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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed on January 2, 2026, the applicant has submitted an amendment filed on March 27, 2026; amending claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17; and arguing to traverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11 of the remarks, filed on March 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In summary, the applicant argues the reference to Kelly, et al. fail to teach selecting the processor component from a set of processor components based on a confidence score. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park, et al. (US 2023/0386185 A1) which will be discussed in the rejection below.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assouad (US 2024/0354446 A1) in view of Park, et al. (US 2023/0386185 A1), and Kelly, et al. (US 2024/0304313).
With regard to claim 1, Assouad discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: detecting by a Detection Component, i.e., RGB camera/sensor/s, of an Image Monitoring System, i.e., monitoring system, an image of a subject, i.e., individual (See for example, Figs. 1 and 36, and the associated text); responsive to detecting the image, sharding (by way of body segmentation or skeletal projection) by a Sharding Component of the Image Monitoring System the image into an image shard based on a key point, i.e., skeletal data and/or body part features; training by a Processor Component of the Image Monitoring System, the Processor Component selected from a set of Processor Components based on a confidence score, a machine learning model, i.e., recognition or classification model and/or CNN, to generate an image score, i.e., confidence level, of the image shard based on a parameter, i.e., motion, gestures, physiological, environmental and/or contextual parameters, among other things, and the image shard wherein.
the subject is anonymous to the Processor Component; and determining by a effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kelly, et al. into the system of Assouad (as modified by Park, et al.), and to do so would at least allow the generation of scores from separate data and deciding whether to raise an alert based on an aggregated score (See for example, Figs. 13 and 14, and the associated data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Assouad (as modified by Park, et al.) with Kelly, et al. to obtain the invention as specified by claim 1.
With regard to claim 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the Processor Component is selected based on the confidence score wherein the Processor Component selected is preferred for processing the key point of the image shard (the combination as set forth above for claim 1 does process skeletal data/ body part features, key point: See for example, paragraphs 0143-0151 of Kelly, et al.; and Fig. 7 of Park, et al.).
With regard to claim 4, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the key point comprises a feature of the subject, i.e., body parts and/or skeletal projections (See for example, example, paragraph 0318 of Assouad ).
With regard to claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a requested image score (See for example, paragraphs 0181 and 0193 of Assouad: self-harm, position of the person, among others).
With regard to claim 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the Processor Component is deployed in a cloud (See for example, paragraph 0164 of Assouad).
With regard to claim 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning model implements a convolutional neural network algorithm (See for example, paragraph 0319 of Assouad).
Claim 8 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 8. Claim 8 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media. Fortunately, Assouad (See for example, paragraph 0007) teaches this feature.
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected the same as claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 15 is a system claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 15. With regard to a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, applicant's attention is further invited to (Figure 1 and the associated text of Assouad).
Claims 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected the same as claims 3, 4, 5, and 7 respectively, except claims 17, 18, 19, and 20 are system claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 3, 4, 5, and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 17, 18, 19, and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Number 2024/0046633 (See for example, paragraphs 0093-0094).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights