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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significant more than
the abstract idea. The rationale for this rejection, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is
explained below.
Step 1: Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a
process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. For the claims in question,
claims 1-6 are directed towards a method, claims 7-12 are directed towards a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 13-18 are directed towards a non-transitory processor readable medium (i.e., a machine)
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, the claims are evaluated to determine if the
claim recites a judicial exception, which includes the laws of nature, physical phenomena, or an
abstract idea. For independent claim 1 (and corresponding independent claims 7 and 13), the limitations regarding tagging an individual along with an action associated to a person is directed towards a mental process, and furthermore generating audible descriptions are directed towards a mental process. MPEP 2106.04 notes that “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.”. When looking at a video stream, an individual can reasonably identify/tag an individual in the video stream (either by mentally tagging or noting the individual, or with the use of a physical aid such as a pen), and furthermore an individual can generate mentally a description which is associated with the marked individual in the video stream.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, the claims are evaluated to determine
whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application
of the exception (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c) and (e)
generally concern limitations that are indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f)-(h) generally
concern limitations that are not indicative of integration.
In regards to claims 1, 7, and 13, the additional limitations of displaying a video stream and broadcasting an audible description are recited at a high level of generality and/or and extra solution activity, and do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)-(h)).
In regards to dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18, the additional limitations are broadly recited and further disclose steps used to perform the judicial exception with any clear indication or detail which would indicate integration into a practical application as noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) or MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 do not constitute integration into a practical application.
The examiner emphasizes MPEP 2106.05(a), which states that a limitation is indicative of integration into a practical application if the limitation identifies a manner in which an improvement is explicitly and specifically achieved and recited in the claims. The current claim language all are recited at a high level of generality which do not serve to integrate the limitations in view of MPEP 2106.05(f), and furthermore nothing precludes the current limitations from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping.
Step 2B: Under step 2B, the claims are evaluated as a whole to determine if it 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 the claim
as a whole/combination of limitations, and with reference to MPEP 2106.05(d) whether the
claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well - understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field” (WURC). The Examiner asserts that, even when considered in combination, the additional elements of claims 1-18 represent mere instruction for annotating/labeling an individual in a video stream, and consequently outputting/producing a description associated with the labeled individual, that is described as a high level of generality generally linked to using image processing and computer systems to analyze a video stream, and therefore does not provide a specifically recited inventive concept.
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 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 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.
Regarding claims 2 (and corresponding claims 8 and 14), the claim recites “wherein the action is at least one of monitor and apprehend”. It is unclear how “at least one of monitor and apprehend” should be interpreted, as there are two possible interpretations when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation:
“at least one of monitor and apprehend” can be interpreted as the action associated with a person can be to monitor the person or the action associated with a person can be to apprehend the person (i.e., at least one of monitor and at least one of apprehend).
“at least one of monitor and apprehend” can be interpreted as the as the action associated with a person should be to monitor the person and then to also apprehend the same person after they are monitored (i.e., at least one of monitor and apprehend where “monitor and apprehend” is considered to be one action).
Regarding claims 6 (and corresponding claims 12 and 18), the claim recites “wherein the non-visual characteristic of the at least one person is at least one of armed and violent.”. It is reasonably understood that non-visual characteristics can provide information whether an individual is violent (i.e., based on past history). However, it is unclear how determining that an individual is “armed” can be considered as a non-visual characteristic – the term “armed” is interpreted as an individual carrying a firearm, which is information that would be verified/known through a visual check.
Further clarification and/or modification is required for the aforementioned claims to ensure that the claims and be clearly and correctly be interpreted.
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, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ramalingamoorthy and Subbaiah (US 2014/0362225; hereinafter “Ramalingamoorthy”) in view of Viisights (“PREDICT, IDENTIFY AND ALERT ON SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY”, https://www.viisights.com/products/wise/suspicious-activity/; hereinafter “Viisights”) in view of Lo et al. (US 11,144,749; hereinafter “Lo”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramalingamoorthy discloses a method comprising:
displaying, to a user, a video stream, the video stream including at least one person ([0017-0019], Ramalingamoorthy discloses a user interface including a display to view a video stream.);
receiving an indication from the user to tag the at least one person ([0038], [0045], Ramalingamoorthy discloses the ability to tag a person of interest in a video, which includes tagging with a descriptive indicator.),
Ramalingamoorthy does not explicitly disclose the indication including an action to associate with the at least one person; generating an audible description of the at least one person; generating an audible description of the action; and broadcasting the audible description of the at least one person and the audible description of the action.
PNG
media_image1.png
399
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
397
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Viisights discloses the indication including an action to associate with the at least one person (Viisights discloses tracking and annotating individuals in security footage. The Examiner notes that several of the annotations associate an action that the person in the footage is performing (i.e., 0:23 – a person “loitering” near an action, 0:53 – a person “falling”). The Examiner notes that “including an action to associate with the at least one person” is interpreted as an action which is being performed by an individual (as opposed to an action which should be performed to the individual).);
[AltContent: textbox (Screenshots from Viisights Suspicious Activity product page (https://www.viisights.com/products/wise/suspicious-activity/))]
Ramalingamoorthy and Viisights are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing video streams for marking persons of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ramalingamoorthy such that the tagging produced by Ramalingamoorthy incorporated the action description obtained by Viisights. The motivation for this combination being the ability to associate important information during the tagging process which can be beneficial to officers/security personnel when a person needs to be identified.
Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights does not explicitly teach generating an audible description of the at least one person; generating an audible description of the action; and broadcasting the audible description of the at least one person and the audible description of the action.
Lo discloses generating an audible description of the at least one person; generating an audible description of the action; and broadcasting the audible description of the at least one person and the audible description of the action (Col 5, lines 62-67, Col 6, lines 46-67, Col 7, lines 1-5, Lo discloses outputting an audible alert to an officer (e.g., “potential suspect wearing red hat, processing further.”, “unknown person approaching from behind” or “suspect detected in Officer Smith’s vicinity, 100 yards to the east”. Also note [0036], wherein Ramalingamoorthy discloses delivering an audible message.).
Ramalingamoorthy, Viisights, and Lo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing video streams for marking persons of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights such that the tagged description and action (as taught by Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights) are used to produce and output an audible description using the methods disclosed by Lo. The motivation for this combination being the ability to increase the methods in which data and alerts can be transmitted.
Claims 7 and 13 are the system and non-transitory processor readable medium claims corresponding to claim 1, and are similarly rejected (see [0016, Ramalingamoorthy).
Regarding Claim 3, Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the indication of the action is the user drawing a symbol on a screen displaying the video stream ([0043], Ramalingamoorthy discloses drawing a circle over the individual who is to be tagged.).
Claims 9 and 15 are the system and non-transitory processor readable medium claims corresponding to claim 3, and are similarly rejected (see [0016, Ramalingamoorthy).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Rubery and Springer (US 2024/0144682; hereinafter “Rubery”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo does not explicitly teach wherein the action is at least one of monitor and apprehend.
Rubery discloses wherein the action is at least one of monitor and apprehend ([0031], Rubery discloses flagging a person of interest to monitor and address.).
Ramalingamoorthy, Viisights, Lo, and Rubery are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing video streams for marking persons of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo such that the actions which are associated with the tagging process (as taught by Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo) incorporate the specific actions of monitoring and addressing as disclosed by Rubery. The motivation for this combination being the ability to increase the domain of different actions which can be associated with an individual during the tagging process, improving the amount of information which can be provided to other officers/security personnel regarding a person of interest.
Claims 8 and 14 are the system and non-transitory processor readable medium claims corresponding to claim 2, and are similarly rejected (see [0016, Ramalingamoorthy).
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Danielsson and Hansson (US 2018/0107880; hereinafter “Danielsson”).
Regarding Claim 4, Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
tracking the at least one person that has been tagged ([0029-0032], Ramalingamoorthy discloses tracking an individual across frames of a video stream.);
Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo does not explicitly teach providing an update when an appearance of the at least one person that has been tagged has changed (The Examiner notes [0031] wherein Ramalingamoorthy discloses that “different appearances of the same person” can be tracked and correlated.).
Danielsson discloses providing an update when an appearance of the at least one person that has been tagged has changed ([0019-0020], [0038], Danielsson discloses continuously updating an identification profile associated with an individual as their appearance changes.).
Ramalingamoorthy, Viisights, Lo, and Danielsson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing and monitoring video streams. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo such that the tracking of individuals incorporated Danielsson’s disclosure of tracking individuals as their appearances change. The motivation for this combination being the ability to continue to track an individual of interest even if they change their appearance, increasing the functionality and effectiveness of the tracking system.
Claims 10 and 16 are the system and non-transitory processor readable medium claims corresponding to claim 4, and are similarly rejected (see [0016, Ramalingamoorthy).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Whitaker et al. (US 2023/0089720; hereinafter “Whitaker”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo does not teach wherein the audible description of the at least one person includes a non-visual characteristic of the at least one person.
Whitaker discloses wherein the audible description of the at least one person includes a non-visual characteristic of the at least one person ([0076], Whitaker discloses obtaining additional information regarding a person of interest from external data sources (e.g., information regarding whether the individual has past history of crimes).).
Ramalingamoorthy, Viisights, Lo, and Whitaker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing and monitoring video streams. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo such that the audible description generated (as taught by Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo) also includes the incorporation of external non-visual information as disclosed by Whitaker. The motivation for this combination being the ability to provide additional information which may be beneficial to identifying a person of interest.
Claims 11 and 17 are the system and non-transitory processor readable medium claims corresponding to claim 5, and are similarly rejected (see [0016], Ramalingamoorthy).
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Whitaker in view of Goldstein and Strauss (US 2023/0417919; hereinafter “Goldstein”).
Regarding Claim 6, Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Whitaker teaches the claim 5.
Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Whitaker does not explicitly teach wherein the non-visual characteristic of the at least one person is at least one of armed and violent (The Examiner notes that Whitaker discloses providing information about a person of interest from external data sources, including, for example, if an individual has been repeatedly arrested for breaking and entering (i.e., violent).).
Goldstein discloses wherein the non-visual characteristic of the at least one person is at least one of armed and violent ([0320], Goldstein discloses utilizing non-visual information to determine if an individual who is armed and dangerous.).
Ramalingamoorthy, Viisights, Lo, Whitaker, and Goldstein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of identifying persons of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Whitaker such that the non-visual information obtained by Ramalingamoorthy in view of Viisights in view of Lo in view of Whitaker further included Goldstein’s disclosure for classifying someone as armed and dangerous. The motivation for this combination being the ability to increase the information which can be provided to an officer and/or security personnel to help aid in identifying a person of interest.
Claims 12 and 18 are the system and non-transitory processor readable medium claims corresponding to claim 6, and are similarly rejected (see [0016], Ramalingamoorthy).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights