DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 1/3/2025 has been fully considered.
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the units in claims 1-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. There does not appear to be a corresponding structure described in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the salt value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps it is intended to depend from claim 7.
This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) generating, storing hashes and making a determination based on information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover generating, storing hashes and making a determination based on information in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “apparatus”, “sensor”, “environment”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “apparatus” language, the claim encompasses a user generating, storing/writing hashes and making a determination based on information as introduction to elementary encryption classes and computer logic are taught.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratnakaram (20210390310), and further in view of Appleyard (20180205550).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Ratnakaram teaches Apparatus comprising: / A method of monitoring an environment comprising the steps of (asbtract):
a sensor data processing unit arranged to generate a locality- sensitive hash from sensor data captured from an environment; hash storage arranged to store hashes generated by the sensor data processing unit, wherein each of the hashes is stored in association with a significance value (par.34-36, 62-69, hash of similar people, location, etc, with additional information, timestamps, etc),
a hash comparison unit arranged to generate a similarity metric for the locality-sensitive hash with respect to the hashes stored in the hash storage (par.22-26, 69-78, compare hashes to determine similarity, retrieve relevant images),
Ratnakaram does not expressly disclose, however, Appleyard teaches wherein the hash storage is arranged to periodically decrease the significance values; and wherein when the similarity metric for the locality-sensitive hash with respect to a similar hash stored in the hash storage exceeds a similarity threshold the hash comparison unit is arranged to increase the significance value stored in association with the similar hash, and wherein the hash comparison unit is responsive to the significance value stored in association with the similar hash exceeding an alert threshold to cause an alert signal to be generated (par.26-27, 30-35).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratnakaram to use expiration times and notifications as taught by Appleyard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to tie privacy controls to image management software (Appleyard, par.15-24).
Regarding claim 2, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein when the similarity metric for the locality sensitive hash with respect to each of the hashes stored hash storage does not exceed the similarity threshold the hash comparison unit is arranged to cause the locality- sensitive hash to be stored in the hash storage (Ratnakaram, par.34-36, 62-69).
Regarding claim 4, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches a trusted execution environment, wherein at least the sensor data and the hash storage are comprised within the trusted execution environment, such that access to the sensor data and the hashes is restricted to privileged processes executing within the trusted execution environment (Ratnakaram, 108-111, Appleyard, 21-24, 30-35).
Regarding claim 5, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the hash storage is arranged to remove the hashes from the hash storage after a predetermined storage period has elapsed (Appleyard, 13-14, 26-28).
Regarding claim 6, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the hash storage is arranged to remove an expired hash from the hash storage when a significance value for the expired hash falls below a discard threshold (Appleyard, 13-14, 26-28).
Regarding claim 9, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the alert signal causes the sensor data, from which the locality-sensitive hash generated the similarity metric which exceeded the similarity threshold, to be at least one of: presented to a user of the apparatus; and/or stored in a sensor data store for later presentation to the user of the apparatus (Ratnakaram, 7-8, 23-26, Appleyard, 18-21).
Regarding claim 10, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the sensor data processing unit is arranged to generate the locality-sensitive hash from a sequence of captured sensor data (Ratnakaram, 7-8, 23-26, Appleyard, 18-21).
Regarding claim 11, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the sensor data comprises data captured by at least one of: at least one camera; at least one audio sensor; at least one lidar sensor; at least one radar sensor; and/or at least one sonar sensor (Ratnakaram, 53-59, Appleyard, 23-28).
Regarding claim 12, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the sensor data processing unit further comprises an object identification unit arranged to identify objects in the environment around the apparatus,and wherein the sensor data processing unit is arranged to generate the locality- sensitive hash for each object identified (Ratnakaram, 53-59, Appleyard, 23-28).
Regarding claim 13, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the object identification unit comprises a convolutional neural network (Ratnakaram, 75-81, Appleyard, 14-19).
Regarding claim 15, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the hash comparison unit is arranged to generate the similarity metric for the locality- sensitive hash with respect to the hashes stored in the hash storage on a basis of Hamming distances between the locality-sensitive hash and the hashes (Ratnakaram, par.34-36, 62-69).
Regarding claim 16, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the apparatus is arranged to form a static part of a static structure (Ratnakaram, 48-50, 80-84, Appleyard, 13-15).
Regarding claim 17, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches wherein the static structure is a building and the environment around the apparatus comprises an interior or an exterior of the building (Ratnakaram, 48-50, 80-84, Appleyard, 13-15).
Regarding claim 18, Ratnakaram / Appleyard teaches An automobile comprising the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 (Ratnakaram, 48-50, 80-84, Appleyard, 13-15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratnakaram/ Appleyard, and further in view of Takatsuka (20220350928).
Regarding claim 3, Ratnakaram / Appleyard does not expressly disclose, however, Takatsuka teaches wherein the hash storage is arranged to store the hashes in an encrypted format (par.42-45).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratnakaram / Appleyard to use encryption as taught by Takatsuka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect access to resources (Takatsuka, par.6-24).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratnakaram/ Appleyard, and further in view of Dailey (11039190).
Regarding claim 7, Ratnakaram / Appleyard does not expressly disclose, however, Dailey teaches further comprising a salt value generation unit arranged to generate a salt value according to a randomisation process, wherein the sensor data processing unit is arranged to generate the locality- sensitive hash from a combination of the sensor data and the salt value, and the hash storage is arranged to store each of the hashes in association with its salt value (par.28-31).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratnakaram / Appleyard to use salt with the hashes as taught by Dailey.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to improve privacy protections (Dailey, par.27-32, 53-60).
Regarding claim 8, Ratnakaram / Appleyard does not expressly disclose, however, Dailey teaches wherein the hash storage is arranged to remove the salt value associated with the expired hash from the hash storage when the significance value for the expired hash falls below a discard threshold (par.28-31).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratnakaram / Appleyard to use salt with the hashes as taught by Dailey.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to improve privacy protections (Dailey, par.27-32, 53-60).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratnakaram/ Appleyard, and further in view of Lee (20150324570).
Regarding claim 14, Ratnakaram / Appleyard does not expressly disclose, however, Lee teaches wherein the object identification unit is arranged to categorise the objects identified and to cause the hash comparison unit arranged to prioritise comparison of at least one category of objects when generating similarity metrics (par.89-96).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratnakaram / Appleyard to use ordering as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification for more efficient processing (Lee, par.7-12, 85-100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to making determinations based on locality-sensitive hashes, . Oztaskent (20210124777) teaches generating a plurality of fingerprints corresponding to each frames. The method can receive a target timestamp and determine a target fingerprint from the plurality that corresponds to the target timestamp, Alcock (20200026949) teaches performing a hash-based appearance search. A processor is used to obtain a hash vector that represents a search subject that is depicted in an image. The hash vector includes one or more hashes as a respective one or more components of the hash vector. The processor determines which one or more of the hashes satisfy a threshold criterion and which one or more of the components of the hash vector qualify as a scoring component. The one or more components that qualify correspond to a respective one or more hashes that satisfy the threshold criterion and that are represented in a scoring database that is generated based on different examples of a search target.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights