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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on June 15, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 101 have also been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the operations in the claims “cannot be practically performed in the human mind” because generating a computer-vision visualization and displaying it on a graphical user interface allegedly requires complex computing.
Although the claim invokes a “computer vision processor of a camera,” that generic technological setting does not remove the underlying geometric and information-analysis operations from the abstract-idea inquiry. The processor is claimed functionally “generating … a track,” “determining” positions, “detecting” crossing, and “generating … a visualization”—without reciting a particular image-processing technique, tracking architecture, camera-sensor configuration, data representation, or computational mechanism that improves the camera or computer-vision processor itself. Claims directed to receiving, storing, manipulating, and displaying visual data as abstract where the claims did not recite a technical improvement in the underlying technology.
Applicants also argue that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the visualization purportedly improves surveillance technology by providing “proactive visual intelligence” to security personnel. The argument of “proactive visual intelligence” is an improvement in the usefulness of information provided to a person, such as making events easier for security personnel to find or investigate. Improved presentation of information to a user, including allegedly saving review time, does not by itself establish an improvement in the functioning of the camera, processor, or surveillance system. The claim does not recite a technological improvement to surveillance equipment, computer vision, or networked camera functionality.
The 2024 AI update identifies Example 47’s eligible claim as one that applies an AI-based detection result to a concrete technical field—network intrusion detection—through steps that identify malicious traffic, block or drop that traffic, and thereby remediate the identified computer-network threat. The claim in Example 47 did not merely label or display an anomaly. It used the result of the detection to take a concrete technological action in the computer-network environment: it blocked future traffic associated with the source of malicious packets. The claim changed operation of the network-security system in response to the detection result.
Claim 1 does not use the line-crossing result to alter operation of the camera, a network, a physical access-control apparatus, or another technological system. It merely generates and displays a visualization. A user may later review the displayed visualization and decide what action, if any, to take, but that is not a claimed automated technical remediation. Thus, allowing a user to “quickly find meaningful events and save time during critical investigations” is an informational or human-decision-support benefit, not a recited improvement in the technological functioning of surveillance equipment. Accordingly, the recitations of claim 1 do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application merely because the information could assist a user.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 15 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
generating, by a computer vision processor of a camera, a track of an object from image frames depicting the object;
receiving coordinates of a reference line from a user device;
determining a first position of the object relative to the reference line based on the track;
defining a first parallel line and a second parallel line, wherein the first parallel line and the second parallel line are each parallel to the reference line, and wherein the first parallel line and the second parallel line are positioned on different sides of the reference line;
capturing another image frame of the object;
determining a second position of the object relative to the reference line based on the other image frame;
determining a difference between the first position and the second position;
detecting that the object crossed the reference line from the first parallel line to the second parallel line based on the difference between the first position and the second position;
generating, by the computer vision processor, a visualization of the object crossing the reference line; and
displaying the visualization on a graphical user interference of a user device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers gathering and analyzing data and a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “generating . . . a track of an object” step encompasses a mathematical concept of data transformation. The “receiving coordinate of a reference line” step encompasses data acquisition. The “determining a first position of the object relative to the reference line” step encompasses a mathematical concept of coordinate calculation. The “defining a first parallel line and a second parallel line” step encompasses a geometric computation constructing parallel lines. The “capturing another image frame of the object” step encompasses a human physical act of taking a picture. The “determining a second position of the object” step encompasses a geometric computation. The “determining a difference between the first position and the second position” step encompasses a numerical computation. The “detecting that the object crossed the reference line . . . based on the difference” step encompasses a mental evaluation and decision. The claimed “visualization” and GUI-display limitations merely present the result of that analysis. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
generating, by a computer vision processor of a camera, a track of an object from image frames depicting the object;
receiving coordinates of a reference line from a user device;
determining a first position of the object relative to the reference line based on the track;
defining a first parallel line and a second parallel line, wherein the first parallel line and the second parallel line are each parallel to the reference line, and wherein the first parallel line and the second parallel line are positioned on different sides of the reference line;
capturing another image frame of the object;
determining a second position of the object relative to the reference line based on the other image frame;
determining a difference between the first position and the second position; and
detecting that the object crossed the reference line from the first parallel line to the second parallel line based on the difference between the first position and the second position;
generating, by the computer vision processor, a visualization of the object crossing the reference line; and
displaying the visualization on a graphical user interference of a user device.
.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “by a computer vision processor of a camera” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the determining by a computer vision processor of a camera is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Although the claim invokes a “computer vision processor of a camera,” that generic technological setting does not remove the underlying geometric and information-analysis operations from the abstract-idea inquiry. The computer vision processor of a camera is claimed generically and operates in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation -because the claims fail to amount to significantly more]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 1-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 8-14 and 15-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons of claims 1-7.
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, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0169560 to Johansson in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0027242 to Venetianer et al. (hereinafter “Venetianer”).
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, Johansson discloses generating, by a computer vision processor of a camera, a track of an object from image frames depicting the object (see paragraph [0007]: The method comprises determining from images of the scene captured by the motion video camera if an object image crosses the predetermined first line, calculating a size value relating to the size of the object image crossing the predetermined first line);
defining a first parallel line and a second parallel line, wherein the first parallel line and the second parallel line are each parallel to the reference line, and wherein the first parallel line and the second parallel line are positioned on different sides of the reference line (see paragraph [0009] and claim 8: a predetermined first line and a predetermined second line that are virtual lines (a detection line pair), wherein each line is defined by at least two coordinates representing positions within the scene. The first and second predetermined lines may be defined in the scene so that they are closer to each other at image elements in the scene representing positions);
capturing another image frame of the object; determining a second position of the object relative to the reference line based on the other image frame (see paragraph [0007]: The method comprises determining from images of the scene captured by the motion video camera if an object image crosses the predetermined first line, calculating a size value relating to the size of the object image crossing the predetermined first line);
determining a difference between the first position and the second position; detecting that the object crossed the reference line from the first parallel line to the second parallel line based on the difference between the first position and the second position (see paragraph [0012]: the object crossing event signal is generated when the relation between calculated size of the object and the line distance).
Johansson does not explicitly teach receiving coordinates of a reference line from a user device.
Venetianer discloses a step that permits a user to enter various parameters relating to how the system will gather, respond to, and report data. First, a user may superimpose one or more lines of interest on the image; these lines will serve as one or more tripwires. The lines may be of any orientation and may be placed almost anywhere in the image; the exception is that the lines may not occur too close to image boundaries because the object (e.g., person) crossing the line must be at least partially visible on both sides of the line for detection to occur. The system operates to collect and analyze data 74. If the user has entered a time window, the system starts processing when it is within this time window. When it detects a tripwire event (of a particular type, if specified by the user), it is logged along with accompanying information; types of accompanying information will become apparent below in the discussion of data reporting. (See paragraphs [0062] and [0079]).
Johansson does not explicitly teach determining a first position of the object relative to the reference line based on the track.
Venetianer discloses a location of a FG object is then tested 741 to determine if it overlaps a line representing a tripwire 742 (See paragraph [0073]).
Johansson does not explicitly teach generating, by the computer vision processor, a visualization of the object crossing the reference line; and displaying the visualization on a graphical user interface of a user device.
Venetianer discloses a system determines “insalient” image regions, i.e., regions in which there are too many confusing objects to track objects reliably. As a result, only objects that can be tracked with high confidence are used; in one embodiment of the invention, these are the only objects that are stored. (See paragraph [0055]). Sample screen shots of illustrative reporting displays, in an exemplary embodiment. FIG. 12 shows summary information 121 about crossings of a tripwire 124 spanning a corridor. In this particular illustration, the screen shows live video 123 of the area including tripwire 124. (See paragraph [0077]). The system begins by detecting that a person is entering, or is about to enter, through the entrance 141. This may be accomplished by any number of means; for example, one may have to enter money, enter a code on a keypad, or swipe a card through a card reader, or the system may use a video-based detection method to visually detect the opening of the entrance (this would have the advantage of not requiring an interface with external equipment (card reader, keypad, or the like), which may make for easier installation and implementation in some environments). (See paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the user configuration of a virtual tripwire of Venetianer with the motion-video crossing and display of Johansson to provide a surveillance camera system that a user configures virtual tripwire coordinates, the camera/video analytics system can process successive frames and object location, a pair of lines or boundary region is used to improve crossing event reliability and the system display the event results.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 10 and 16, Johansson discloses wherein detecting that the object crossed the reference line comprises: determining that the object is closer to the reference line than the object is to the second parallel line (see paragraph [0010]: The determining of a line distance may include calculating a position along the predetermined second line having the shortest distance to the contact point of the object with the predetermined first line.); and
after determining that the object is closer to the reference line than the object is to the second parallel line, determining that the object is closer to the second parallel line than the object is to the reference line (see abstract: setting a line distance value to a value calculated from the distance between a contact point of the object with the predetermined first line and a nearby point on a predetermined second line. (see paragraph [0012]: the object crossing event signal is generated when the relation between calculated size of the object and the line distance).
With respect to dependent claims 5, 12 and 18, Johansson does not explicitly teach detecting that the object crossed the reference line from the second parallel line to the first parallel line.
Venetianer discloses if said step of determining if a detected object overlaps the at least one virtual tripwire returns a positive result, determining if a direction of crossing matches a direction of crossing entered by a user. (See claim 30).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the object’s crossing direction that matches a direction entered by a user of Venetianer with the two-line configuration and crossing-event detection of Johansson to accurately distinguish between an object entering and leaving for classification of either direction of travel.
With respect to dependent claims 6, 13 and 19, Johansson does not explicitly teach determining a number of times the object crossed the reference line.
Venetianer discloses analyzing the data obtained from the sensing device to determine if the at least one virtual tripwire has been crossed; and triggering a response to a virtual tripwire crossing. one may be interested in how many people, but not dogs, walk down a path; however, either a person or a dog would trigger the tripwire. (See abstract and paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the virtual-tripwire crossing for a triggering counter of Venetianer with the reliable detection line crossing event to identify the event of Johansson that would be counted to provide a number of times an object crossed the reference line for routine surveillance analytics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights