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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 2/25/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks re. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Argument’s arguments have been considered. The examiner is not persuaded with regards to claims 1 and 10, but is persuaded with regards to claim 19 as amended.
Claims 1 and 10
The Applicant cites an improved heatmap which considers distortion in an underlying video stream. The claim does not sufficiently link the generation of the heatmap to any such distortion correction. Rather, the language is as follows:
identify, from the map locations, frequencies in which physical locations of the physical area are visited by the one or more additional objects
overlay a heatmap representing the frequencies on the map
Referring back to “the map locations”, the term is first introduced in a limitation above
determining a distortion model for mapping video locations in the video stream to map locations on the map from correlations in the user input
Accordingly, the claim still reads on a simple process of a user looking at certain locations on a map, noting manually the frequency in which a certain location is visited, drawing a heatmap by hand, and physically overlaying it upon said map.
Applicant argues that a distortion model that is actively used, rather than passively used. Such a model can be thought of as both a mathematical calculation, or a mental process. Such that when one is “relating the movement to the map locations using the distortion model”, they could be merely be applying a formula to more precisely localize where the movement is taking place. There is no requirement that the formula even be precisely accurate. It could be as simple as a rough approximation, that a user devises by personally visiting locations in a video stream, then uses going forward when marking information on a map.
Applicant further argues that the processing pipeline is tied to the technology of “video and generation of specific output”, however the level of generality still remains at the level where such video and computer hardware falls under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as mere tools. Alternatively, even when taken as additional elements, any alleged additional elements fail to integrate under Step 2A, Prong Two, since there are no improvements to the underlying technologies of video streaming and map-making. A certain equation is determined, but the underlying video streaming and mapping technology is unchanged. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The examiner notes (once again) that there is nothing in the claim which explicitly states that a map is generated using the distortion model. Rather,
relating the movement to the map locations using the distortion model
implicates a map that is generated, and then simply looked at in a different light using the distortion equation.
Claim 19
Claim 19 as amended recites patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically,
obtain second user input for a new object in the map, wherein the second user input identifies a representation of the new object in the map
generate a location for a tag of the new object in the video stream based on the distortion model, the user input, and the second user input
This limitation is closer in line with the technological improvement Applicant has outlined in their argument, as it more directly links the distortion model to both the map and the video stream output. It also moves past the boundary of being able to (practically) be performed in the human mind as a mental process.
However, this claim should be contrasted with the language of claims 4 and 13, which merely generate a “location suggestion for a tag of the new object in the video stream”. There is no explicit requirement that the video stream be directly interacted with at all, under such language.
By the same logic, it is difficult to determine whether such a requirement is in the language of claim 19 as well. The examiner ultimately decides that “generate a location for a tag of the new object in the video stream” requires an alteration of the continuous video “stream” output itself (rather than a given frame within). Therefore, the claim is read as “generate a location for a tag…in the video stream based on the distortion model…” Whereas a “location suggestion for a tag…” could simply be a one-time user annotation of the video feed display at a certain moment (of a general range where the tag should go).
Accordingly, the technological improvement is reflected in claim 19.
Response to Arguments/Remarks re. 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on the previous references for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regardless, the applicant’s arguments with respect to Margarian are considered persuasive, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
In response to applicant's arguments against Bendtson individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The claim language as written can be reached by the modifications of the references cited, by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The final two limitations of amended claim 1:
identify, from the map locations, frequencies in which physical locations of the physical area are visited by the one or more additional objects
overlay a heatmap representing the frequencies on the map
Represent a post-processing step of information already produced by the references of record. The modification is not outside the scope of reasonable creativity, as it produces a predictable advantage of visualizing trends which could otherwise be seen through the eyes of a human observer, using the map produced by the base references.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to ineligible patent subject matter. The claims are directed to the Abstract Idea groupings of mathematical calculations under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and mental processes under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). These are judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One of the framework established by the cases of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012). See MPEP § 2106.04(II).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1: The claims in question are directed to a method (process) and apparatus (machine) for “video surveillance.” Machines and processes are statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03(I), “A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854))”; See MPEP 2106.03(I), “NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1763, 1791 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[A] process is a series of acts.") (quoting Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(b), the term "process" is synonymous with "method."”. (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial
exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Here, each
claim recites or depends upon the mental processes of identifying, inputting, determining, monitoring, relating, and overlaying information within a video stream and map. (Claim 1, “identifying a video stream…identifying a map…obtaining user input…determining a distortion model…monitoring movement…relating the movement…identifying…frequencies…overlaying a heatmap…”; Claim 2, “obtaining second user input…generating an updated distortion model…updating the heatmap…”; Claim 3, “determining traffic paths…”; Claim 4-5, “obtaining second user input…generating a location suggestion”; Claim 6, “determining at least one other trend…”; Claim 9, “identifying a second video stream…”). The claims further implicate mathematical calculations (Claim 1, “determining a distortion model…identifying, from the map locations, frequencies…”)
The claims are recited at a high level of generality and lack any specifics precluding such
an analysis from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping of “practically performed
in the mind” (see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) identifying how e.g. a use of pen and paper, a ruler,
or a computer as a tool (to assist in visually/mentally analyzing/observing acquired
images/video) fails to preclude such an interpretation under the mental processes judicial
exception). Activities such as “executed by the processing system” therefore may be performed mentally, even if they may require the additional computer tool. Similarly, video streaming components do not elevate these claims past a mental process.
As such, the usage of a computer to identify, obtain, determine, relate, and overlay information within a map does not elevate these claims beyond a mental process. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong Two: If Prong One of Step 2A is met, the examiner must consider (1)
whether there are any ‘additional elements’ recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception,
and (2) evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP §
2106.04(d).
Limitations the courts have found indicative of integration include: an improvement in
the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as
discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); applying or using a judicial exception to
effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in
conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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).
Limitations that the courts have found non-indicative of integration include: merely
reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using 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 a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As an additional note, ‘additional elements’ are generally limitations excluded from
interpretation under the Abstract Idea groupings, and may comprise portions of limitations
otherwise identified as falling under those Abstract Idea groupings of the 2019 PEG (e.g. any
‘determination’ that may be made mentally by a user, neural network and/or generic computer hardware is considered under the ‘apply it’ considerations of 2106.05(f)). Any ‘providing’/outputting broadly, and ‘collection/input’ of data (i.e identifying video stream input(s), identifying a map), also fail(s) to integrate at least in view of MPEP 2106.05(g) (extra-solution data gathering/output) and/or 2106.05(h) as ‘generally linking’ the exception to a field of use involving machine learning and/or imagery so acquired (e.g. the use of a computer to acquire video input and output information broadly). The same determination holds for dependent claims that serve to limit the collection/output of data/images (by means of what is collected based on recited conditions) and/or introduce limitations generally linking to a field of use.
None of the instant claims appear to explicitly/clearly capture/recite any disclosed
improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a), with note that ‘functioning of a computer’
concerns functions integral to the way a computer operates and not ‘functions’ that a generic
computer can be programmed/adapted to perform (see also 2106.05(f))) and any ‘additional
elements’, even when considered in combination, fail to integrate at Prong Two of Step 2A
accordingly. Integration in view of subsection (a) requires an identification of the manner in
which the improvement is achieved, to be explicitly and specifically recited in the claims, as
‘additional elements’ precluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings
(since the improvement cannot be to the exception itself). With reference to MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981))
As applicable here, additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception fail to
integrate at Prong Two of Step 2A. Claim 1 recites a “video stream from a video source”; Claim 10 recites a heatmap generated by a computing apparatus The incorporation of conventional video and computer systems does little more than generally link the judicial exceptions of mental processes to a field-of-use and technological environment. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(h); 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites “identifying a video stream…identifying a map…”. These limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). Specifically, the limitations amount to no more than necessary data inputting, under rationale 3 of MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, any additional elements present do not integrate the
recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: No), and the claims
are directed to the judicial exception. (Revised Step 2A: Yes → Step 2B).
Step 2B: If Prong Two of Step 2A is not met, the examiner must consider whether the
claim as a whole amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the recited exception, i.e., whether any
‘additional element’, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the
claim. The considerations of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B overlap, but differ in that 2B also
requires considering whether the claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” (WURC) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Such a limitation if specifically recited however, must still be excluded from interpretation under
any of the Abstract Idea groupings. Step 2B further requires a re-evaluation of any additional
elements drawn to extra-solution activity in Step 2A (e.g. gathering input) – however no limitations appear directed to any novel collection per se. Limitations not indicative of an inventive concept/‘significantly more’ include those that are not specifically recited (instead recited at a high level of generality), those that are established as WURC (a plurality of cited references serve to evidence the WURC nature of ‘analysis’ based at least in part on corroborating/additional ground data), and/or those that are not ‘additional elements’ by nature of their analysis at Prong One of Step 2A (i.e. directed to the exception – see above re. deciding that a second acquisition may be advantageous/desired). The July 2024 PEG describes that an improvement/ inventive concept (for ‘significantly more’ determination(s)) cannot be to the judicial exception itself.
With regards to additional elements analyzed as linking to a field of use, the claims in question recite little beyond those limitations recited at a high level of generality and falling under e.g. the mental processes Abstract Idea grouping. The additional limitations of computer processing, video streaming, and digital map creation as recited are WURC, as evidenced by the body of prior art cited by the examiner in this office action. The language as recited would monopolize the exception accordingly. (Step 2B: No).
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, 5, 7-11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altuev (US 20190311212 A1) (Hereinafter, “Altuev”) in view of Margarian et. al (US 20230060211 A1) (Hereinafter, “Margarian”) and Bendtson (US 20210337133 A1) (Hereinafter, “Bendtson”)
With respect to claim 1, Altuev teaches:
A method ([Abstract]) comprising:
identifying a video stream from a video source ([0012]; [0061])
identifying a map, wherein at least a portion of a physical area represented by the map is monitored by the video source ([0006]; [0072]; Figs. 2-6)
obtaining [Abstract] “The method including receiving an image from the video camera, defining a static object and coordinates of its location on a frame of the image and defining a mobile object and coordinates of its location on an image frame. Then setting a graphic symbol of a static object on map, calibrating the video camera and defining at least four virtual segments on the map and frame of the received image, and transforming coordinates of the static object from system of coordinates of a frame to a system of coordinates of the map, displaying a combination image on a display, and consecutively adjusting the transparency of the combined image.” [0016]; [0085]-[0088]; Figs. 2-6)
determining a distortion model for mapping video locations in the video stream to map locations on the map from correlations in the [0049]; [0089]-[0096] “In this decision there is a binding of static objects (a table, a case, a corner of the building and etc.) on the video image with their designation on map. One end of each segment corresponds to an object arrangement in a frame; other end of a segment corresponds to an object arrangement on map… At restoration of matrixes R and T arises PnP a full task which is solved in the offered algorithm by means of a Levenberg-Marquardt method, essence in application to this algorithm is the following: to look for function of display of three-dimensional points from the map for two-dimensional points of the image as function with the minimum error of a reprojection or, in other words, function for which the sum of squares of distances from restored to real points of observation is minimum”; Fig. 2)
monitoring movement of one or more additional objects in the video stream ([0014]; [0058]; [0100] “Example: on one of cameras the mobile person is noticed. The operator passes into the immersion mode on this camera. As it is tied to the map, the operator can define approximately a trajectory of the movement of the person and define in sight of what camera it will appear after an exit from a field of vision of the current camera. Therefore, the operator can directly switch in the mode of immersion to this camera and continue observation”)
relating the movement to the map locations using the distortion model ([0049] “Besides, calibration of the camera helps to correct the distortion in photos and video”; [0058] “In the immersion mode the translucent video image is displayed together with map, and static objects in a frame (furniture, doors, etc.) are combined with the designations on it. The concrete video camera to a certain map or the site of map becomes attached”; [0100]; Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image2.png
487
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Altuev does not explicitly teach:
user input
(Though it is generally understood the actions can be performed by the “operator” of the system, [0050])
identifying, from the map locations, frequencies in which physical locations of the physical area are visited by the one or more additional objects
overlaying a heatmap representing the frequencies on the map
However, Margarian, in the same field of endeavor of video surveillance mapping, teaches:
user input [in a calibration process] ([0059]-[0063] “For this purpose, the user of the system…links each video camera to the terrain map…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altuev to include the limitations of user input, as taught by Margarian. Doing so would provide user selectivity and human precision/oversight within the system. The systems readily integrate, as Altuev encourages a user’s interaction under [0050] “Usually map has some interactivity—on it current state of video cameras is displayed, the operator can make any actions”.
Altuev/Margarian does not explicitly teach:
identifying, from the map locations, frequencies in which physical locations of the physical area are visited by the one or more additional objects
overlaying a heatmap representing the frequencies on the map
However, Bendtson, in the same field of endeavor of video surveillance, teaches:
identifying, from the map locations, frequencies in which physical locations of the physical area are visited by the one or more additional objects ([0003]; [0041]; [0052] “The example of FIGS. 1A to 1C is based on video data from one camera, with the heatmap displayed on an image of the field of view of the camera. However, a heatmap may also be shown on a map or plan view, as shown in FIG. 2. In this case, the video data will be data from multiple cameras, and rather than the heatmap showing where in an image the camera has detected an object or activity, it shows the location of cameras that have detected the object or activity… The “include” and “exclude” tools described above can also be used on the heatmap on a map or plan view to recalibrate the heatmap based on a selected area of interest”)
overlaying a heatmap representing the frequencies on the map ([0008]; [0055]-[0058] “In the case of a plan view as shown in FIG. 2, the first heatmap may be overlaid on a map or satellite image. The first heatmap is displayed using a colour scale which is calibrated using the lowest and the highest values in the selected dataset as the lower and upper limits… In step S340, the second heatmap is generated and displayed. The second heatmap is displayed using a colour scale which is calibrated using the lowest and the highest values in the second dataset as the lower and upper limits. The second heatmap can be displayed overlaid on the same background as the first heatmap. Alternatively, the background can be zoomed in to display only the selected area of interest”; [0058]; Fig. 2, showing overlay)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altuev/Margarian to include the limitations of heatmap overlay, as taught by Bendtson. Doing so would provide a visual indication of trend information, which greater increases the functionality of the map. The systems readily integrate, because like Altuev/Margarian, Bendtson also considers the locations of the map in generating its heatmap, and further describes this process as a “recalibrat[ion]” (with user input).
With respect to claim 2, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising
obtaining second user input identifying at least one further object in the video stream and the map (Altuev, [0025] “In one private version of the declared decision, set in the course of calibration of link it is possible to edit and/or delete.”; Altuev, Claim 2 “The method of claim 1, further comprising editing or deleting the links”)
generating an updated distortion model using the second user input (Altuev, necessarily so when reading [0025] in light of [0080]-[0096] process, and Altuev’s claim 1 in light of claim 2)
updating the heatmap using the updated distortion model (necessarily so, as any further updates to the heatmap would be based on the input information which in turn is based on the edited distortion model)
With respect to claim 3, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein relating the movement comprises:
determining traffic paths of the one or more additional objects through the physical area (Altuev, [0100] “Example: on one of cameras the mobile person is noticed. The operator passes into the immersion mode on this camera. As it is tied to the map, the operator can define approximately a trajectory of the movement of the person and define in sight of what camera it will appear after an exit from a field of vision of the current camera. Therefore, the operator can directly switch in the mode of immersion to this camera and continue observation”)
With respect to claim 5, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining second user input for a new object in the video stream, wherein the second user input comprises a tag of the new object (Margarian, [0075] “Thus, if an object appears in a certain vicinity of the prediction location in the specified/calculated time range, then it continues under the previous ID and if it does not appear, then the old track is considered completed and the newly appeared object will have a new ID”) in the video stream (Margarian, [0105] “In addition, in one of the embodiment options, the system contains means for data input and output, allowing the system user to manually reassign object IDs in case the user believes that the system has made an error. For example, there may be situations when the operator /user of the system sees that both the system and the ANN have worked incorrectly. In this case, the system user can manually (with help of the system’s GUI tools) indicate that the moving object in the field of view of the first video camera and the object in the field of view of the second video camera is the same object. Therefore, this object should have the same ID. Thus, if the user is sure a system has made error, then they can easily fix it”; noting by this same disclosure, the user could theoretically mark an object which is actually new as an old object)
generating a location suggestion for a tag of a representation of the new object in the map based on the distortion model, the user input, and the second user input (Altuev, Fig. 5; Margarian, [0064] “For calibrated cameras, matching of the object image position with their position on the terrain map is marked”)
With respect to claim 7, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more additional objects comprise people, vehicles, or robots (Altuev, [0066] “Such objects as the person, vehicles, animal and many others can act as mobile objects”; Margarian, [0075] “newly appeared object”; Margarian, [0109] “The object types include: a person, a group of people, a vehicle, a left item or thing, etc”)
With respect to claim 8, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the map comprises an overhead map of the physical area (Altuev, Fig. 5; Bendtson, Fig. 2)
With respect to claim 9, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a second video stream from a second video source (Altuev, [0062]; Margarian, Fig. 2)
wherein identifying one or more movement trends for the one or more additional objects in the physical area is further based on the second video stream (Altuev, [0062]; Altuev, [0100]; Margarian, Fig. 2, “pairwise comparison of the feature vectors of moving objects detected in the video data of adjacent video cameras”)
With respect to claim 10, it is functionally parallel to the method of claim 1, but claimed as a computing apparatus configured to execute the method via program instructions. Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson further teaches:
a computing apparatus (Altuev, [Abstract]; Margarian, [Abstract]; Bendtson, [0002]) comprising:
a storage system (Altuev, [0022]; Altuev, [0045]; Margarian, [0044]; Margarian, [0053]; Bendtson, [0035])
a processing system operatively coupled to the storage system (Altuev, [0024]; Altuev, [0045]; Margarian, [0038]; Margarian, [0044]; Bendtson, [0016])
program instructions stored on the storage system that, when executed by the processing system, direct the computing apparatus (Altuev, [0045]; Margarian, [0044]; Bendtson, Claim 11) to:
[perform the method of claim 1]
Accordingly, the claim is rejected in line with the analysis of claim 1.
With respect to claims 11, 14, and 16-18, they are rejected in line with claim 10 and the analysis of claims 2, 5, and 7-9 respectively.
Claims 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson in view of Monroe (US 20030025599 A1) (Hereinafter, “Monroe”)
With respect to claim 6, Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least one other trend from the map locations (Altuev, [0058] “It becomes possible thanks to realization of the mode of the immersion on map increasing interactivity of observation. It allows to present the more visually movement of objects in real space”; [0100] “As it is tied to the map, the operator can define approximately a trajectory of the movement of the person and define in sight of what camera it will appear after an exit from a field of vision of the current camera”; Read in line with [0021] of the claimed invention’s specification, which states “The trends can comprise a heatmap indicating a frequency that the one or more additional objects are in different locations of the physical area, routes of the one or more additional objects traversing the physical area, durations in specifical locations in the physical area, or some other trend in association with the movement of the additional objects”)
Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson does not explicitly teach:
generating a display of the at least one other trend on the map
However, Monroe, in the same field of endeavor of video surveillance, teaches:
generating a display of the at least one other trend on the map (Monroe, [0266] “Moreover, the map display may be overlaid with vectors, showing the intruder’s movements schematically through the building”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson to include the limitations of “other trend” display, as taught by Monroe. Doing so would provide an improved means at visualizing the information already shown on the map (if not explicitly marked). The systems readily integrate, as a main objective of Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson is to provide increased visualization of multi-camera input information, and a map for doing so is already taught.
With respect to claim 12, it is noted that this apparatus claim cannot be treated as parallel to claim 3 under the analysis of claim 3 above, as Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson does not explicitly disclose such computer-implemented traffic path determinations (aside from broadly allowing the user to draw their own conclusions using the map). However, Monroe satisfies any gaps in the teaching ([0266]), under the same motivation to combine described above.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected in line with claim 10 and the analysis of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 are free of the prior art rejection. Final allowability is contingent on overcoming the 101 rejection presented in this office action.
The examiner notes that while Kim et. al (KR 20190119229 A) (Hereinafter, “Kim”) (cited in the prior office action) teaches a similar process, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson to include Kim’s teachings. Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson does not explicitly include nor teach towards the further limitations, as it primarily involves selections within the video frame rather than the map. While the map of Altuev/Margarian/Bendtson can be selected in certain contexts, a resulting location suggestion for a tag of the new object in the video stream would not be generated. The system works primarily in reverse, where new objects in the video stream are to be shown in the map. To the extent the map could be selected during recalibration, the language would still not read. Even if one were to stretch a direct user selection (of where an object is) as being a “location suggestion”, such a “suggestion” still would not be generated “based on the distortion model”, as the distortion model is yet to be generated at that stage in the process.
While an argument could be made that a person of ordinary skill in the art could still reach such modifications when considering solely Altuev and Margarian, the necessary inclusion of Bendtson makes a yet additional and non-trivial modification using Kim constitute impermissible hindsight.
Claim 19 is allowable, as the language of claims 4 and 13 is successfully incorporated (and claim 19 otherwise recites patent-eligible subject matter). While claim 19 recites a “location” rather than a “location suggestion”, it is without effect as to the prior art, for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 20 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 19.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH WILLIAM BOYAR whose telephone number is 571-272- 8392. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM EST, Monday – Friday. 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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/NOAH W BOYAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights