DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,6,7,10,11,12 and 13,14,15,17 and 18,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated1 by Bess et al. (US 10,614,689 B2):
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess et al. (US 10,614,689 B2) in view of MERKADO et al. (CA 3 177 901 A1).
Claim(s) 8,9,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess et al. (US 10,614,689 B2) in view of RAYIT et al. (US 2024/0256623 A1):
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PRO 63/469,928 05/31/2023:
PNG
media_image1.png
162
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The claimed (claim 1 representative):
“to select the target entity…
displaying the one or more sensors that are active…
updating one or more entity properties”:
PNG
media_image2.png
403
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is not in prior-application, PRO 63/469,928 05/31/2023 (see below mapped MPEP 2163):
PNG
media_image1.png
162
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, "Written Description" Requirement [R-01.2024]
II. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
1. For Each Claim, Determine What the Claim as a Whole Covers
Office personnel should adhere to the following procedures when reviewing patent applications for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations2 that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure3 (provisional application: 63/469,928). For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency." Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because "the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes" and "[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential".).
2. Review the Entire Application to Understand How Applicant Provides Support for the Claimed Invention Including Each Element and/or Step
Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 ("one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered") (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it"). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare (See below TABLE of Claim 1 compared to 63/469,928: claim 1’s “first”-“select”- “input” is not in [0059]) the scope4 of the claim (claim 1) with the scope ([0059]) of the description (63/469,928) to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession5 (thus the examiner concludes that the inventor was not in possession of claim 1’s scope of “first”-“select”-“input” given the scope of 63/469,928) of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.
TABLE
Claim 1
63/469,928
[0002] Although illustrative methods may be represented by one or more drawings (e.g., flow diagrams, communication flows, etc.), the drawings should not be interpreted as implying any requirement of, or particular order among or between, various steps disclosed herein. However, some embodiments may require certain steps and/or certain orders between certain steps, as may be explicitly described herein and/or as may be understood from the nature of the steps themselves (e.g., the performance of some steps may depend on the outcome of a previous step). Additionally, a "set," "subset," or "group" of items (e.g., inputs, algorithms, data values, etc.) may include one or more items and, similarly, a subset or subgroup of items may include one or more items. A "plurality" means more than one.
[0015] According to certain embodiments, the system 100 includes features of tracking entities (e.g., objects6, people, planes, ships, etc.) through time and space to support analytic workflows. For example, the analytic workflows include: showing where this ship has gone this year; listing the planes that landed at this airport this month; and/or firing an alert when this person leaves a designated area. In some embodiments, the system can receive streaming geotemporal data with sub-second latencies.
[0016] According to some embodiments, an observation refers to a location of an entity (e.g., an object) at a moment in time. In some embodiments, a track refers to a time series of observations. In certain embodiments, a lifecycle of an observation includes an input process, a validation process, and/or an analysis process. In some embodiments, the system includes one or more interactive parts for an observation. For example, the system includes an interface to allow receiving (e.g., writing) an observation (e.g., by a data source system), a communication channel ( e.g., a web socket endpoint) that continually serves the latest observations, and/or a software interface (e.g., Conjure API) for building heatmaps, querying an entity's movements, and/or the like.
[0034] According to some embodiments, the system 100 can provide one or more alerts on geotemporal data. In certain embodiments, a geotemporal alert is a query on geotemporal data that notifies users as soon as the query becomes true ( e.g., when the alert "fires"). In some embodiments, geotemporal alerting workflows are managed on a configuration user interface (UI). For example, users can configure the alert's backing query (e.g., "alert when AIS data enters the Mediterranean Sea"). As an example, users can configure the query by clicking7 on a map to represent a geofenced region like the Mediterranean Sea ( or any arbitrary shape). In this example, in the same UI, users can configure the alert's notifications. In certain embodiments, this attains low latency by running queries on geotemporal data upstream of the search engine, for example, in a search job.
1. (Currently Amended) A method for tracking a target entity, the method comprising:
displaying one or more indications of one or more entities8 on9 a user interface10 (FULLY supported);
receiving11 a first input <<to12 select >>13 the target entity1415 from the one or more entities16 (NOT supported);
in response1718 to receiving the first input19, displaying <<an interactive element>>20 for associating one or more sensors21 to the target entity on the user interface22 (FULLY supported);
displaying the one or more sensors23 <<that are24 active>>2526 (NOT supported);
receiving a second input27, the second input being generated28 by using <<the interactive element>>29 on the user interface30 (FULLY supported);
in response to receiving the second input, creating a link between the target entity and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors31 (FULLY supported) ; and
updating one or more entity properties32 of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link33 (NOT supported);
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors34 (FULLY supported).
[0059] As shown in FIG. 1, the system 100 for streaming, storing, and processing real-time data implements a
system and method for user interface35 with manual geospatial correlation according to certain embodiments. In some examples, the system and method for user interface with manual geospatial correlation allows a user to see36 location data on a map37 and then manually associate the location data with an entity (e.g., a ship and/or a person) and represent the entity's location accordingly. In other examples, the system and method for user interface with manual geospatial correlation provide a user interface that allows a user to start with location data and then link the location data to an entity that may or may not be on the map. For example, a sensor38 is outputting location data of Entity A from Source X, but the location data from Source X are not associated with an existing ID that has already been associated with location data about the same Entity A from Source Z. As an example, the user interface with manual geospatial correlation allows a user to manually correlate the location data from Source39 X with the existing ID that has already been associated with location data about the same Entity A from Source Z, and then to automatically update Entity A with the location data from Source X.
3. Determine Whether There is Sufficient Written Description to Inform a Skilled Artisan That Inventor was in Possession of the Claimed Invention as a Whole at the Time the Application Was Filed
(b) New Claims, Amended Claims, or Claims Asserting Entitlement to the Benefit of an Earlier Priority Date or Filing Date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, 1st para:
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning (as discussed above regarding claim 1’s scope “first”-“select”- “input” not in the scope of provisional application 63/469,928 since provisional application 63/469,928 at [0059] discloses a user seeing (“a user to see a location on a map”) a map of sensor data input locations on a user interface, wherein seeing/see40 a location does not make apparent selecting/select41 a location ) to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure (provisional application 63/469,928) a description (or firstly selecting/filtering/screening a data-location on a displayed map of a user interface) of the invention defined by the claims (claim 1’s “first”-“select”- “input”). See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 ("[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.").
If the originally filed disclosure (provisional application 63/469,928) does not provide support for each claim limitation (e.g., claim 1’s:
(1) “first”-“select”- “input” &
(2) “displaying the one or more sensors that are active” &
(3) “ updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link”
are not supported by provisional application 63/469,928 )., or if an element which applicant describes as essential or critical is not claimed, a new or amended claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as lacking adequate written description, or in the case of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, the priority or benefit claim must be denied.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application
Response to Arguments
Priority
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants state in page 9:
Here, the provisional application, U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/469,928 (the ‘928
Application), discloses a user-interface-based manual geospatial correlation. For example, the
provisional application provides “In some examples, the system and method for user interface
with manual geospatial correlation allows a user to see location data on a map and then manually
associate the location data with an entity (e.g., a ship and/or a person) and represent the entity’s
location accordingly. In other examples, the system and method for user interface with manual
geospatial correlation provide a user interface that allows a user to start with location data and
then link the location data to an entity that may or may not be on the map. For example, a sensor
is outputting location data of Entity A from Source X, but the location data from Source X are
not associated with an existing ID that has already been associated with location data about the
same Entity A from Source Z. As an example, the user interface with manual geospatial
correlation allows a user to manually correlate the location data from Source X with the existing
ID that has already been associated with location data about the same Entity A from Source Z,
and then to automatically update Entity A with the location data from Source X.” (the ‘928
Application at para. [0059]).
As such, a person skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventors had
Possession of the claim limitations in view of the ‘928 Application. Therefore, Applicant
respectfully submits that claims 1-20 are entitled to the benefit of the ‘928 application.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons in the above 1st Priority section (pages 3-15 regarding:
e.g., claim 1’s:
(1) “first”-“select”- “input” &
(2) “displaying the one or more sensors that are active” &
(3) “updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link”
are not fully supported by provisional application 63/469,928).
Section 101 Rejections
Step 2A, Prong One - Recites a Judicial Exception
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 states “select”42 which recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Integrated Into a Practical Application
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, pages 11,12,13, filed 7/14/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101, step 2A, prong two have been fully considered43 and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Section 102 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants state in page 14, last para:
However, the Office does not identify any element in FIG. 5A of Bess that corresponds to the claimed interactive element44. Amended claim 1 recites "in response to receiving the first input, displaying an interactive element for associating one or more sensors to the target entity on the user interface," and "receiving a second input, the second input being generated by using the interactive element on the user interface." In contrast, FIG. 5A of Bess merely displays source information, including "DC Cam Xl2345," along with target and collateral information.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Bess (US 10,614,689) teaches “interface”- “elements” (such as color-coded section45 rows in fig.5A:530) “used to” differentiate “between known elements when presenting information to users” via paragraph of c.8.ll.20-35, last S:
In some embodiments, the processors may be configured to classify the known elements into one or more sub-categories categories. For example, within the category of collateral, there may be further categories and distinctions, such as for low-risk or “safe” individuals (e.g., law enforcement personnel or trusted employees) versus individuals for whom little information is available. In addition, known elements may be categorized and differentiated by a risk level (e.g., high, medium, low, etc.) associated with a particular known element. Known elements may be further categorized/differentiated via a color scheme (e.g., red, orange, yellow, green categories), which may also be used to improve user interface visual differentiation between known elements when presenting information to users.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 15, 1st para, 1st S: “a user associates”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 15, 1st para, 2nd S: “a user selects”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 15, 2nd para, 3rd S: “associating a sensor with a selected target entity”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 15, 3rd para, 2nd S: “user input”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, pages 15,16 3rd para, 3rd S: “an interactive element displayed”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 16, 1st para, 2nd S: “user-interface element”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 16, 1st para, 2nd S: “user action”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,6,7,10,11,12 and 13,14,15,17 and 18,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated46 by Bess et al. (US 10,614,689 B2):
PNG
media_image3.png
716
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re 1. (Currently Amended) A method for tracking a target entity474849, the method (likewise) comprising50:
displaying one or more indications51 (or likewise “FIG. 5A illustrates a display 500, such as on a client device (e.g., 151, 152, 153) that includes a plurality of alert messages (i.e., “NOTIFICATIONS”) transmitted by a processing device in accordance with various embodiments.”, c.21,ll. 45-50) of one or more entities (via fig. 5A) on5253 a user interface54 (or likewise “ The target section 520 may include a drop-down list, search feature, or other target selection mechanism for selecting a different target.” [0104] 2nd S:
PNG
media_image4.png
1570
1038
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
receiving a first input to select the target entity from the one or more entities (or likewise “The display may also include a target section 520, which displays information relating to a selected target 521.”, c.21,ll. 65, via fig. 5A:
PNG
media_image4.png
1570
1038
media_image4.png
Greyscale
);
in response to receiving the first input, displaying an interactive element (or said likewise “The target section 520 may include a drop-down list, search feature, or other target selection mechanism for selecting a different target. In the example shown, the target …may have been selected or designated as…known” [0104] 2nd & 3rd Ss) for associating one or more sensors to the target entity (or likewise associating a camera-source 50 with a person via “The Location, Source, and Date/Time information displayed may be associated with the last time (i.e., the most recent time) the collateral element was identified. “, c.22,ll.25-30) on the user interface (or said likewise “The target section 520 may include a drop-down list, search feature, or other target selection mechanism for selecting a different target.” [0104] 2nd S:
PNG
media_image5.png
1570
1038
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
displaying (or likewise “monitor”55) the one or more sensors that are active (or likewise activate a communications camera, c.17, last para:
In block 220, the processor may also activate sensors or communication circuitry to monitor the behavior (e.g., movements, communications, activities, etc.) of the EOI IE or known target over a period of time, generate a behavior information element that characterizes the behavior of the EOI IE or known target, compute a probability value that indicates a likelihood that the EOI IE or known target will approach designated collaterals, determine whether the probability value exceeds a threshold value, determine that the connection condition exists in response to determining that the probability value exceeds the threshold value. Alternatively or in addition, the processor may generate risk ratings for the EOI IE, known targets, collateral elements, generate a composite risk rating, determine whether the composite risk rating exceeds a risk threshold value, and determine that the connection condition exists in response to determining that the composite risk rating exceeds the risk threshold value.);
receiving a second input (or likewise putting data into memory as “unknown known element”--i.e. as un-identified person, associated with target, Dupont Circle--via [100]: fig. 4B:462: “Insert generated EOI into list of known elements” via [0100]:
[0100] In response to determining that the generated element of interest structure/element does not match any of the known elements stored in memory (i.e., determination block 460=“No”), the processor may insert the generated element of interest structure/element into the list of know elements stored in memory (e.g., as an unknown known element, etc.) in block 462.),
the second input being generated (via fig. 5A: “NOTIFICATIONS… Unknown” and “COLLATERALS:…9” corresponding to said “Unknown”) by using the interactive element on the user interface (or likewise “use…user interface…known elements when presenting…to users” [0039] last S: represented as fig. 4B:458: “known elements” and fig. 5: “NOTIFICAITONS…Unknown” known elements via fig. 5A:
PNG
media_image6.png
1602
1003
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1602
1003
media_image6.png
Greyscale
);
in response to receiving the second input, creating a link (resulting in fig. 4B:466: “Does a connection condition exist?”: “Yes”) between5657 (as shown by the connections in fig. 4B) the target entity and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors; and
updating one or more entity properties (or likewise updating list value-characteristics via “updating an EOI IE that characterizes the EOI” [0109] or “ or updating the EOI IE to include a location value, a time value, and one of incident data or a distinguishing feature value” [0013], last S: fig. 4B: “Update list of known elements”) of the target entity based58 on59 (via the connections of fig. 4) sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link (via:
[0109] The various embodiments may include methods, and computing devices configured to implement the methods, of detecting potential security threats by performing operations that include receiving intelligence data, determining whether the received intelligence data includes an element of interest (EOI), generating or updating an EOI IE that characterizes the EOI in response to determining that the received intelligence data includes an EOI, determining whether the generated EOI IE matches a known IE stored in a list of known elements, and classifying the EOI IE as the known target IE or the known collateral IE in response to determining that the generated EOI IE matches at least one known IE stored in the list of known elements.
[0013] In a further aspect, the processor may be configured with processor-executable instructions to perform operations further including determining whether the second IE is classified as a target or collateral, wherein the operation of identifying the second location time value associated with the second IE is performed in response to determining that the second IE is classified as the target and the EOI IE is classified as the known target IE, determining that the second IE is classified as the target and the EOI IE is classified as the known collateral IE, or determining that the second IE is classified as the collateral and the EOI IE is classified as the known target IE. In a further aspect, the processor may be configured with processor-executable instructions to perform operations such that generating or updating the EOI IE that characterizes the EOI includes generating or updating the EOI IE to include a location value, a time value, and one of incident data or a distinguishing feature value.);
60 (“in a computing devce” [0003]).
Re 2. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying (via said fig. 5A) the target entity based on the updated entity properties.
Re 3. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
continuously (list) updating (via “The system 100 may be configured to continuously or repeatedly evaluate and update the list of known elements based on the results of its analysis operations.” [0056]) the one or more entity properties of the target entity using the sensor data from the at least one sensor (via fig. 5B:
PNG
media_image7.png
475
1142
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Re 5. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the creating a link comprises linking an entity identifier of the target entity to the at least one sensor (via:
[0032] As used herein, the terms “information element” and “element” may be used interchangeably to refer to an information structure or unit of information that characterizes or represents a creature, object, or place. Each element may include, or may be associated with, one or more identifiers, data types, categories, activity/behavior information, characterization information, feature information, risk level information, color scheme information, color coding information, confidence values, and other similar values, parameters and information fields that are suitable use in identifying, monitoring, analyzing, modeling, characterizing, or representing the creature, object, or place. As examples, an information element may include a classification information field that stores a value (e.g., a number, symbol, string, etc.) identifies its associated categories, location fields/values that indicate that a creature or object was at a particular location, location time fields/values that identify a time that a creature or object was at a particular location, time fields/values that identify an incident time or a time that is relevant or of particular importance, various number of contacts fields/values that indicate the number of times an entity was in contact with another entity, a composite risk rating field/value, one or more feature vectors that characterize the distinctive features of the creature, object, or place, and other similar information.).
Re 6. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
applying a set of correlation rules (or likewise “machine learning61” [0041] last S) to the sensor data and the one or more entity properties of the target entity to generate a correlation62 output (or likewise fig. 4B:466: “Does a connection condition exist?”: “Yes”);
verifying63 (via “pattern recognition64” [0027] 2nd S) whether the at least one sensor65 correlates to the target entity (via said pattern recognition) based on the correlation output (resulting in fig. 4B:470: “Update list of known elements”); and
if the verification fails, gathering additional sensor data from the at least one sensor (this last limitation is an unsatisfied contingent limitation, MPEP 2111.04 II.CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS, and thus is outside the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6) .
Claim 7 is rejected like claim 6:
Re 7. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
applying one or more machine learning models to the sensor data and the one or more entity properties of the target entity to generate a correlation output; and
verifying whether the at least one sensor correlates to the target entity based on the correlation output.
Re 10. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more entity properties include at least one of
a location (“humans visit” [0030] 1st S) ,
color,
shape, or
any feature indicative of the target entity, and
the sensor data includes at least one of
(“As examples, intelligence data may include images (e.g., of a creature, object, place, etc.),” [0035]) video data (“, communication transaction information”),
(“As examples, intelligence data may include” [0035]) image data (“(e.g., of a creature, object, place, etc.)” [0035]),
satellite imagery data,
sonar data,
radio signal data, and
GPS data.
Re 11. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor comprises:
receiving sensor (“intelligence” [0028] 2nd S) data from one or more sensors associated with the target entity; and
determining the one or more entity (“feature” [0032]) properties of the target entity based on the sensor data using a predetermined rule (or likewise said machine learning via:
[0032] As used herein, the terms “information element” and “element” may be used interchangeably to refer to an information structure or unit of information that characterizes or represents a creature, object, or place. Each element may include, or may be associated with, one or more identifiers, data types, categories, activity/behavior information, characterization information, feature information, risk level information, color scheme information, color coding information, confidence values, and other similar values, parameters and information fields that are suitable use in identifying, monitoring, analyzing, modeling, characterizing, or representing the creature, object, or place. As examples, an information element may include a classification information field that stores a value (e.g., a number, symbol, string, etc.) identifies its associated categories, location fields/values that indicate that a creature or object was at a particular location, location time fields/values that identify a time that a creature or object was at a particular location, time fields/values that identify an incident time or a time that is relevant or of particular importance, various number of contacts fields/values that indicate the number of times an entity was in contact with another entity, a composite risk rating field/value, one or more feature vectors that characterize the distinctive features of the creature, object, or place, and other similar information.
Re 12. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the predetermined rule (fig. 1:125: “Rules Engine”) indicates (via fig. 5A,5B: “NOTIFICATIONS”) which sensor data from the one or more sensors to be used to determine the entity properties (or likewise “generate an information element that characterizes the element of interest” [0028], 2nd S) of the target entity.
.
Claim 13 is rejected like claim 1:
Re 13. (Currently Amended), Bess discloses A computing device (“configured detect potential security threats, suspicious behaviors or notable human activities” [0027] 1st S) for tracking a target entity, the computing device comprising:
a processor (“in the computing device may be configured to collect or receive intelligence data (e.g., images, sound recordings, biometric information, etc.), use artificial intelligence, pattern recognition, cognitive analysis, etc. to identify elements in the intelligence data, determine the relative importance of the identified elements, determine that an identified element is an element of interest, generate an information element that characterizes the element of interest, and classify the information element as a known target or known collateral in response to determining that the element of interest corresponds to a known element stored in a list of known elements.” [0028] 2nd S) ; and
a memory (“for executing one or more web/software server applications and or client applications.” [0058] 3rd S) having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the computing device to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
displaying one or more indications of one or more entities on a user interface;
receiving a first input to select the target entity from the one or more entities;
in response to the first input, displaying an interactive element for associating one or more sensors to the target entity on a user interface;
displaying the one or more sensors that are active;
receiving a second input, the second input being generated by using the interactive element on the user interface;
in response to the second input, creating a link between the target entity and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors; and
updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link (see rejection claim 1).
Claim 14 is rejected like claim 6:
Re 14. (Currently Amended), Bess discloses The computing device of claim 13, wherein the set of operations further comprise:
applying a set of correlation rules to the sensor data and the one or more entity properties of the target entity to generate a correlation output;
verifying whether the at least one sensor correlates to the target entity based on the correlation output; and
if the verification fails, gathering additional sensor data from the at least one sensor.
Claim 15 is rejected like claim 7:
Re 15. (Currently Amended), Bess discloses The computing device of claim 13, wherein the set of operations further comprise:
applying one or more machine learning models to the sensor data and the one or more entity properties of the target entity to generate a correlation output; and
verifying whether the at least one sensor correlates to the target entity based on the correlation output.
Claim 17 is rejected like claims 11,12:
Re 17. (Currently Amended), Bess discloses The computing device of claim 13, wherein updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor comprises [[to]]:
receiving sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the target entity; and
determining the one or more entity properties of the target entity based on the sensor data using a predetermined rule,
wherein the predetermined rule indicates which sensor data from the one or more sensors to be used to determine the entity properties of the target entity.
Claim 18 is rejected like claims 1 and 13:
Re 18. (Currently Amended), Bess discloses A method for tracking a target entity, the method comprising:
monitoring (“including risks and potential security threats” [0027] 2nd S) sensor data received from one or more sensors to detect the (“potential security” [0027] 1st S) target entity among one or more entities;
in response to the detection of an entity similar to the target entity based on sensor data received from at least one sensor of the one or more sensors, providing a notification (via “notify organizations of designated human activities, including risks and potential security threats” [0027] 2nd S) indicating that the entity similar to the target entity has been detected;
receiving a first input confirming that the detected entity is the target entity;
in response to receiving the first input, displaying an interactive element for associating one or more sensors to the target entity on the user interface;
displaying the one or more sensors that are active;
receiving a second input, the second input being generated by using the interactive element on the user interface;
in response to receiving the second input, creating a link between the target entity and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors; and
updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link;
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors (see rejection claim 1).
Claim 19 is rejected like claim 2:
Re 19. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 18, wherein the providing the notification comprises displaying the sensor data received from at least one sensor of the one or more sensors.
Claim 20 is rejected like claim 3:
Re 20. (Original), Bess discloses The method of claim 18, further comprising:
displaying the target entity based on the updated entity properties; and
continuously updating the one or more entity properties of the target entity using the sensor data from the at least one sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess et al. (US 10,614,689 B2) in view of MERKADO et al. (CA 3 177 901 A1).
PNG
media_image8.png
716
387
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Original), Bess teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the displaying one or more indications of one or more entities comprises
displaying the one or more indications overlaid on a map.
Bess does not teach the difference of claim 4 of:
overlaid on a map.
MERKADO teach the difference of claim 4 of:
overlaid on a map (“2404”, pg. 100: [0373] last S: fig. 24).
Since Bess teaches displaying, one of skill in the art of displaying can make Bess’ be as MERKADO’s seeing the change “to assist a user in navigating”, MERCADOM [0372] 3rd S.
Claim(s) 8,9,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess et al. (US 10,614,689 B2) in view of RAYIT et al. (US 2024/0256623 A1):
PNG
media_image9.png
716
387
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re 8. (Original), Bess teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a prompt from a user (via a “user interface” [0039]), the prompt including at least one selected from a group consisting of (Markush element follows A,B,C)
(A) a sensor description,
(B) a geographical area (“coordinates, and other similar entities” [0036] 3rd S), and
(C) an (“high level decision making” [0072]) entity description;
generating a query (or likewise a “search feature” [0104] 2nd S) by a large language (“machine learning classifier” [0099] 3rd S) model based on the prompt;
applying the query to one or more data repositories (or likewise “ database”-“search feature” [0105] last S) having real-time ( “i.e., live” [0048] 3rd S) sensor data collected by the one or more sensors; and
selecting the at least one sensor (50) from the one or more sensors based on a query (or likewise a “search feature” [0104] 2nd S) result.
Bess does not teach the difference of claim 8 of:
a prompt…the prompt…
(A) a sensor description,…
(B) geographical (area)66…
(C) a…(entity) description…
large language (model)…the prompt…
selecting (the at least one sensor) …based on a (query) result.
RAYIT teach the difference of claim 8 of:
a prompt (“such as a query” [0007] 3rd S: fig. 6: “USER QUERY 1”)…the prompt…
(A) a sensor description,…
(B) geographical (area)67…
(C) a…(entity) description (“about the University of Michigan itself” [0065] penult S: fig. 5:510: “ENITY DESCRIPTION”)…
large language (or likewise “generative language models (GLMs)” [0005]) (model)…the prompt…
selecting (via a mouse: fig. 4:310) (the at least one sensor) …based on a (query) result (fig. 4: “NATURAL LANGUAGE RESPONSE 1…”).
Since Bess teaches an interface, one of skill in art of interfaces can make BESS’ be as RAYIT’s seeing in the change “various advantages over conventional search engine and/or GLM technologies”, RAYIT [0012] 1st S:
PNG
media_image10.png
1647
1938
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1647
1938
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected like clam 8:
Re 9. (Original), Bess of the combination of Bess,RAYIT teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a prompt from a user, the prompt including at least one selected from a group consisting of
a sensor description,
a geographical area, and
an entity description;
generating a query by a large language model based on the prompt;
applying the query to one or more data repositories having data associated with one or more entities; and
selecting the at least one sensor from the one or more sensors based on a query result.
Claim 16 is rejected like clam 8:
Re 16. (Currently Amended), Bess of the combination of Bess,RAYIT teaches The computing device of claim 13, wherein the set of operations further comprise:
receiving a prompt from a user, the prompt including at least one selected from a group consisting of
a sensor description,
a geographical area, and
an entity description;
generating a query by a large language model based on the prompt;
applying the query to one or more data repositories having real-time sensor data collected by the one or more sensors; and
selecting the at least one sensor from the one or more sensors based on a query result.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
NIE (CN 114648572 A) with SEARCH machine translation
NIE teaches “selecting the target closest to the…camera…through some interface” (as shown in fig. 11) via text blk spanning pages 37,38 & pg. 49, 1st txt blk:
PNG
media_image11.png
679
952
media_image11.png
Greyscale
“As shown, the service system receives the target query instruction generated by the child parent through the user terminal operation, in response to the target query instruction, matching the identity identification of the query instruction (i.e., matching the parent needs to query the facial feature identifier of the child target). the service system searches the positioning data and the virtual positioning data corresponding to the identity identification, determining the view range camera the target of the target (i.e., determining the viewing range camera the to-be-inquired children). selecting the target closest to the target range in the range of camera from the target, preferably camera is the camera taking. extracting the frame image information the determined preferred view, camera into the video information stream to the user terminal, for displaying to the user... through some interface”
as the closest to the claimed “select the target entity…on the user interface” of claim 1.
Cui (US 2023/0156144 A1)
Cui teaches “selecting the to-be-tracked target” via [0254], fig. 9B: “User interface 71”:
PNG
media_image12.png
582
970
media_image12.png
Greyscale
[0245] Refer to FIG. 9B. In some embodiments, the electronic device 100 may detect a touch operation (for example, a tap operation) performed on an object (for example, a face in FIG. 9B) in the area 301B, and select an object on which the touch operation is performed as a to-be-tracked target object. In some embodiments, after selecting the to-be-tracked target object, the electronic device 100 may display prompt information in an area for displaying the target object in the area 301B, for example, a dashed box shown in FIG. 9B, to prompt the user that the object has been currently selected as the to-be-tracked target object.
as the closest to the claimed “select the target entity…on the user interface” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2 (e.g., claim 1’s:
(1) “first”-“select”- “input” &
(2) “displaying the one or more sensors that are active” &
(3) “updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link”
are not fully supported by provisional application 63/469,928 )
3 Regarding not fully supported for said claim 1’s:
(1) “first”-“select”- “input”, the full scope of “a first input to select” such as select first-input OR first select-input is not in 63/469,928: Instead 63/469,928 discloses a user “clicking” [0034]/selecting (a particular function) on a map;
(2) “displaying the one or more sensors that are active”, 63/469,928 instead “allows a user to see” [0059] one active sensor’s outputting data-location in the present-tense while the other sensor’s data-location is “already” in the past-tense;
(3) “updating one or more entity properties of the target entity based on sensor data of the at least one sensor and the created link”, 63/469,928 updates the entity itself and thus does not disclose updating the features of the entity of claim 1.
4 scope: Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier or operator has control. (Dictionary.com)
5 possession: the act or fact of possessing, wherein possess is defined: to have knowledge of. (Dictionary.com)
6 object: the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose, wherein goal is defined: the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end, wherein aim is defined: the act of aiming or directing anything at or toward a particular point or target. (Dictionary.com)
7 click VERB: (usually foll by on) computing to press and release (a button on a mouse) or to select (a particular function) by pressing and releasing a button on a mouse . (Dictionary.com)
8 Regarding “entity” see [0015]: “tracking entities (e.g., objects , people, planes, ships, etc.)”
9on: in connection, association, or cooperation with; as a part or element of. (Dictionary.com)
10 This “displaying” limitation is FULLY supported by [0059]
11 i.e., “[0059]: “a user to see location data on a map”
12 to: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (“entity”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases (“to select the target entity”) functioning as modifiers of verbs “receiving”), nouns (“input”), or adjectives (“first”), and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictionary.com)
13 “to select” is not in [0059]: however see [0034]: “clicking”
14 “target entity” (grammatical object) is receiving the action of “select” (verb with grammatical object)
15 There is support for “target entity”: see above “[0015]”
16 This “receiving” limitation is NOT fully supported in [0015][0034][0059] since “to select the target entity” is not in [0015][0034][0059]. Instead [0034] discloses a user clicking/selecting a particular function on a map
17 response: an answer or reply, as in words or in some action. (Dictionary.com)
18 There is no “in response” in provisional application: 63/469,928
19 “receiving the first input” can be done by a person looking at input-data on a display screen since claim 1 is a method claim
20 “an interactive element” is not in [0059]: in contrast see [0016]: “interactive parts for an observation. For example, the system includes an interface to allow receiving (e.g., writing) an observation (e.g., by a data source system), a communication channel ( e.g., a web socket endpoint) that continually serves the latest observations, and/or a software interface (e.g., Conjure API) for building heatmaps, querying an entity's movements, and/or the like.”
21 There is support for “one or more sensors”: see above [0002]
22 The “in response” limitation is FULLY supported since this limitation is describing a basic computer output/input display function
23 “sensors” is receiving the action of “displaying”
24 are: present indicative plural and 2nd person singular of be, wherein present is defined: Grammar. designating a verb tense, construction, or form used to refer to an action or state occurring at the time of speaking or writing: knows is a present form in He knows that.. (Dictionary.com)
25 “that are active” is not in [0059]. Instead [0059] teaches one sensor is presently active (i.e., [0059]: “is outputting location…from Source X”) and the other sensor’s state is in the past: [0059]: “already been associated with location…from Source Z”.
26 This displaying limitation is NOT fully supported since the sensors receiving the action of displaying is not in [0059] (instead the data from the sensors are receiving the action of displaying) and the sensors being simultaneously active is not in [0059] (instead one sensor is active in the present and the other is in the past-tense).
27 Given that claim 1 is a method, this limitation “receiving a second input” can be done by the user looking at input-sensor data on a screen and thus receiving in the user’s mind a second sensor-data input
28 Likewise [0059], last S: “As an example, the user interface with manual geospatial correlation allows a user to manually correlate the location data from Source X with the existing ID that has already been associated with location data about the same Entity A from Source Z, and then to automatically update Entity A with the location data from Source X.”
29 see said [0016]: “interactive parts for observation. For example, the system includes an interface to allow receiving (e.g., writing) an observation (e.g., by a data source system), a communication channel ( e.g., a web socket endpoint) that continually serves the latest observations, and/or a software interface (e.g., Conjure API) for building heatmaps, querying an entity's movements, and/or the like.”
30 Given that claim 1 is a method, this “receiving a second input” limitation is FULLY supported; however, a second clicking input is not in [0034]. Instead [0034] discloses “users…clicking on a map to represent a geofenced region like the Mediterranean Sea ( or any arbitrary shape).”
31 This second “in response” limitation is FULLY supported: see said [0059] last S.
32 “updating…properties” is not in [0059]: In contrast see [0059] last S: “update Entity A with the location data”
33 This “updating” limitation is NOT supported in [0059] since “updating…properties” is not in [0059]: In contrast see [0059] last S: “update Entity A with the location data”
34 There is FULL support for this last “wherein” clause: see 63/469,928 [0061][0062][0063]
35 user interface: Digital Technology. the interface features through which users interact with the hardware and software of computers and other electronic devices. UI (Dictionary.com)
36 One of skill would recognize that a display is needed to “see location data on a map”
37map: a representation, usually on a flat surface, as of the features of an area of the earth or a portion of the heavens, showing them in their respective forms, sizes, and relationships according to some convention of representation. (Dictionary.com)
38 “a sensor” is understood to mean one or more sensors via [0002]
39 source: any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin, wherein come is defined to be available, produced, offered, etc., wherein produce is defined: to make or manufacture, wherein manufacture is defined: the making or producing of anything; generation. (Dictionary.com)
40 see: to perceive with the eyes; look at. (Dictionary.com)
41 select: to choose in preference to another or others; pick out. (Dictionary.com)
42 select: to choose in preference to another or others; pick out, wherein preference is defined: the act of preferring, wherein prefer is defined: to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than, wherein like is defined: to feel inclined; wish; want. (Dictionary.com)
43 Claim 1 reflects the disclosed improvement in the disclosure (specification filed 5/29/2024 of 18/676,755) at [0002][0003][0094][0095][0096].
44 element: a component or constituent of a whole or one of the parts into which a whole may be resolved by analysis. (Dictionary.com)
45 section: a part that is cut off or separated, wherein part is defined: a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent, wherein constituent is defined: an element, material, etc. that is part of something else; component. (Dictionary.com)
46 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
47 MEANING & PURPOSE: “tracking a target entity”
48 MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble [R-07.2022]
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE, 2nd para, 1st two Ss:
During examination, statements (“for tracking a target entity”) in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
49 PREAMBLE EFFECT: There is no result/effect of “tracking a target entity” in claim 1; thus, claim 1’s preamble “tracking a target entity” does not “serve…to limit the claim”.
50 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising” or an “-ing” word in claims 1-20): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
51 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: indication: anything serving to indicate or point out, as a sign or token. (Dictionary.com)
52 on: in connection, association, or cooperation with; as a part or element of. (Dictionary.com)
53 CLAIM SCOPE (long ranging): on: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (“user interface”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases (“on a user interface”) functioning as modifiers of verbs (“displaying”), nouns (“indications”/ “entities”), or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since.
54 user interface: Digital Technology. the interface features through which users interact with the hardware and software of computers and other electronic devices. UI (Dictionary.com)
55 monitor: to act as a monitor of, wherein monitor is defined: A device that accepts video signals from a computer and displays information on a screen. Monitors generally employ cathode-ray tubes or flat-panel displays to project the image. (Dictionary.com)
56 CLAIM SCOPE regarding “between” via applicant’s disclosure:
This diagram is merely an example, which should not unduly limit the scope of the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize many variations, alternatives, and modifications (e.g., prepositions).
57 between PREPOSITION : 3. linking; connecting. 5. among (Dictioanry.com): semantic sense 5. “among” is “taken from the prior art” (MPEP 2111.01 III, last para, 1st S) under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, wherein among is defined: in, into, or through the midst of; in association or connection with; surrounded by (Dictionary.com).
58 based: the simple past tense and past participle of base, wherein based USED WITHOUT OBJECT is defined: to have a basis; be based (usually followed by on orupon ), wherein based USED WITH OBJECT is defined: to place or establish on a base or basis; ground; found (usually followed by on orupon ), wherein place is defined: to determine or indicate the place or value of, wherein basis is defined: a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like. (Dictionary.com).
59 on: in connection, association, or cooperation with; as a part or element of. (Dictionary.com)
60The crossed “wherein” clause is not “a limitation in a claim…wherein the clause gave ‘meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps’” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
61 machine learning: a branch of artificial intelligence in which a computer generates rules underlying or based on raw data that has been fed into it (Dictionary.com)
62 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: correlation: mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.., wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted). (Dictionary.com)
63 -ing (of “verifying or similarly of any other “-ing” word in claims 1-20): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs (verify), expressing the action of the verb (verify) or its result (no result), product (no product), material (no material), etc.(or its substantive: “the at least one sensor correlates to the target entity based on the correlation output”) (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), where expressing is defined: to put (thought: IP) into words (claim 6); utter or state. (Dictionary.com)
64 recognition: the identification of something as having been previously seen, heard, known, etc., wherein identification is defined: an act or instance of identifying; the state of being identified, wherein identify is defined: to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing; verify the identity of. (Dictionary.com)
65 sensor: anything, such as a photoelectric cell, that receives a signal or stimulus and responds to it (Dictionary.com)
66 (italics) represents claim limitations already taught.
67 (italics) represents claim limitations already taught.
Prosecution Insights