The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This is in response to the amendment filed on 6/17/26. Claims 18-20 have been newly added and no claim has been cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
Objections to the Specification have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stolbikov et al. (Stolbikov; US 20190108742 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stolbikov discloses a method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving sensor information captured by one or more sensors, the sensor information indicating activity within a controlled environment ([0040] first set of data sources include sensors that are constantly providing data to an electronic device. Examples of data sources in the first set include…location sensors (e.g., using satellite positioning system and/or inertial measurement), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers and/or gyroscopes), and biometric sensors (e.g., body temperature sensor, heart rate sensor, etc.), [0100], 605 of Fig 6; [0077] a street address, neighborhood, region, or other geographic area associated with the identified coordinate location);
determining an event based on the sensor information ([0101], 610 of Fig 6);
receiving one or more video frames from one or more video capture devices ([0102], [0104], 615 of Fig 6);
determining context information based on the one or more video frames ([0103]-[0104] user being located in a higher risk geographic area, 620 of Fig 6);
modifying the event based on the context information to generate an alarm ([0105], 625 of Fig 6); and
transmitting a notification identifying the alarm to a monitoring device ([0105], 625 of Fig 6).
Regarding the new limitation Stolbikov teaches wherein the event is associated with a risk value (first data set; [0063] first data) and the context information is a dynamic value (second data set; [0063] second data), and modifying the event comprises: generating a threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data); determining that the threat value crosses a predefined threshold ([0063] second data may be used to confirm or refute the initial determination of the user being at risk (represented by the first probability exceeding the first threshold). Moreover, the processor 205 may initiate a first response when the first probability exceeds the first threshold and may then escalate or deescalate the first response based on the second data); and generating the alarm based on the threat value crossing the predefined threshold ([0105] initiating 625 an alarm in response to the second probability exceeding a second threshold, 625 of Fig 6).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Stolbikov discloses the event is associated with a risk value (first data set) and the context information is a dynamic value (second data set), and modifying the event comprises: generating a threat value by adding the dynamic value to the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data) or subtracting the dynamic value from the risk value; determining that the threat value is greater than a predefined threshold ([0063] second data may be used to confirm or refute the initial determination of the user being at risk (represented by the first probability exceeding the first threshold). Moreover, the processor 205 may initiate a first response when the first probability exceeds the first threshold and may then escalate or deescalate the first response based on the second data); and generating the alarm based on the threat value being greater than the predefined threshold ([0105], 625 of Fig 6).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Stolbikov discloses determining the event based on the sensor information comprises determining, based on a machine learning model and the sensor information, the event based on the sensor information ([0061] In some embodiments, the processor 205 uses one or more computational models to calculate the first probability that the user is at risk. For example, the first data is input into a computation model and the probability that the user is at risk (e.g., the first probability) is updated as the first data is input. Here, the computational model is continually updated with new data; [0066] processor 205 uses the same computational model when calculating the second probability as used to calculate the first probability…second data are input into the computational model (and the first data updated as applicable) in order to determine the second probability).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Stolbikov discloses determining context information comprises determining, based on a machine learning model and the one or more video frames, the context information ([0061], [0066]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Stolbikov discloses determining context information comprises at least one of: identifying one or more persons within the one or more video frames; identifying one or more attributes of one or more person within the one or more video frames; identifying an activity being performed within the one or more video frames ([0065] analyzing the image data for an indication of a conflict, an indication of an injury, and/or an indication of damage); identifying an object within the one or more video frames; identifying a number of objects within the one or more video frames; or identifying an environmental condition of a location within the one or more video frames.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Stolbikov discloses the one or more sensors include occupancy sensors, environmental sensors, door sensors, entry sensors, exit sensors, people counting sensors, temperature sensors ([0040]), liquid sensors, motion sensors, light sensors ([0040]), carbon monoxide sensors, smoke sensors, gas sensors, location sensors ([0040]), and/or pulse sensors ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 9, Stolbikov discloses a system (Abstract) comprising:
one or more video capture devices ([0014] second data includes…video data; [0041] data sources in the second set include, but are not limited to, microphones and other audio sensors, cameras and other image sensors, Fig 2)
one or more sensors ([0040], Fig 2); and
a monitoring platform comprising:
a memory ([0004], Fig 2); and
at least one processor ([0004]) coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive sensor information from the one or more sensors, the sensor information indicating activity within a controlled environment ([0040] first set of data sources include sensors that are constantly providing data to an electronic device. Examples of data sources in the first set include…location sensors (e.g., using satellite positioning system and/or inertial measurement), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers and/or gyroscopes), and biometric sensors (e.g., body temperature sensor, heart rate sensor, etc.), [0100], 605 of Fig 6; [0077] a street address, neighborhood, region, or other geographic area associated with the identified coordinate location));
determine an event based on the sensor information ([0101], 610 of Fig 6);
receive one or more video frames from the one or more video capture devices ([0102], [0104], 615 of Fig 6);
determine context information based on the one or more video frames ([0103]-[0104], 620 of Fig 6);
modify the event by the context information to generate an alarm ([0105], 625 of Fig 6); and
transmit a notification identifying the alarm to a monitoring device ([0105], 625).
Regarding the new limitation Stolbikov teaches wherein the event is a risk value (first data set), the context information is a dynamic value (second data set), and to modify the event, the at least one processor is configured to: generate a threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data); determine that the threat value crosses a predefined threshold ([0063] second data may be used to confirm or refute the initial determination of the user being at risk (represented by the first probability exceeding the first threshold). Moreover, the processor 205 may initiate a first response when the first probability exceeds the first threshold and may then escalate or deescalate the first response based on the second data); and generate the alarm based on the threat value crossing the predefined threshold ([0105], 625 of Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Stolbikov discloses the event is a risk value (first data set), the context information is a dynamic value (second data set), and to modify the event, the at least one processor is configured to: generate a threat value by adding the dynamic value to the risk value or subtracting the dynamic value from the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data); determine that the threat value is less than a predefined threshold ([0063] second data may be used to confirm or refute the initial determination of the user being at risk…the processor 205 may…deescalate the first response based on the second data); and clear the event based on the threat value being less than the predefined threshold ([0063] refute the initial determination).
Regarding Claim 17, Stolbikov discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method ([0013]) comprising:
receiving sensor information captured by one or more sensors, the sensor information indicating activity within a controlled environment ([0040] first set of data sources include sensors that are constantly providing data to an electronic device. Examples of data sources in the first set include…location sensors (e.g., using satellite positioning system and/or inertial measurement), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers and/or gyroscopes), and biometric sensors (e.g., body temperature sensor, heart rate sensor, etc.), [0100], 605 of Fig 6; [0077] a street address, neighborhood, region, or other geographic area associated with the identified coordinate location);
determining an event based on the sensor information ([0101], 610 of Fig 6);
receiving one or more video frames from one or more video capture devices ([0102], [0104], 615 of Fig 6);
determining context information based on the one or more video frames ([0103]-[0104], 620 of Fig 6);
modifying the event based on the context information to generate an alarm ([0105], 625 of Fig 6); and
transmitting a notification identifying the alarm to a monitoring device ([0105], 625 of Fig 6).
Regarding the new limitation Stolbikov teaches wherein the event is associated with a risk value (first data set) and the context information is a dynamic value (second data set), and modifying the event comprises: generating a threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data); determining that the threat value crosses a predefined threshold ([0063] second data may be used to confirm or refute the initial determination of the user being at risk (represented by the first probability exceeding the first threshold). Moreover, the processor 205 may initiate a first response when the first probability exceeds the first threshold and may then escalate or deescalate the first response based on the second data); and generating the alarm based on the threat value crossing the predefined threshold ([0105], 625 of Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Stolbikov discloses generating the threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value comprises adding the dynamic value to the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data) or subtracting the dynamic value from the risk value.
Regarding Claim 19, Stolbikov discloses wherein to generate the threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value, the at least one processor is configured to add the dynamic value to the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data) or subtract the dynamic value from the risk value.
Regarding Claim 20, Stolbikov discloses generating the threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value comprises adding the dynamic value to the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data) or subtracting the dynamic value from the risk value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolbikov.
Regarding Claim 3, Stolbikov discloses the event is associated with a risk value (first data set) and the context information is a dynamic value (second data set), and modifying the event comprises: generating a threat value by adding the dynamic value to the risk value([0043], [0063]) or subtracting the dynamic value from the risk value; determining that the threat value is greater than a predefined threshold ([0063]); and generating the alarm based on the threat value being less than the predefined threshold ([0105], 625 of Fig 6), but doesn’t teach less than the threshold.
There was a finite number of known ways to determine the data represents a risk; either it exceeds a threshold, equals a threshold or falls below a threshold (for instance, every bit of concerning data subtracting from a safe score until falling below a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that the threat value is less than a predefined threshold, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of how to effectively determine risk from gathered sensor data, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Arguments:
A. Applicant argues that Stolbikov does not disclose the generation of a threat value by combining a risk value and a dynamic value. Instead, Stolbikov calculates probabilities using a computational model applied to aggregated sensor data. Stolbikov computes a first probability (P1) that an individual user is at risk from "first data" (e.g., movement and biometric data) and, only when P1 exceeds a first threshold, gathers "second data" (e.g., audio, image, and/or location data) and computes a second probability (P2) that the user is in danger by inputting the aggregated first and second data into a computational model. See Stolbikov [0039]-[0043], [0061]-[0063].
It is respectfully submitted that Stolbikov teaches the event is associated with a risk value (first data set; [0063] first data) and the context information is a dynamic value (second data set; [0063] second data), and modifying the event by generating a threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data); determining that the threat value crosses a predefined threshold ([0063] second data may be used to confirm or refute the initial determination of the user being at risk (represented by the first probability exceeding the first threshold). Moreover, the processor 205 may initiate a first response when the first probability exceeds the first threshold and may then escalate or deescalate the first response based on the second data); and generating the alarm based on the threat value crossing the predefined threshold ([0105] initiating 625 an alarm in response to the second probability exceeding a second threshold, 625 of Fig 6).
The first data reads on the risk value, the second data reads on the dynamic value, aggregating (which is defined as combining elements to form a whole) the first and second data, reads on combining the dynamic value and the risk value.
Although Stolbikov computes a first probability (P1) that an individual user is at risk from "first data" (e.g., movement and biometric data) and, only when P1 exceeds a first threshold, gathers "second data", doesn’t preclude the first and second data reading on the risk and dynamic value. The claims do not specify gathering a dynamic value without determining a first threshold, therefore, the limitations are met by the Stolbikov reference, therefore the rejection is proper.
B. Applicant argues that the Office Action equates Stolbikov's "first data set" with the claimed "risk value" and Stolbikov's "second data set" with the claimed "dynamic value." However, Stolbikov's "first data" and "second data" are categories of sensor inputs, not scalar values, and Stolbikov nowhere combines a dynamic value and a risk value - whether by adding them, subtracting one from the other, or otherwise - to generate a threat value. At most, Stolbikov aggregates data, inputs it into a computational model to produce a probability, and "escalate[s] or deescalate[s]" a response based on the second data. Id. [0063]. Aggregating disparate data as inputs to a probability model, and modifying a response based on second data, is not the same as generating a threat value by combining a risk value and a dynamic value and comparing that threat value to a predefined threshold, as claimed.
It is respectfully submitted that the examiner must provide the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim language. The term “value” is defined as a magnitude; quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like. Data sets are made up of values, a first data and a second data represent a first value and a second value. Aggregating (combining elements to form a whole) the first and second data, reads on combining the dynamic value and the risk value. Therefore Stolbikov reads on the claimed dynamic value, risk value and threat value.
C. Applicant argues that Stolbikov is further distinguishable because it is directed to assessing the personal safety of an individual user who carries or wears an electronic device (e.g., a smartphone or wearable), rather than to monitoring "activity within a controlled environment" as recited in each independent claim. See Stolbikov [0002]-[0004], [0045], [0091]-[0098] (describing detection of a user falling, being mugged, or being pursued).
The claimed "sensor information indicating activity within a controlled environment" is consistent with the Specification's description of sensors and video capture devices deployed throughout a controlled area, such as a building, to monitor events including access-control events. See Specification [0013]-[0017]. Stolbikov's personal-security paradigm does not disclose monitoring activity within a controlled environment as claimed.
It is respectfully submitted that Stolbikov teaches the environment may be a street address, neighborhood, region, or other geographic area associated with the identified coordinate location ([0077]). A street address corresponds to a residence, a building or a store. As Stolbikov’s invention operates in those areas, it operates in a controlled environment.
D. Applicant argues regarding Claim 3 the Office Action acknowledges that Stolbikov does not disclose the "less than" threshold determination, and relies on a rationale that there were a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" for determining risk from sensor data - i.e., that a value exceeds, equals, or falls below a threshold. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). This rationale addresses only the direction of the threshold comparison; it does not supply the threat-value computation that Stolbikov lacks in the first instance. As explained above, Stolbikov does not generate a threat value by combining a dynamic value and a risk value, whether by adding the dynamic value to the risk value, subtracting the dynamic value from the risk value, or otherwise. Because the threat-value limitation incorporated into claim 1 is absent from Stolbikov, and the Examiner's "finite solutions" rationale does not cure that deficiency, claim 3 is patentable over Stolbikov, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
It is respectfully submitted that Stolbikov teaches an event is associated with a risk value (first data set; [0063] first data) and the context information is a dynamic value (second data set; [0063] second data), and modifying the event comprises: generating a threat value by combining the dynamic value and the risk value ([0043] first and second sets of data sources may be aggregated after the user risk probability exceeds the predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the user is actually in danger, [0063] processor 205 may aggregate various types of data, including the first data and the second data, and makes the determination considering the aggregated data). The threat value computation is taught in Stolbikov’s aggregation of first and second data, therefore the finite solutions rationale isn’t inappropriate.
E. Applicant argues that the Office Action relies on Nathan's "heartbeat" camera status messages as disclosing the claimed operational status. See Nathan [0172]. Nathan's "heartbeat" messages, however, are network-level status messages periodically transmitted by a camera to a server to indicate whether the camera is on and connected; the server detects an absence or abnormality of these messages to determine that a camera is offline. See Nathan [0014], [0040], [0112]. Nathan's heartbeat mechanism is not a determination of operational status "based on the one or more video frames," i.e., based on the content of the captured video. The cited combination therefore does not disclose or suggest the operational-status limitation of amended claims 7 and 15.
It is respectfully submitted that Nathan does not read on the new limitations as recited, therefore the rejections of Claims 7 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights