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 7/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/17/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks re. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to arguments presented on page 13, Applicant alleges that the language of amended claims 1, 2, and 13 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. In analyzing this allegation, the examiner cites to MPEP § 2106.07(b) – “When an additional element is considered individually by the examiner, the additional element may be enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to qualify as "significantly more" if it meaningfully limits the judicial exception, e.g., it improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of a computer itself… In addition, even if an element does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more on its own (e.g., because it is merely a generic computer component performing generic computer functions), it can still integrate or amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim”.
Here, the amended elements introduced in claims 1, 2, and 13 are:
establishing communication with a mobile terminal associated with the user
receiving user information from the mobile terminal
registering belongings in association with the user based on information obtained by the monitoring system
These elements do not amount to an improvement over known methods, either individually or in combination. Particularly in how the elements are recited, they perform in relative isolation, a simple transmission of information over a network followed by a registration step (which is further construed as a fully mental process). Network communications (recited at a high level of generality) and information registration are conventional techniques, as evidenced by the body of prior art cited by the examiner. The key operational steps of the claims do not tie back to the new language in any significant way (“detecting that the user has left the belongings based on the image captured by the camera…”). The claims as amended simply recite more extra-solution and/or mental process activity, rather than any language that reflects an improvement to technological function.
New dependent claims 14-19 merely elaborate upon the extra-solution and/or mental process activity previously introduced. The subject matter of claims 14-19 still does not reflect an improvement to underlying technologies, but rather the judicial exceptions of “registering…belongings…based on [observations made]”. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained and extended to new claims.
Response to Arguments/Remarks re. 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
To the extent Applicant restates portions of Aoyagi’s disclosure, the examiner confirms the existence of said disclosure but maintains that additional disclosure of Aoyagi may be necessary for a complete understanding and characterization of the prior art reference.
Applicant states that “the registration process of Aoyagi does not disclose or suggest establishing communication with a mobile terminal associated with the user; receiving user information from the mobile terminal; and registering belongings in association with the user based on information obtained by the monitoring system”. It is the examiner’s stance that Aoyagi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1 as amended. See Aoyagi, [0032], [0040] (for “establishing communication with a mobile terminal associated with the user”); See Aoyagi, [0036]; [0040]; [0052] (for “receiving user information from the mobile terminal”); See Aoyagi [0041]-[0045] (for “and registering belongings in association with the user based on information obtained by the monitoring system”). Accordingly, claims depending from claim 1 are not per se allowable.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected in line with Aoyagi and Elazar, as the amended language also corresponds to the cited portions of Aoyagi presented above. It would otherwise remain obvious to combine Elazar with Aoyagi, as the motivation and operability of Aoyagi is without disruption. Claims depending from claims 2 and 13, similarly receiving no specific challenge, are also not per se allowable. For the substance of new claims 14-19, see Aoyagi, [0041]-[0045]; Aoyagi, [0046]-[0048]; Aoyagi, Figs. 3-5).
Additionally, no specific arguments were presented in challenging the secondary references relied upon under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejection of claims is accordingly maintained, and further extended to new claims 14-19.
Claim Interpretation
The interpretation of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been withdrawn in accordance with the amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites “receiving user information from the mobile terminal”. The claim then recites, “registering belongings in association with the user based on information obtained by the monitoring system”. It is unclear whether this “information” must include “the user information”, or may otherwise constitute additional information exclusive of said user information. See MPEP § 2173,02(I), “…if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”. Accordingly, the claim is rejected as indefinite. For the purposes of applying prior art, the examiner will consider either interpretation as sufficient for any disclosure/teaching.
Claims 2 and 13 inherit the issue described above. Accordingly, the claims are rejected as indefinite.
Claims 3-12 and 14-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1, 2 and 13 respectively.
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 1-19 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 grouping of mental processes under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This is a judicial exception 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 system and non-transitory computer-readable media (CRM) for a “monitoring system.” Machines (system embodied on a physical processor) and articles of manufacture (non-transitory CRM) are both 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), “A manufacture is "a tangible article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1349, 111 USPQ2d at 1719-20 (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)). As the courts have explained, manufactures are articles that result from the process of manufacturing, i.e., they were produced "from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery." Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 120 USPQ2d 1749, 1752-3 (2016) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 196-97 (1980)); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-57, 84 USPQ2d at 1502.”; See MPEP 2016.03(II) (distinguishing statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves, as relevant to the recital of a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in claim 13). (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 registering belongings, detecting lost items and notifying their owner. (Claim 1, “registering belongings…detecting that the user has left the belongings based on the image…detecting that another person…has approached the belongings…notifying the user when it is detected that the user has left the belongings…”; Claim 2, “notifying the user when it is detected…that the belongings have moved”; Claim 9, “detects that the belongings have moved when the belongings disappears from the image”; Claim 10, “determining whether or not the belongings is an article including confidential information based on the type of the belongings”; Claim 11, “analyzes the image captured…to specify the type of the belongings”; Claim 12, “registers information related to a group to which the user belongs…”; Claim 14, “wherein the registering of the belongings comprises registering the belongings in association with the user based on an image captured by the camera”)
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 “the hardware processor executes” therefore may be performed mentally, even if they may require the additional computer tool.
As such, the usage of a computer to detect lost items 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 output display of notification and image via mobile terminal; basic gathering of image input, user information), 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 information and/or imagery so acquired (e.g. the use of a camera to acquire said image broadly, the use of network technology to establish communication). 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 an “imaging section…a hardware processor”; Claim 3 recites a “mobile terminal”; Claim 13 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program” The incorporation of conventional computer and imaging 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 “an imaging section that captures an image”, “establishing communication with a mobile terminal”, “receiving user information from the mobile terminal”, and “notifying the user when it is detected that the user has left the belongings”. These limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g). Specifically, the limitations amount to no more than necessary data inputting and outputting, 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. capturing an image, receiving information, rendering notification) – however no limitations appear directed to any novel collection or output generation 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.
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, and would
monopolize the exception accordingly. The additional limitations of image capture, network communication, and mobile terminal notification as recited are WURC, as evidenced by the body of prior art cited by the examiner in this office action. The main thrust of the invention remains directed to a method for visually identifying objects of a user, and the claimed improvement cannot be to the judicial exception itself (See July 2024 PEG). (Step 2B: No).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aoyagi et. al (US 20240403991 A1) (Hereinafter, “Aoyagi”).
With respect to claim 1, Aoyagi discloses:
A monitoring system ([0001] “a lost item detection method”) comprising:
a camera that captures an image (Fig. 3; Fig. 12; [0037]; [0042]; [0055]-[0056] “Although the sensor included in the sensor unit 22 has been described herein as an imaging apparatus, the sensor may be a sonar…”) of a user ([Fig. 3; Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0041] “The categorization information generation unit recognizes the user who uses the on-demand vehicle 2, based on the detection data received by communication unit 11”) present within a predetermined image capturing range ([0037] “The sensors provided in and on the on-demand vehicle include an in-vehicle sensor that outputs detection data by sensing an interior of the on-demand vehicle 2, and a vehicle exterior sensor that outputs detection data obtained by sensing an exterior of the on-demand vehicle”; [0055] “Note that the term “interior” in the context of sensing performed by the in-vehicle sensor refers to an inside of the on-demand vehicle, more specifically, a space where the user can stay on board and a space where an object that is user’s belongings can be loaded; and thus refers to the interior of the passenger room and the interior of the trunk, of the on-demand vehicle”) and belongings of the user ([0041] “and generates categorization information that associates an object represented by information included in the detection data with the user of the on-demand vehicle 2, as a possession of that user”; [0037])
a hardware processor (Fig. 23; [0030]; [0091]-[0092])
wherein the hardware processor executes
establishing communication with a mobile terminal associated with the user ([0032] “The on-demand vehicle management device 1, the on-demand vehicle 2, the roadside unit 3, and a user terminal 4 are connected to one another via a communication channel 5 such as the Internet.”; [0040])
receiving user information from the mobile terminal ([0036] “Alternatively or additionally, the user terminal 4 can access a website for reserving use of the on-demand vehicle 2 using an application such as a web browser”; [0040]; [0052] “The warning notification unit 14 is capable of identifying the user terminal 4 owned by the user who has undergone a change in the situation of the possessions, based on, for example, use reservation information corresponding to the on-demand vehicle 2, and of outputting the warning information to the user terminal 4 identified. For example, the use reservation information includes terminal information of the user, registered when the user reserved the use of the on-demand vehicle 2. Examples of the terminal information include a mobile-phone number, a mail address, and an account of social network service”)
registering belongings in association with the user based on information obtained by the monitoring system ([0041]-[0045] “The categorization information generation unit 12 recognizes the user who uses the on-demand vehicle 2, based on the detection data received by the communication unit 11, and generates categorization information that associates an object represented by information included in the detection data with the user of the on-demand vehicle 2, as a possession of that user… When the communication unit 11 outputs an image P001, the categorization information generation unit 12 recognizes the users and the objects included in this image P001. The categorization information generation unit 12 is capable of recognizing the users and the objects included in the image P001 in distinction from one another. The image P001 illustrated in FIG. 3 includes users M001 to M003 and objects B001 to B005.”; Figs. 3-5)
detecting that the user has left the belongings based on the image captured by the camera ([0095]-[0096] “In addition, even when, for example, a user has taken a suspicious item into the on-demand vehicle 2, use of the foregoing technology allows belongings to be detected as a lost item when the user who has taken the belongings into the on-demand vehicle 2 moves away from the belongings.”)
detecting that another person different from the user has approached the belongings ([0042]-[0050] discussing generally system of linking objects to users and tracking possession based on proximity as shown in Figs. 11 and 12; [0046] discussing how an object’s ownership state may change based on subsequent images; [0084] “When a change has occurred in the situation of the possession(s) of the user because of leaving the belongings in the on-demand vehicle 2 by the user, of occurrence of theft, or of another similar cause, the on-demand vehicle management device 1 outputs warning information to the on-demand vehicle 2, to the roadside unit 3 installed near the place where the on-demand vehicle 2 is stopping, and to the user terminal 4 of the user who has undergone a change in the situation of the possession(s).”; [0096] “Moreover, a theft may be committed when multiple users simultaneously share a single on-demand vehicle 2. In a case of a theft, extraction of a user who has undergone an increase in the number of possessions can identify a user who may have committed the theft.”; [0072] “ For example, the information to be stored includes information such as detection data including user information, the boarding time, the alighting time, the boarding location, and the alighting location, of the user who has been determined to have undergone an increase in the number of possessions thereof; a video including that user; and the like. When an investigation is to be made later into that case as a theft, the stored information can be used as investigation materials for characterization of the person of concern, and for verification of the situation at the time of the theft”)
notifying the user when it is detected that the user has left the belongings and it is detected that another person different from the user has approached the belongings ([0084] “When a change has occurred in the situation of the possession(s) of the user because of leaving the belongings in the on-demand vehicle 2 by the user, of occurrence of theft, or of another similar cause, the on-demand vehicle management device 1 outputs warning information to the on-demand vehicle 2, to the roadside unit 3 installed near the place where the on-demand vehicle 2 is stopping, and to the user terminal 4 of the user who has undergone a change in the situation of the possession(s).”)
With respect to claim 3, Aoyagi discloses:
The monitoring apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an acquirer ([0086] “As illustrated in FIG. 21, this computer system includes a control unit 101, an input unit 102, a storage unit 103, a display unit 104, a communication unit 105, and an output unit 106, which are connected to one another via a system bus 107.”; Fig. 21; Fig. 22) that acquires terminal information regarding a mobile terminal possessed by the user ([0067] “The user terminal 4 is a mobile terminal owned by the user of the transport service using the on-demand vehicle”; [0062] “The communication unit 31 communicates with other devices such as the on-demand vehicle management device 1, the on-demand vehicle 2, and the user terminal…”)
the hardware processor provides a notification to the mobile terminal possessed by the user based on the terminal information ([0040] “The communication unit 11 is further capable of sending warning information that has been output by the warning notification unit 14 when a lost item of the user has been detected, to the on-demand vehicle 2, to the roadside unit 3 located near the on-demand vehicle 2 at the time of detection, and to the user terminal 4 owned by the user who has been determined to have left the lost item.”)
With respect to claim 6, Aoyagi discloses:
The monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein
The hardware processor further executes:
registering the user (Fig. 4):
managing the registered user and the belongings of the user in association with each other based on the image captured by the camera (Fig. 3; Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
1954
1498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
432
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Aoyagi discloses:
The monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein
the hardware processor detects that another person different from the user has approached the belongings based on the image captured by the imaging section ([0042]-[0050] discussing generally system of linking objects to users and tracking possession based on proximity as shown in Figs. 11 and 12; [0046] discussing how an object’s ownership state may change based on subsequent images; [0084] “When a change has occurred in the situation of the possession(s) of the user because of leaving the belongings in the on-demand vehicle 2 by the user, of occurrence of theft, or of another similar cause, the on-demand vehicle management device 1 outputs warning information to the on-demand vehicle 2, to the roadside unit 3 installed near the place where the on-demand vehicle 2 is stopping, and to the user terminal 4 of the user who has undergone a change in the situation of the possession(s).”; [0096] “Moreover, a theft may be committed when multiple users simultaneously share a single on-demand vehicle 2. In a case of a theft, extraction of a user who has undergone an increase in the number of possessions can identify a user who may have committed the theft.”; [0072] “ For example, the information to be stored includes information such as detection data including user information, the boarding time, the alighting time, the boarding location, and the alighting location, of the user who has been determined to have undergone an increase in the number of possessions thereof; a video including that user; and the like. When an investigation is to be made later into that case as a theft, the stored information can be used as investigation materials for characterization of the person of concern, and for verification of the situation at the time of the theft”)
With respect to claim 14, Aoyagi discloses:
The monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the registering of the belongings comprises registering the belongings in association with the user based on an image captured by the camera ([0041]-[0045] “The categorization information generation unit 12 recognizes the user who uses the on-demand vehicle 2, based on the detection data received by the communication unit 11, and generates categorization information that associates an object represented by information included in the detection data with the user of the on-demand vehicle 2, as a possession of that user… When the communication unit 11 outputs an image P001, the categorization information generation unit 12 recognizes the users and the objects included in this image P001. The categorization information generation unit 12 is capable of recognizing the users and the objects included in the image P001 in distinction from one another. The image P001 illustrated in FIG. 3 includes users M001 to M003 and objects B001 to B005.”; Figs. 3-5)
With respect to claim 15, Aoyagi discloses:
The monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the registering of the belongings comprises detecting an article based on the image captured by the camera and registering the detected article as belongings associated with the user ([0041]-[0045]; [0046]-[0048]; Figs. 3-5)
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 2, 4, 7, 9, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyagi in view of Elazar et. al (US 20040161133 A1) (Hereinafter, “Elazar”)
With respect to claim 2, Aoyagi teaches:
A monitoring system ([0001] “a lost item detection method”) comprising:
a camera that captures an image (Fig. 12; [0055] “Although the sensor included in the sensor unit 22 has been described herein as an imaging apparatus, the sensor may be a sonar…”) of a user ([0041] “The categorization information generation unit recognizes the user who uses the on-demand vehicle 2, based on the detection data received by communication unit 11”) present within a predetermined image capturing range ([0037] “The sensors provided in and on the on-demand vehicle include an in-vehicle sensor that outputs detection data by sensing an interior of the on-demand vehicle 2, and a vehicle exterior sensor that outputs detection data obtained by sensing an exterior of the on-demand vehicle”; [0055] “Note that the term “interior” in the context of sensing performed by the in-vehicle sensor refers to an inside of the on-demand vehicle, more specifically, a space where the user can stay on board and a space where an object that is user’s belongings can be loaded; and thus refers to the interior of the passenger room and the interior of the trunk, of the on-demand vehicle”)
a hardware processor (Fig. 23; [0030]; [0091]-[0092])
wherein the hardware processor executes
establishing communication with a mobile terminal associated with the user ([0032] “The on-demand vehicle management device 1, the on-demand vehicle 2, the roadside unit 3, and a user terminal 4 are connected to one another via a communication channel 5 such as the Internet.”; [0040])
receiving user information from the mobile terminal ([0036] “Alternatively or additionally, the user terminal 4 can access a website for reserving use of the on-demand vehicle 2 using an application such as a web browser”; [0040]; [0052] “The warning notification unit 14 is capable of identifying the user terminal 4 owned by the user who has undergone a change in the situation of the possessions, based on, for example, use reservation information corresponding to the on-demand vehicle 2, and of outputting the warning information to the user terminal 4 identified. For example, the use reservation information includes terminal information of the user, registered when the user reserved the use of the on-demand vehicle 2. Examples of the terminal information include a mobile-phone number, a mail address, and an account of social network service”)
registering belongings in association with the user based on information obtained by the monitoring system ([0041]-[0045] “The categorization information generation unit 12 recognizes the user who uses the on-demand vehicle 2, based on the detection data received by the communication unit 11, and generates categorization information that associates an object represented by information included in the detection data with the user of the on-demand vehicle 2, as a possession of that user… When the communication unit 11 outputs an image P001, the categorization information generation unit 12 recognizes the users and the objects included in this image P001. The categorization information generation unit 12 is capable of recognizing the users and the objects included in the image P001 in distinction from one another. The image P001 illustrated in FIG. 3 includes users M001 to M003 and objects B001 to B005.”; Figs. 3-5)
detecting that the user has left the belongings based on the image captured by the camera (Fig. 11; Fig. 12; [0095]-[0096] “In addition, even when, for example, a user has taken a suspicious item into the on-demand vehicle 2, use of the foregoing technology allows belongings to be detected as a lost item when the user who has taken the belongings into the on-demand vehicle 2 moves away from the belongings.”)
notifying the user when it is detected that the user has left the belongings ([0084] “When a change has occurred in the situation of the possession(s) of the user because of leaving the belongings in the on-demand vehicle 2 by the user, of occurrence of theft, or of another similar cause, the on-demand vehicle management device 1 outputs warning information to the on-demand vehicle 2, to the roadside unit 3 installed near the place where the on-demand vehicle 2 is stopping, and to the user terminal 4 of the user who has undergone a change in the situation of the possession(s).”)
Aoyagi does not explicitly teach:
detecting that the belongings have moved within the imaging range based on the image captured by the camera
and it is detected the belongings have moved
However, Elazar, in the same field of endeavor of lost item monitoring, teaches:
detecting that the belongings have moved within the imaging range based on the image captured by the camera ([0031] “The ability to detect if an object is created or disappears also enables the method of the present invention to identify if persons disturb objects or move objects”; [0049] “The system may also, in real time, associate the parameters with objects and perform rule checking to determine if the objects comply with rules that are permitted in the scene, such as objects are not left unattended, objects move is specific directions, objects do not depart from other objects in specific locations, and the like.”; [0033] “Such object can be lost luggage located within the airport”)
and it is detected the belongings have moved ([0031] “The ability to detect if an object is created or disappears also enables the method of the present invention to identify if persons disturb objects or move objects”; [0049] “The system may also, in real time, associate the parameters with objects and perform rule checking to determine if the objects comply with rules that are permitted in the scene, such as objects are not left unattended, objects move is specific directions, objects do not depart from other objects in specific locations, and the like.”; [0033] “Such object can be lost luggage located within the airport”)
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 Aoyagi include the limitations of object motion detection as taught by Elazar. Doing so would provide a specific means of detecting a “change” in possession, as is the goal of Aoyagi ([0084]; [0096]; [0006] “ a categorization information comparison unit to determine whether a change has occurred in a situation of the possession of the user by making a comparison, on a per-user basis, between a plurality of sets of the categorization information including the categorization information as of before the user gets on the on-demand vehicle and the categorization information as of when the user gets off the on-demand vehicle; and a warning notification unit to output warning information when the categorization information comparison unit determines that a change has occurred in the situation of the possession of the user.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily consult Elazar, as the references seek to detect both items being lost, and items being stolen (Elazar [0033] “In another example, the suitcase may have been lost or unattended for a prolonged length of time. In yet another application, a suitcase or an object may have been taken without authority.”). The systems are readily compatible as Aoyagi already considers movement relative to the object, even if not motion of the object explicitly (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0042] “In addition, the categorization information generation unit 12 may determine the owner of an object based on a temporal change in the location of the object relative to the user recognized. For example, when an object remains located at a distance less than or equal to a threshold from a user, the categorization information generation unit 12 can determine that this object is a possession of that user. Use of a temporal change can improve the degree of accuracy of the categorization information. When an object located in a vicinity of a recognized user remains located in a vicinity of that user, the categorization information generation unit 12 can determine that the user is the owner of the object also using an image captured before the image P001 of concern was captured.”; [0046] discussing generally the detection that an object has changed owners based on before and after images between registered users, but not explicitly showing that the object itself has moved)
With respect to claim 4, Aoyagi teaches the monitoring system according to claim 3, but does not explicitly teach:
the hardware processor transmits an image captured by the camera to the mobile terminal
However, Elazar teaches:
the hardware processor transmits an image captured by the imaging section to the mobile terminal ([0045] “The alarm can be provided as text or pop up window on the screen of the operator, as e-mail sent to an officer, SMS message sent to a cellular phone, an automated telephone call to an officer, a text pager message, pictures or video stream sent the officer's portable device or hand held device, or send via a dry contact to generate a siren or an audio or visual indication and the like. The message could be provided to one or many persons or to specific persons associated with the specific event or alarm. The suspicious object on the video images is emphasized in a graphic manner, such as encircling the object in a circle-like or oval graphic element that is overlaid on the video image. Other information concerning the object, such as the object its size, speed, direction of movement, range from camera, if identified and the like, will appear next to the object's image or in another location on the screen. If the optional recording and archiving unit and the associated video archive files are implemented on the system then the user is provided with the option of video data re-play.”)
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 Aoyagi to include the limitations of image notification, as taught by Elazar. Doing so would provide additional information in the form of a visual, to allow the user to verify what was lost or if there was any errors made by the system. The systems of Elazar and Aoyagi are readily compatible, as Aoyagi more broadly teaches a notification system, and Elazar provides an additional feature to be included therein.
With respect to claim 7, Aoyagi teaches the monitoring system according to claim 6, but does not explicitly teach:
the hardware processor registers at least a face image of the user when registering the user
However, Elazar teaches:
the hardware processor registers at least a face image of the user when registering the user ([0047] “If the person is a person a face recognition algorithm is activated to try and determine whether the person is recognized. Recognized persons can be those persons that have been previously identified in other objects or may be faces that are provided to the system, such as from law enforcement agencies or that are previously scanned by the employer. Other parameters may also be associated with the object such as name, other capturing devices, speed and the like.”)
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 Aoyagi to include the limitations of facial registration, as taught by Elazar. Doing so would provide an explicit means by which to register and associate a user with lost objects. The systems are readily compatible, as Aoyagi more broadly teaches a system of user registration and Elazar represents a specific known means for doing so.
With respect to claim 9, Aoyagi teaches the monitoring system according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
the hardware processor detects that the belongings has moved when the belongings disappear from the image captured by the camera.
However, Elazar teaches:
the hardware processor detects that the belongings has moved when the belongings disappear from the image captured by the imaging section ([0031] “The ability to detect if an object is created or disappears also enables the method of the present invention to identify if persons disturb objects or move objects”; [0033] “Likewise, in an alternative embodiment in step 62, a first object, such as a suitcase or person monitored is already present and monitored within the video scene. Such object can be lost luggage located within the airport. Such object can be a person monitored. In step 64 the object merges into a second object. The second object can be a person picking up the luggage, another person to whom the first person joins or a vehicle to which the first person enters. In step 66 the first object (now merged with the second object) moves from its original position and at step 68 of the alternative embodiment exists the scene.” The examiner understands that “exists the scene” is a typographical error for “exits the scene” in line with step 68 of Fig. 3A referenced in the same sentence.)
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 Aoyagi to include the limitations of object disappearance as taught by Elazar. Doing so would provide an explicit means to identify object motion for the purpose of generating alerts. The systems of Aoyagi and Elazar are readily compatible as object position information is already captured by Aoyagi within a given image scene, and a specific output for the object leaving the scene could be implemented to predictable success using the known techniques of Elazar.
With respect to claim 13, it is functionally the same as claim 2, but embodied as a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with executable instructions. Aoyagi also teaches an executable program embodied on non-transitory memory (Aoyagi, [0087]). While not explicitly taught by Elazar, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the computer program of Elazar (Elazar, [0033]) could be readily embodied on the non-transitory memory of Aoyagi, for the advantage of running the program in conventional computer hardware.
With respect to claim 16, Aoyagi/Elazar teaches:
The monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the registering of the belongings comprises registering the belongings in association with the user based on an image captured by the camera (Aoyagi, [0041]-[0045]; Aoyagi, Figs. 3-5)
With respect to claim 17, Aoyagi/Elazar teaches:
The monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the registering of the belongings comprises detecting an article based on the image captured by the camera and registering the detected article as belongings associated with the user (Aoyagi, [0041]-[0045]; Aoyagi, [0046]-[0048]; Aoyagi, Figs. 3-5)
With respect to claim 18, Aoyagi/Elazar teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 13, wherein the registering of the belongings comprises registering the belongings in association with the user based on an image captured by the camera (Aoyagi, [0041]-[0045]; Aoyagi, Figs. 3-5)
With respect to claim 19, Aoyagi/Elazar teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable recoding medium according to claim 13, wherein the registering of the belongings comprises detecting an article based on the image captured by the camera and registering the detected article as belongings associated with the user (Aoyagi, [0041]-[0045]; Aoyagi, [0046]-[0048]; Aoyagi, Figs. 3-5)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyagi in view of Elazar and Togashi et. al (US 20200043174 A1) (Hereinafter, “Togashi”)
With respect to claim 5, Aoyagi and Elazar teach the method of clam 4, but do not explicitly teach:
an image immediately before it is detected that another person different from the user has approached the belongings
However, Togashi, in the same field of endeavor of lost item monitoring, teaches:
an image immediately before it is detected that another person different from the user has approached the belongings ([0038] “For example, an image is specified at the point in time when an abandoned item was discovered (point in time when it was estimated that there was an abandoned item) by following the log in the abandoned item detection process, and images are processed by playing the stream of the images in reverse (towards the past) starting from this point in time. Thus, the image at the moment when the abandoned item disappears and the original backdrop image appears, that is to say, the image directly before the abandoned item was placed, is specified as the image of abandonment timing.”)
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 Aoyagi and Elazar to include the limitations of image replay, as taught by Togashi. Aoyagi teaches a system of notification broadly, and Elazar teaches video replay to be included in said notification ([0029] “The stored content is held on the file 40 for a pre-defined (typically long) period of time in order to enable re-play, historical analysis, and the like.”; [0045] “If the optional recording and archiving unit and the associated video archive files are implemented on the system then the user is provided with the option of video data re-play.”) To the extent Elazar does not explicitly state that this image replay may include the moment before a different person approached the belongings, Togashi would advise one of ordinary skill in the art that this is possible. The system of Aoyagi is otherwise readily compatible, as Elazar and Togashi represent yet additional information to be provided in Aoyagi’s broader system of notification.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyagi in view of Stewart et. al (US 20220058553 A1) (Hereinafter, “Stewart”)
With respect to claim 10, Aoyagi teaches the monitoring system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
specifying a type of the belongings present in the imaging range
determining whether or not the belongings is an article including confidential information based on the type of the belongings; wherein
the hardware processor notifies the user when the hardware processor determines that the belongings is an article including confidential information
However, Stewart, in the same field of endeavor of workspace item monitoring, teaches:
specifying a type of the belongings present in the imaging range ([0017])
PNG
media_image4.png
716
709
media_image4.png
Greyscale
determining whether or not the belongings is an article including confidential information based on the type of the belongings ([0017]; [0035] “As another example, the system may determine that there is writing on a display board, or that there is confidential information displayed in the room, and may then determine the room is not ready”)
the hardware processor notifies the user when the hardware processor determines that the belongings is an article including confidential information ([0017] “Based upon the current condition of the room, the system may determine if the room is ready for an upcoming meeting. For example, the system may determine if there are enough chairs in the room, if objects have been left by previous meeting participants, if the room is clean, if all confidential information has been removed, and the like. Based upon determining whether the room is ready for the upcoming meeting, an embodiment may perform an action. For example, the system may notify a subsequent meeting participant whether the room is ready or not. As another example, the system may notify a previous participant that an object belonging to the previous participant was left in the room. As a final example, the system may notify a department that the room needs attention.”)
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 Aoyagi to include the limitations of confidential information recognition, as taught by Stewart. Doing so would ensure that confidential information left behind by the user would remain protected. The systems of Aoyagi and Stewart are readily integrated to predictable success. One of ordinary skill in the art would enhance Aoyagi’s system (which already registers objects through image capture) with object classification and output an additional notification to the relevant parties accordingly.
With respect to claim 11, Aoyagi and Stewart teach the monitoring system according to claim 10. Aoyagi does not explicitly teach:
the hardware processor analyzes the image captured by the camera to specify the type of the belongings
However, Stewart teaches:
the hardware processor analyzes the image captured by the imaging section to specify the type of the belongings ([0029]-[0030])
PNG
media_image5.png
754
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Aoyagi to include the limitations of specific object recognition, as taught by Stewart. Doing so would enable the system of Aoyagi to provide more information about the objects misplaced or stolen. The systems are readily compatible, as Aoyagi already collects information on objects using image analysis techniques, and Stewart represents an additional class of information that may be obtained by the system of Aoyagi using known image analysis techniques.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyagi in view of Keith (US 20230106024 A1) (Hereinafter, “Keith”)
With respect to claim 12, Aoyagi teaches the monitoring system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the hardware processor registers information related to a group to which the user belongs, and when detecting that another person has approached the belongings, it does not notify the user when the another person belongs to the same group as the user.
However, Keith, in the same field of endeavor of personal object securing, teaches:
wherein the hardware processor registers information related to a group to which the user belongs, and when detecting that another person has approached the belongings, it does not notify the user when the another person belongs to the same group as the user. (Fig. 32; [0150] “In some embodiments, a device has different trust scores for multiple users. For example, if a family uses the same mobile phone – Mom, Dad, Son and Daughter each have different recognizable behaviors…each has an associated trust score as well…In some embodiments, certain users have certain capabilities/access/rights on a device. [0278] “In the step 3204, after the user has been instructed to perform the shake challenge, the user takes the actions as directed…In some embodiments, a camera of the device is able to scan the user (or another object) while the shake occurs to provide an additional layer of analysis. For example, the user is directed to hold the device such that the camera faces the user, so the device is able to perform facial/body recognition during the shake to provide an added layer of security.”; [0281] “When a challenge fails, another challenge is able to be provided, the user’s trust score is decreased, the user is locked out of the device, an alert is sent to another device of the user, and/or another action is taken, in the step 3210”)
PNG
media_image6.png
1300
978
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Aoyagi to include the limitation of group user authentication, as taught by Keith. Doing so would ensure that false positives are not sent for authorized users of shared belongings. The systems of Aoyagi and Keith are readily compatible as Aoyagi already collects information regarding object and user registration, and by implementing the additional processing of Keith, can greater determine permissible shifts in possession states accordingly.
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