects and/or events identified by additional sensors within the system.
16. As to claim 12, Zeiler discloses the data is generated by another edge device (external sensors 420) of the surveillance system (Col. 9, 35-56, Col. 10, 13-65, a camera 430 is triggered to capture video images in response to data collected by external sensors 420).
17. Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (US PGPub 2018/0091832) [hereafter Zeiler] in view of Okanohara (US PGPub 2019/0325346) [hereafter Okanohara].
18. As to claim 14, it is noted that Zeiler fails to particularly disclose said acquiring is response to a determination that a time matches a temporal criterion specified by a user.
On the other hand, Okanohara discloses said acquiring is response to a determination that a time matches a temporal criterion specified by a user (Paragraphs 0013-0017, an edge device within a surveillance system comprising a video camera acquires image data on a periodic basis for further processing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to acquiring is response to a determination that a time matches a temporal criterion specified by a user as taught by Okanohara with the surveillance system operational method of Zeiler because the prior art are directed towards surveillance systems that acquire data from various sensors and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of simplifying and conserving the processing operations and resources of the surveillance system through periodic data gathering.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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 or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MO
/MICHAEL S OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
12/11/2025