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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on September 9, 2024 has been entered and made of record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “detector”, “model”, “module” and “classifier” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “detector”, “model”, “module” and “classifier” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: nowhere in the specification can be found to provide sufficient structures for these claim limitations “detector”, “model”, “module” and “classifier”; the PCT application and the provisional application also fail to provide sufficient structures for these claim limitations “detector”, “model”, “module” and “classifier”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 19-20 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of these claims is an article of manufacture claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “detector”, “model”, “module” and “classifier” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, the disclosure does not provide any structure that performs the function in the claim and there is no association between the structure and the function to be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and 2) as being anticipated by Goldstein et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0057519 A1, Art of record IDS filed 12/11/2024, referred as Goldstein hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Goldstein teaches a system comprising:
one or more still or video cameras (see paras. [0055] (for example, cameras; sensors; and combination thereof), [0063] (cameras; sensors), [0066] (cameras), and [0076] (cameras; sensors));
one or more object detector modules for detecting people and weapons in a scene captured by the cameras (see paras. [0119] (identifying objects held by or on a person), and [0120] (“With further reference to FIG. 4, once objects, persons, and/or other subjects 308 are defined, imaging device 104 and/or processor 136 may be configured to track motion and/or actions of such persons and/or objects relative to apparatus 100. For instance, and without limitation, a label may be associated with each identified object and/or person, which may be tracked subsequently. Similarly, labels may be associated with individual anatomical elements and/or targets, which may also be tracked using imaging device 104. A number of people in subject area may be calculated and/or tracked”));
a pose estimation model for determining a pose of people detected by the object detector modules (see para. [0224] (“Pose detection may be utilized to develop confidence about direction of gaze, by detecting other anatomical features”));
a limb state reasoning module for determining a position and state of the limbs in the poses estimated by the pose estimation module (see paras. [0121] – [0122] (determining position and orientation of the person’s landmarks, skeleton and joints; landmarks as defined, include limb per para. [0123] (“Still referring to FIG. 5, landmarks may include, as a non-limiting example, a spinal landmark at the sternum 502, a spinal landmark at the naval region 504, a pelvic landmark 506, a right hip landmark 508, a left hip landmark 510, a right knee landmark 512, a left knee landmark 514, a right ankle landmark 516, a left ankle landmark 518, a right foot landmark 520, a left foot landmark 522, a right clavicle landmark 524, a left clavicle landmark 526, a right shoulder landmark 528, a left shoulder landmark 530, a right elbow landmark 532, a left elbow landmark 534, a right wrist landmark 536, a left wrist landmark 538, a right hand landmark 540, a left hand landmark 542, a right hand tip landmark 544, a left hand tip landmark, 546, a right thumb landmark 548, a left thumb landmark 550, a neck landmark 552, a head landmark 554, a right ear landmark 556, a left ear landmark 558, a nose landmark 560, a right eye landmark 562, and/or a left eye landmark 564”), [0119] (objects held by or on a person wherein the objects comprise weapons) and [0321] (a shot fired by a person who is armed and dangerous);
a weapon state reasoning module to determine if weapons detected by the object detector modules are held in the hand of a person detected by the object detector modules (see paras. [0073] (“details of an object a person is holding”), [0119] (“Still referring to FIG. 4, Classifier may include a tool classifier 440. Tool classifier 440 may identify one or more objects held by or on a person of subject 308 by classification to one or more categories of object, such as tools, weapons, communication devices, or the like. One or more categories may identify such an object as, and/or distinguish object from, a weapon, a tool usable for a break-in, a tool designed to damage objects and/or people, a tool capable of damaging objects and/or people, and/or an innocuous object such as a sandwich or coffee cup”), [0127] (object identified as a gun, knife and/or weapons is associated with aggressive behaviors), and [0321] (a shot fired by a person who is armed and dangerous)); and
a classifier to determine a probability of danger based on outputs of the limb state reasoning module and the weapon state reasoning module (see para [0137] (“Referring again to FIG. 1, processor 136 is configured to determine a behavior descriptor associated with the subject 308…as used in this disclosure, is an element of data describing a degree of threat and/or probability of taking an action by a subject...Different boundary conditions may be associated with different threat levels and/or deterrent modes. A behavior descriptor may include a threat level represented by subject. A behavior descriptor may include a current threat level, boundary condition violation, behavior, and/or identity of subject, and/or a future threat level, boundary condition violation, and/or behavior of subject…”).
Regarding claim 2, Goldstein further teaches wherein the pose estimation module determines a position of a plurality of keypoints defining a pose of a person detected by the object detector modules (see para. [0123] and rejection applied to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Goldstein further teaches wherein the limb state reasoning module determines a position or movement of a limb of a detected person based on keypoints defining positions of the wrist, elbow and shoulder of the person (see para. [0123] and rejection applied to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Goldstein further teaches wherein the limb state reasoning module determines if a position or movement of the limb is of interest, given a variety of different types of possible weapons (see paras. [0119]-[0120] (“Still referring to FIG. 4, Classifier may include a tool classifier 440. Tool classifier 440 may identify one or more objects held by or on a person of subject 308 by classification to one or more categories of object, such as tools, weapons, communication devices, or the like. One or more categories may identify such an object as, and/or distinguish object from, a weapon, a tool usable for a break-in, a tool designed to damage objects and/or people, a tool capable of damaging objects and/or people, and/or an innocuous object such as a sandwich or coffee cup…once objects, persons, and/or other subjects 308 are defined, imaging device 104 and/or processor 136 may be configured to track motion and/or actions of such persons and/or objects relative to apparatus 100. For instance, and without limitation, a label may be associated with each identified object and/or person, which may be tracked subsequently. Similarly, labels may be associated with individual anatomical elements and/or targets, which may also be tracked using imaging device 104”).
Regarding claim 5, Goldstein further teaches wherein the cameras are video cameras and further wherein the pose estimation module tracks a pose of detected people and weapons over a predetermined number of video frames (see paras. [0137] (“In an embodiment, information concerning subject 308 may be displayed to user; such information may include without limitation an identification of subject 308 generated using facial recognition as described above, an automatically generated threat-level determination as described in further detail below, one or more images and/or video feeds of subject 308 as captured-using imaging device 104, or the like”, [0151] (monitoring the movements of the subject), [0127] (monitoring the movements of the subject such as throwing objects, smashing objects), [0189] (predicting he movement of subject), and [0297] (“Find stamps, and without limitation, remote device 140 and or processor 136 may regularly, iteratively, are continuously, update stream and or otherwise provide video, sensor, and other data, to one or more remote services such as cloud services”)).
Regarding claim 6, Goldstein further teaches wherein the one or more object detectors detect people and weapons as bounding boxes (see paras. [0130] (“With continued reference to FIG. 4, facial recognition processes may include identification of the visual landmarks of human faces and/or of bounding-box locations. A face's features may be extracted and stored for use in identification. Bounding box, visual landmarks, and/or features may be stored as a representation of one face and used as inputs facial recognition classifier 452”) and [0632] (“Boundaries of subject area 4016 may correspond to and coincide with boundaries of an object or physically defined space. For example, and without limitation, boundaries of subject area 4016 may be the same as aside of a physical box and/or enclosure”)).
Regarding claim 7, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereafter. Goldstein further teaches a system comprising: one or more still or video cameras (see paras. [0055], [0063], [0066] and [0076] (cameras; sensors));
a people detector module for detecting people in a scene captured by the cameras (see paras. [0120] (persons are defined; tracking motion and action of such persons), [0122] (tracking orientation and position of person’s face; tracking person’ head to determine position of a person’s face and other anatomy));
a pose estimation model for determining a pose of people detected by the people detector module (see para. [0224]; paras. [0167] (eye gaze), [0168] (eye and gaze detection), and [0122] (determining poses and actions of a person; head pose));
a limb state reasoning module for determining a position of the limbs in the poses estimated by the pose estimation module (see paras. [0121] - [0123] and [0119]);
a hand detector module for detecting hands in the scene captured by the cameras (see paras. [0121] - [0123] and [0119]; also see para. [0073] (detecting an object held by a subject 308 which is a person per para. [0091]));
a first classifier to determine if hands detected by the hand detector module are holding a weapon (see paras. [0073] (detecting an object held by a subject 308 which is a person per para. [0091]) and [0119] (classifier identifies one or more objects held by or on a person and such object is a weapon)); and
a second classifier to determine a probability of danger based on outputs of the limb state reasoning module and the first classifier (see para [0137] (processor 1365 functions as a so-called a second classifier)).
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1-7 are incorporated hereinafter
Regarding claim 8, Goldstein further teaches wherein the pose estimation module determines a position of a plurality of keypoints defining a pose of a person detected by the object detector modules (see rejection applied to claim 2 above; para. [0123] (landmarks)).
Regarding claim 9, Goldstein further teaches wherein the limb state reasoning module determines a position or movement of a limb of a detected person based on keypoints defining positions of the wrist, elbow and shoulder of the person (see rejection applied to claim 3 above; para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 10, Goldstein further teaches wherein the limb state reasoning module determines if a position or movement of the limb is of interest, given a variety of different types of possible weapons (see rejection applied to claim 4 above; paras. [0119]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 11, Goldstein further teaches wherein the cameras are video cameras and further wherein the pose estimation module tracks a pose of detected people and weapons over a predetermined number of video frames (see rejection applied to claim 5 above; paras. [0137] and [0297]).
Regarding claim 12, Goldstein further teaches wherein the people detector module and the hand detector module detect people and hands as bounding boxes (see rejection applied to claim 6 above; paras. [0130] and [0632]).
Regarding claim 13, the advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 7 are incorporated hereinafter. Goldstein further teaches a system comprising: a handheld objects detector module for detecting handheld objects in the scene captured by the cameras (see para. [0073] and [0119]); and a classifier to determine the hand held objects are weapons (see paras. [0073], [0091] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 14, see rejection applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 19, the advanced statements as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 are incorporated hereinafter. Goldstein further teaches a processor and software (see paras. [0080] (one or more processors; software), [0096] (processor 136 and software and [0120], [0696] – [0697] (software and program).
Regarding claim 20, Goldstein further teaches wherein one or more of the cameras are video cameras and further wherein a movement of the limbs of detected people are tracked over a predetermined number of video frames (see rejection applied to claim 17 above; see paras. [0060] (following subject’s every movement even while they are running), [0133] (tracking movement of a subject and body part of subject given a sequence of one or more previous movement), and [0189] (tracking motion of subject’s head, foot, leg; tracking motion of subject using anatomy landmark which is described in para. [0123] to include limbs)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shet et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0243741 A1) teaches a system and method for detecting an object in an image wherein the object is a weapon (figs. 2A-2B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
6/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights