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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirements. The specification describes the claimed subject matter only at a high level and does not adequately demonstrate possession of, or enable person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use without undue experimentation, the full scope of the claimed inventions, including response-based generation of deterrence actions using an LLM, objective determination of success or failure, training using successful and unsuccessful deterrence actions, and implementation across the breadth of the recited sensor and output device configurations. It would cause undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, 19, 21, 24, and 28 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.
The limitation of “response to the first deterrence action”, in claims 1, 8, and 21 is
because the claims do not clearly or define what constitutes a “response,” including whether the response to the deterrence is i.e., physical, verbal, or inferred etc., nor does it state the manner or timing by which such response is determined. How is the response measured. It is not clear.
The limitation of “expected response” in claims 6 and 13 is indefinite because the claims do not recite who or what determines the expected response, how the expected response is established, or what is the criteria used to determine whether the response has occurred. It is unclear and indefinite for the reasons stated above.
The limitation of “greater deterrence” in claim 21 is indefinite because what is it being measured by or what is the deterrence being compared to. What are the metes and bounds of this limitation. This is also very unclear.
The limitation of “unsuccessful” in claims 15 and 16 is indefinite because the claims do not recite objective criteria for determining when a deterrence action is unsuccessful, nor do they define the relevant success metric or threshold.
The limitation of “deterrence action”, as stated within most of the claims only describes an intended use based upon the purpose or function of applicant’s claimed invention rather than its physical structure. Thus, this renders the claim scope unclear in light of the specification.
The phrased “based upon” in claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 24, and 25, does not clearly define what is required between the recited inputs and outputs.
The limitation of a “default deterrence” in claim 2, is not clearly define. What is the specific degree of metrics or the metes and bounds of this limitation?
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are not sufficiently clear. Furthermore, the scope of the claims is not reasonably certain and the claims thus fail to comply with the requirements of 35 USC 112(b).
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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see below).
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 recites a method of executing a first deterrence action, determining a response to the first deterrence action, generating a second deterrence action using a large language model, and executing the second deterrence action. Claims 8, 15, 21, and 28 recite similar concepts in system or training form.
The claims are interpreted broadly but reasonably in light of the specification. The claims encompass using sensor data to detect a person, determining a response to a deterrence action, and generating a subsequent deterrence action based on the detected person, the person’s actions, or the response, using an LLM.
Step 2A, Prong One: Whether the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception
The claims recite abstract ideas, including:
Mental processes:
determining a response to a deterrence action;
evaluating whether an expected response occurred;
generating a subsequent deterrence action based on observed characteristics or actions;
training an LLM using examples of successful and unsuccessful deterrence actions.
Certain methods of organizing human activity:
deterring suspected trespassers, loiterers, or intruders;
selecting and escalating warning or deterrence messages to influence human behavior.
Data collection, analysis, and output generation:
detecting a person using sensor data;
analyzing characteristics or actions of the person;
generating a response using an LLM;
executing the generated response.
These limitations amount to information gathering, analysis, and decision-making performed to influence human behavior, which are all abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Whether the Claims Integrate the Exception into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional elements, including a camera, sensor devices, output devices, one or more processors, memory, and an LLM, are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions.
Rather, the claims apply the abstract idea of behavioral deterrence using generic computer and camera components as tools.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Whether the Claims Recite Significantly More
The claims do not recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recited components are conventional and generic, including cameras, processors, memory, sensors, output devices, and an LLM. Merely using an LLM to generate a deterrence action does not provide an inventive concept, because it is no more than using a generic computing tool to perform abstract content generation and control functions.
The claimed training of an LLM using successful and unsuccessful deterrence actions likewise amounts to routine model training and optimization, which is a well-understood and conventional activity in the field of machine learning.
Therefore, the claims as a whole are directed to no more than an abstract idea implemented on generic computer components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuro (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2006-185127) in view of Pfeiffer, US PG Pub 20240331336 A1.
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, 21, and 28, Tatsuro discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Tatsuro discloses a method comprising: executing, by a camera, a first deterrence action (see Tatsuro, page 6); determining, by the camera, a response to the first deterrence action (see Tatsuro, page 6, para. 5). However, Tatsuro does not explicitly disclose generating, using a large language model (LLM), a second deterrence action; and executing, by the camera, the second deterrence action.
But, it the same field of endeavor, Pfeiffer discloses generating, using a large language model (LLM), a second deterrence action (see Pfeiffer, para.0021, 0031 and 0042, The memory 112a may include an AI model 113a. The AI model 113a may be applied to or otherwise process data from the camera 110a, the radar sensor 114a, and/or the microphone 118a to detect and/or identify one or more objects (e.g., people, animals, vehicles, shipping packages or other deliveries, or the like), one or more events (e.g., arrivals, departures, weather conditions, crimes, property damage, or the like), and/or other conditions. For example, the cameras 110 may determine a likelihood that an object 170, such as a package, vehicle, person, or animal, is within an area (e.g., a geographic area, a property, a room, a field of view of the first camera 110a, a field of view of the second camera 110b, a field of view of another sensor, or the like) based on data from the first camera 110a, the second camera 110b, and/or other sensors. In some embodiments, the security system 101 and/or security device may perform initiate, or otherwise coordinate an action selected to deter a detected person (e.g., to deter the person from the area and/or property, to deter the person from damaging property and/or committing a crime, or the like), to deter an animal, or the like. For example, based on a setting and/or mode, in response to failing to identify an identity of a person (e.g., an unknown person, an identity failing to match a profile of an occupant or known user in a library, based on facial recognition, based on bio-identification, or the like), and/or in response to determining a person is engaged in suspicious behavior and/or has performed a suspicious action, or the like, the cameras 110 may perform, initiate, or otherwise coordinate an action to deter the detected person. In some implementations, the cameras 110 may determine that a combination of data and/or determinations from multiple sensors indicates that the detected human is, has, intends to, and/or may otherwise perform one or more suspicious acts, from a set of predefined suspicious acts or the like, such as crawling on the ground, creeping, running away, picking up a package, touching an automobile and/or other vehicle, opening a door of an automobile and/or other vehicle, looking into a window of an automobile and/or other vehicle, opening a mailbox, opening a door, opening a window, throwing an object, or the like.); and executing, by the camera, the second deterrence action (see Pfeiffer, para.0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention to have incorporated Pfeiffer’s teachings of a home automation system that includes a plurality of sensors to monitor a premises utilizing AI models and past images and videos with the system of Tatsuro. One would have been motivated to combine the two inventions in order to more accurately provide interpretation or processing of image data to detect present and future intruders or trespassers.
Regarding claim 2, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first deterrence action is a default deterrence action (see Tatsuro, page 2, teaches different security levels and specific actions that are taken and see Pfeiffer, para. 0112).
Regarding claim 3, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising detecting a person, wherein executing the first deterrence action is in response to detecting the person (see Tatsuro, pages 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 3, wherein generating, using the LLM, the second deterrence action includes generating, using the LLM, the second deterrence action based on one or more characteristics of the person (see Pfeiffer, para. 0085).
Regarding claim 5, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 3, wherein generating, using the LLM, the second deterrence action includes generating, using the LLM, the second deterrence action based on one or more actions of the person (see Pfeiffer, para. 0085).
Regarding claim 6, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the response to the first deterrence action includes determining whether the first deterrence action resulted in an expected response (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 7, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating, using the LLM, the second deterrence action includes generating, using the LLM, the second deterrence action based on the response to the first deterrence action (see Pfeiffer, para. 0085).
Claims 8 and 28 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 8 and 28. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of one or more processor (see Tatsuro, page 13, 2, processor) and a memory (see Tatsuro, page 4, para. 4, page. 7, para. 9) in communication with the at least one processor and storing.
Claim 21 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitations of using data captured by the one or more sensor devices, a person within an environment (see Tatsuro, page 7, para. 5, page 8, para. 5).
Claims 9, 10 and 22 list all the same elements of claims 2 and 3, but in electronic device form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 2 and 3 applies equally as well to claims 9, 10 and 22.
Claim 11, 12, 23 and 24 are substantially the same as claims 4 and 5 and is thus rejected for reasons similar to those in rejecting claims 11, 12 and 23.
Claim 13, 14, 25 and 26 are substantially the same as claims 6 and 7 and is thus rejected for reasons similar to those in rejecting claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 15, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses a method comprising: generating a first training set including deterrence actions; training a large language model (LLM) using the first training set; generating a second training set using deterrence actions generated by the LLM that were unsuccessful; and training the LLM using the second training set (see Pfeiffer, para. 0042, 0054, 0075, 0120-0125).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 15, wherein the first training set includes labels indicating whether the deterrence actions were successful (see Pfeiffer, teachings of specific threshold equate to success and unsuccessful deterrence action levels).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 15, wherein the first training set includes videos of the deterrence actions being executed in response to detecting a person (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 18, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the videos are artificially generated (see Pfeiffer, para.0028).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 15, further comprising identifying the deterrence actions generated by the LLM that were unsuccessful based on user input (see rejection of claim 15 and 16, above).
Regarding claim 20, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising identifying the deterrence actions generated by the LLM that were unsuccessful using an artificial intelligence model executed on a camera (see rejection of claim 15 and 16, above).
Regarding claim 27, Tatsuro-Pfeiffer discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the one or more output devices include the camera (see Tatsuro, item 112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William C Vaughn, Jr can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights