DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an amendment filed on 03/09/2026, in which claims 21-40 are pending and ready for examination.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to Patel reference (US 2018/0160278 A1) applicant argues that Patel is not a proper prior art, because the provisional application of Patel (62/429,013) does not provide support for the cited portions in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/11/2025.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. At least paragraph 24-27 of the provisional application # 62/429,013 provides enough information to reject the limitation that were previously rejected under Patel. For example, paragraph 24 of provisional application # 62/429,013 mentions that the DAE-enhanced PTX platform communicates with connected bodysuits and armor that are equipped with sensors and provides a list of sensors, which one of them is real-time threat assessment with location detected via GPS. Furthermore, it is mentioned that the sensors are used for armor monitoring. The armor monitoring can detect gun orientation, whether the gun is out of holster, and pressure sensitivity. The information from the sensors is sent live to the analytics server (e.g., DAE) of the DAE-enhanced PTX platform and the platform can be used in real-time crime center to analyze the crime in real time and based on the analysis, further actions such as tailored alerts are created and sent to citizens or organizations, or emergency medical services are notified, or a 911 call can be made by the platform. Thus, when detecting gun orientation, whether the gun is out of holster, and pressure sensitivity, a risk event is detected and a level of security threat is determined. Furthermore, paragraph 16 of Patel’s provisional application # 62/429,013 provides support for paragraph 26 of Patel (US 2018/0160278 A1). Thus, the provisional application # 62/429,013 does provide support for the cited portions of Patel (US 2018/0160278 A1) and the reference is a proper prior art for the current application.
In regards to claims 21 applicant argues that with regards to Patel, mere disclosure of determining the level of security threat cannot disclose or suggest "the level of aggressiveness to engage the loitering individual" in response to the security threat.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, Patel determines the risk events, such as using armor monitoring and detects risk factors such as gun orientation, whether the gun is out of holster, and pressure sensitivity. Once the risk event is determined, the DAE-enhanced PTX platform takes various actions such as sending potential risk alerts to individuals or organizations (paragraph 25), calls for medical emergency services (paragraph 26), deploys law enforcement or launches a nearby available drone to the location of the incident (paragraph 21), and so on. Thus, taking different actions in response to the detected risk events reads on “the level of aggressiveness to engage the loitering individual”. Examiner notes that term “level of aggressiveness” is a broad and unclear term and the broadest reasonable interpretation is given to this term. Therefore, the currently on file references fully disclose all the limitations of the argued claims and the claims remain rejected.
Claims 21-40 remain rejected since the system disclosed by the applicant is taught by the prior arts.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrand (US 2015/0339912 A1) in view of Patel (US 2018/0160278 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Farrand discloses: A method comprising:
receiving an instruction to perform surveillance of a navigation area (see paragraph 73-74, user communicating a flight path to control the UAV 206);
obtaining data associated with an environment within a predetermined distance of the navigation area (see paragraph 75, taking video of nearby area);
detecting a loitering individual using the data associated with the environment within the predetermined distance of the navigation area (see paragraph 30, detecting an intruder);
Farrand does not explicitly disclose: selecting, from a plurality of aggressiveness levels and using at least some of the data, a level of aggressiveness with which to engage the loitering individual; and
engaging with the loitering individual using the level of aggressiveness.
However, Patel from the same or similar endeavor discloses: selecting, from a plurality of aggressiveness levels (see Patel, paragraph 15) and using at least some of the data (see Patel, paragraph 26, receiving input signal from input sources), a level of aggressiveness with which to engage the loitering individual (see Patel, paragraph 15 and 26, determine level of security threat); and
engaging with the loitering individual using the level of aggressiveness (see Patel, paragraph 46-47, once a risk event or a potential risk event is detected the PTX server notifies the client devices in the dynamic group list of the risk event).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to “selecting, from a plurality of aggressiveness levels and using at least some of the data, a level of aggressiveness with which to engage the loitering individual; and engaging with the loitering individual using the level of aggressiveness” as taught by Patel in the security system taught by Farrand to improve the model used for prediction to achieve better probability of detection while reducing the false alarm rate (see Patel, paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 21, wherein selecting the level of aggressiveness with which to engage the loitering individual uses a weapon analysis result for the loitering individual (see Patel, paragraph 49 and 57).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 21, wherein selecting the level of aggressiveness with which to engage the loitering individual uses a facial recognition analysis result for the loitering individual (see Patel, paragraph 50, using the live feed video for suspect scanning in law enforcement database. Examiner takes official notice that using facial recognition analysis is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 21, comprising:
determining a potential threat associated with the loitering individual using at least the obtained data (see Patel, paragraph 15 and 26, determine level of security threat); and
selecting the level of aggressiveness with which to engage the loitering individual using the potential threat associated with the loitering individual (see Patel, paragraph 46-47and paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 24, comprising:
determining that the potential threat associated with the loitering individual satisfies a threshold criterion (see Patel, paragraph 15); and
in response to determining that the potential threat associated with the loitering individual satisfies the threshold criterion, flying by a robotic device, around the loitering individual (see Patel, paragraph 28, deploying a drone with on-board sensors to the location of the risk event to obtain real-time footage of the risk event and relaying the real-time footage to first responders).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 25, wherein flying around the loitering individual comprises flying around the loitering individual at a high speed (see Patel, paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 24, comprising:
determining that the potential threat associated with the loitering individual satisfies a threshold criterion (see Patel, paragraph 15); and
in response to determining that the potential threat associated with the loitering individual satisfies the threshold criterion, engaging with the loitering individual physically (see Patel, paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 24, comprising:
determining that the potential threat associated with the loitering individual does not satisfy a threshold criterion (see Patel, paragraph 15); and
in response to determining that the potential threat associated with the loitering individual does not satisfy the threshold criterion, selecting an action to perform using a current location of a device to increase a likelihood that the loitering individual leaves the navigation area (see Farrand, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 28, wherein the action comprises flashing light or playing loud audio signals (see Farrand, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Farrand and Patel discloses: The method of claim 21, wherein engaging with the loitering individual comprises engaging, by a robotic device, with the loitering individual using the level of aggressiveness (see Patel, paragraph 28, deploying a drone with on-board sensors to the location of the risk event to obtain real-time footage of the risk event and relaying the real-time footage to first responders).
Regarding claims 31-39, claims 31-39 are drawn to a system having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 21-28 and 30 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, system claims 31-39 correspond to method claims 21-28 and 30 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 is drawn to a computer readable storage device having limitations similar to the method claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, computer readable storage device claim 40 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
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 MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights