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 Nonfinal Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed 07/08/2026. Claims 1-24 are currently pending and considered herein.
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 1-4, 6-11 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A system for detecting an unknown object in a region of interest, the system comprising: an image sensor; a microphone; and a controller coupled to the image sensor and the microphone for receiving a vocal instruction from a caregiver and for analyzing images from the image sensor in response to the vocal instruction, the controller configured to detect and identify the unknown object within the analyzed images, wherein the identity of the object is provided in the vocal instruction and the controller identifies the unknown object based on the identity provided in the vocal instruction.
Claim 20 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A method of detecting and monitoring an unknown object within a region of interest, the method comprising: acquiring images from an image sensor; using a microphone to receive a vocal instruction from a caregiver, the vocal instruction identifying the region of interest in which the unknown object is located; using a controller to analyze images from the image sensor in response to the vocal instruction; detecting and identifying the unknown object within the region of interest within the analyzed images; and monitoring the object according to a monitoring protocol.
Claim 11 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A system for detecting an object within a region of interest, the system comprising: an image sensor; and a controller coupled to the image sensor for receiving images, the controller receiving an instruction from a caregiver, the instruction identifying the region of interest in which the object may be located within the analyzed images, wherein the controller is configured to monitor the region of interest according to a monitoring protocol by analyzing images from the image sensor in order to detect the object within the region of interest, wherein the region of interest is a region within the analyzed images that is less than the field of view of the image sensor.
Claim 21 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A system for monitoring a region of interest, the system comprising: an image sensor capturing images including the region of interest; and a controller coupled to the image sensor for receiving the images, the controller is configured to: analyze the images to detect and read a marker, the marker including information; look up a pre-stored monitoring protocol associated with the information; and monitor the region of interest according to the monitoring protocol by analyzing images from the image sensor.
The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of collecting patient information including related images and commanding a region of interest be further monitored, and making detections based on the analyses.
The limitations of “detecting an unknown object in a region of interest, receiving a vocal instruction from a caregiver and for analyzing images in response to the vocal instruction, and to detect and identify the unknown object within the analyzed images, wherein the identity of the object is provided in the vocal instruction, and identifies the unknown object based on the identity provided in the vocal instruction,” as drafted in claims 1, and “detecting an object within a region of interest, receiving images, receiving an instruction from a caregiver, the instruction identifying the region of interest in which the object may be located within the analyzed images, and wherein to monitor the region of interest according to a monitoring protocol by analyzing images in order to detect the object within the region of interest, wherein the region of interest is a region within the analyzed images that is less than the field of view of the image sensor” as drafted in claim 11, and “acquiring images ; receiv[ing] a vocal instruction from a caregiver, the vocal instruction identifying the region of interest in which the unknown object is located; analyz[ing] images from the image sensor in response to the vocal instruction; detecting and identifying the unknown object within the region of interest within the analyzed images; and monitoring the object according to a monitoring protocol,” in claim 20, and “capturing images including the region of interest; and receiving the images, analyz[ing] the images to detect and read a marker, the marker including information; look up a pre-stored monitoring protocol associated with the information; and monitor the region of interest according to the monitoring protocol by analyzing images from the image sensor,” as drafted in claim 21 is/are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic computer system reciting an image sensor, microphone and controller, the claim recites an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. The claim recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity because the limitations include a method that allows users to access myriad patient or caregiver image data, analyze the image data and determine whether certain conditions are met based on the analyses. This is a method of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer system, image sensor, microphone and controller does not take the claims out of the method of organizing human interactions grouping. The additional limitations amount to computer methods for further implementing the abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims also recited an abstract idea including mental processes. But for the generic computer system reciting an image sensor, microphone and controller, nothing in the claims is precluded from being performed in the mind. For example, a caregiver can collect the patient image sensor data and analyze a region of interest and then monitor that region of interest in a specific protocol. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic computer system reciting an image sensor, microphone and controller. The computer and/or medical or imaging and vocal devices and functions in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying selected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (i.e., to control sending or receiving of data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional element generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations seem to monopolize the abstract idea of patient image analysis and diagnoses and general techniques between a physician and her patient, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer system reciting an image sensor, microphone and controller amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer and imaging environment. Furthermore, the generic image sensor and microphone generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea (judicial exception). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea. Claims 2-3 specify a monitoring protocol and further limits the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 6 describe a central database, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the central database does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 16 describes identifying an unknown object and provided by a voice command and limits the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 17 describe voice recognition, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the voice recognition does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 8-10, 13 and 23-24 define a region of interest and further limits the abstract idea. Claim 14 describes a microphone, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the microphone does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 15 describes a protocol and limits the abstract idea. Claims 18-19 detail a prompt given to a caregiver and limits the abstract idea. Claim 22 details information associated with an object or marker and limits the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0292170 A1 to Khadloya et al., hereinafter “Khadloya,” in view of U.S. 2025/0299550 A1 to Boulanger et al., hereinafter “Boulanger” and further in view of U.S. 2016/0110160 A1 to Declerck et al., hereinafter “Declerck.”
Regarding claim 1, Khadloya discloses A system for detecting an unknown object in a region of interest, the system comprising: an image sensor; a microphone (See Khadloya at least at Abstract; Paras. [0025]-[0026] (microphones), [0033]-[0039] (image sensor), [0053]-[0054]; Figs. 1-10) and the controller configured to detect and identify the unknown object within the analyzed images (See id. at least at Paras. [0033]-[0039] (“[T]he image sensor 114 to detect objects in the environment, capture motion information about the detected objects, track and classify objects in the environment, […] a module or function of the image sensor 114 can be or can include image analysis to determine if motion exists in the environment (e.g., by comparing changes in pixel information from a series of frames acquired by the image sensor 114), or can include image analysis to determine if a human form, or a particular human or other object, is present in the field of view of the image sensor 114. In response to motion or a positive identification or a human or other object, the image sensor 114 or the image processor circuit 116 can generate an event indication that can, among other things, cause video information corresponding to the event to be recorded or displayed to a user, such as a system administrator, such as for authentication or validation […] Any image or video that is passed into the face recognition engine, such as from the image sensor 114, can be processed […] If a face is detected but not determined to be part of an enrolled list of users, then the face recognition engine can return an unknown face detected event.”), [0046] (image recognition and audio signature recognition), [0049] (microcontroller), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10).
Khadloya may not specifically describe but Boulanger teaches a controller coupled to the image sensor and the microphone for receiving a vocal instruction from a caregiver (See Boulanger at least at Abstract; Paras. [0025]-[0027] (voice instruction), [0033], [0038]-[0044], [0072]-[0078] (controller, image sensors, microphone), [0108]-[0110] (commands and objects of interest), [0120]-[0123] (“a user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system (e.g., only high-level critical events generate alerts), or an alteration of one or more distress parameters (e.g., the duration of time for an object to remain submerged without generating an alert may be changed by a user command.”); Claims 6, 8; Figs. 1-12; See also Khadloya at least at Paras. [0034]-[0039] (“The first system 100 can use information from the audio sensor 110 or the image sensor 114 to detect objects in the environment, capture motion information about the detected objects, track and classify objects in the environment, and detect and recognize sounds. In response, the processor circuit 118 can use a rules-based framework to determine whether to sound an alarm or alert a particular system operator or user.”), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10) and for analyzing images from the image sensor in response to the vocal instruction (See Boulanger at least at Abstract; Paras. [0021], [0072]-[0078] (controller, image sensors, microphone), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest and receiving verbal cues for analyzing images or changing operating parameters), [0120]-[0123] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include […] verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system (e.g., only high-level critical events generate alerts), or an alteration of one or more distress parameters (e.g., the duration of time for an object to remain submerged without generating an alert may be changed by a user command.)”); Figs. 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide analyzing images and voice commands. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy of the claimed system and method for detecting unknown objects proximate a patient.
The references may not specifically describe but Declerk teaches wherein the identity of the object is provided in the vocal instruction and the controller (See Declerck at Para. [0083] (processor is the controller)) identifies the unknown object based on the identity provided in the vocal instruction (See Declerck at least at Paras. [0005] (identifying abnormal patterns), [0021]-[0029] (“[A]utomatic determination of possible descriptions for possible regions of interest represented in patient functional data using an awareness of which possible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician […] the method of the present invention employs a voice controlled system to support the identification of features.” Identity of object/feature.), [0032]-[0037] (“The voice controlled system interprets the received comment and automatically identifies the most-likely segmented feature the clinician is referring to from the received voice description.”), [0040]-[0045], [0054] (suspected/unknown object lymph node), [0065]; Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Declerck and provide verbal control of an imaging system. Declerck is directed to context-sensitive identification of regions of interest and suspected objects. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck with the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy for detecting regions of interest and unknown objects.
Regarding claim 2, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Boulanger further teaches wherein the controller monitors the object according to a monitoring protocol (See Boulanger at least at Paras. [0005]-[0006] (determine objects, object identifier, status data based on image data or object identifier), [0008], [0031]-[0033] (monitoring gestures and changing monitoring protocol), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest and receiving verbal cues for analyzing images or changing operating parameters), [0115]-[0123] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system.”); Claim 6; Figs 1-10; See also Khadloya at least at Paras. [0035], [0039]-[0044], [0051]-[0054] (visually detected objects and determining an event and missing objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide analyzing images and monitoring objects based on a monitoring protocol. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby improve identifying unknown objects.
Regarding claim 3, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 2 and Boulanger further teaches wherein the monitoring protocol is provided in the vocal instruction (See Boulanger at least at Paras. [0031], [0115], [0120] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system), or inputted commands.”), [0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide analyzing images and monitoring objects once alerted. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would improve efficiency for an image recognition system.
Regarding claim 4, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 2 and Boulanger further teaches wherein, upon identifying the previously unknown object, the controller is configured to retrieve the monitoring protocol from a central database based on the identity of the previously unknown object (See Boulanger at least at Paras. [0005]-[0006] (determine objects, object identifier, status data based on image data or object identifier), [0008], [0031]-[0033] (monitoring gestures or objects and changing monitoring protocol), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest and receiving verbal cues for analyzing images or changing operating parameters), [0115] (Modes of operations changing based on “an unapproved or unidentified object breeching a perimeter or fencing of environment, an object running on wet pavement, an object jumping or diving on another object […] an object breaching a boundary or exceeding a proximity threshold, and the like.”), [0116]-[0123] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system.”), [0168]; Claims 6 (monitoring parameters stored in database), 8; Figs 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide analyzing images and monitoring objects once alerted. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby improve identifying unknown objects.
Regarding claim 6, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Khdaloya further discloses wherein the controller saves data relating to the object from a plurality of views and stores the data in a central database (See Khadloya at least at Paras. [0030]-[0035] (databases, image sensor detected objects), [0039]-[0044], [0051]-[0054] (visually detected objects and determining an event and missing objects).
Regarding claim 7, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Khdaloya further discloses wherein the controller uses natural language voice recognition to deconstruct the voice instruction (See id. at least at Paras. [0030]-[0035] (algorithm for voice recognition and speech recognition and verification programs), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Declerck further teaches wherein the vocal instruction identifies the region of interest in which the unknown object is located, and wherein the controller is configured to detect and identify the unknown object within the region of interest within the analyzed images (See Declerck at least at Paras. [0005] (identifying abnormal patterns), [0021]-[0029] (“[A]utomatic determination of possible descriptions for possible regions of interest represented in patient functional data using an awareness of which possible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician […] the method of the present invention employs a voice controlled system to support the identification of features.” Identity of object/feature.), [0032]-[0037] (“The voice controlled system interprets the received comment and automatically identifies the most-likely segmented feature the clinician is referring to from the received voice description.”), [0040]-[0045], [0054] (suspected/unknown object lymph node identified verbally), [0065], [0083]; Claims 2-7, 10; Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Declerck and provide verbal control of an imaging system. Declerck is directed to context-sensitive identification of regions of interest and suspected objects. Incorporating the voice identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck with the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy detecting unknown objects.
Claims 9, 11 and 14-17 are rejected as being under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger, in view of Declerck and further in view of U.S. 2021/0358616 A1 to Falck et al., hereinafter “Falck.”
Regarding claim 9, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 8. The references may not specifically describe but Falck teaches wherein the region of interest is a region within the analyzed images that is less than the field of view of the image sensor (See Falck at least at Paras. [0052]-[0056] (“For instance, red may indicate no bed and/or patient is in the field of view 6 (or that the region of interest determined from the image data is out of the field of view) and that the position of the bed and/or patient shall be changed. Yellow may indicate a partial occlusion (or that the region of interest is partly outside the field of view) and green may indicate that the bed and the patient are fully detectable and that there are no occlusions (from people and/or objects) (or that the region of interest is fully within the field of view)”); Claim 7; Figs. 1-5; See also Boulanger at Claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya, Boulanger and Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Falck and provide analyzing images and different field of views. Falck is directed to a system for monitoring a patient. Incorporating the monitoring of a patient as in Falck with the verbal instructions for analyzing objects in a region of interest as in Declerck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy of monitoring regions or areas of interest.
Regarding claim 11, Khadloya discloses A system for detecting an object within a region of interest proximate one of a patient and a caregiver, the system comprising: an image sensor; and a controller coupled to the image sensor for receiving images (See Khadloya at least at Abstract; Paras. [0025]-[0026], [0033]-[0039] ([]The image sensor 114 to detect objects in the environment, capture motion information about the detected objects, track and classify objects in the environment, […] a module or function of the image sensor 114 can be or can include image analysis to determine if motion exists in the environment (e.g., by comparing changes in pixel information from a series of frames acquired by the image sensor 114), or can include image analysis to determine if a human form, or a particular human or other object, is present in the field of view of the image sensor 114. In response to motion or a positive identification or a human or other object, the image sensor 114 or the image processor circuit 116 can generate an event indication that can, among other things, cause video information corresponding to the event to be recorded or displayed to a user, such as a system administrator, such as for authentication or validation […] Any image or video that is passed into the face recognition engine, such as from the image sensor 114, can be processed […] If a face is detected but not determined to be part of an enrolled list of users, then the face recognition engine can return an unknown face detected event.”), [0046] (image recognition and audio signature recognition), [0049] (microcontroller), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10).
Khadloya may not specifically describe but Declerck teaches the controller receiving an instruction from a caregiver and the instruction identifying the region of interest in which the object may be located within the analyzed images (See Declerck at least at Para. [0021]-[0023] (“[A]utomatic determination of possible descriptions for possible regions of interest represented in patient functional data using an awareness of which possible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician.”), [0032]-[0037], [0040]-[0045], [0054], [0083]; Figs. 1-7).
The references may not specifically describe but Boulanger teaches wherein the controller is configured to monitor the region of interest according to a monitoring protocol by analyzing images from the image sensor in order to detect the object within the region of interest (See Boulanger at least at Paras. [0005]-[0006] (determine objects, object identifier, status data based on image data or object identifier, pool as environment and objects of interests are framed relative to that region of interest as commanded), [0008], [0033], [0038]-[0044], [0073]-[0078] (“For each frame received from all imaging modules the following process may be executed: run detector convolutional neural networks to find objects of interest (e.g., object 106), run feature extractor convolutional neural networks on detected objects to extract further detailed description of the detected objects of interest, a two-dimensional (2D) to 3D back projection algorithm to reference the images from both cameras on a common 3D coordinates system […] information associated with an object 106 (e.g., a person) within environment 107 […] system 100 may include one or more sensors 118 configured to generate surveillance data […] Surveillance data may include data or information related to environment 107 […] imaging module 102 may include a field of view (FOV) 122 that includes at least a portion of an area of interest (e.g., environment 107), where FOV is an angular extent of a scene captured in an image of imaging module.”), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest and receiving verbal cues for analyzing images or changing operating parameters), [0116]-[0123], [0133]-[0136]; Claims 6, 8; Figs 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya to incorporate the teachings of Declerck and Boulanger and provide analyzing images and environments and objects in regions of interest that are vocalized by a clinician. Declerck is directed to context-sensitive identification of regions of interest in medical images. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck with the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy of detecting unknown objects proximate a patient.
The references may not specifically describe but Falck teaches wherein the region of interest is a region within the analyzed images that is less than the field of view of the image sensor (See Falck at least at Paras. [0052]-[0056] (“For instance, red may indicate no bed and/or patient is in the field of view 6 (or that the region of interest determined from the image data is out of the field of view) and that the position of the bed and/or patient shall be changed. Yellow may indicate a partial occlusion (or that the region of interest is partly outside the field of view) and green may indicate that the bed and the patient are fully detectable and that there are no occlusions (from people and/or objects) (or that the region of interest is fully within the field of view)”); Claim 7; Figs. 1-5; See also Boulanger at Para. [0076]; Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya, Boulanger and Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Falck and provide analyzing images and different field of views. Falck is directed to a system for monitoring a patient. Incorporating the monitoring of a patient as in Falck with the verbal instructions for analyzing objects in a region of interest as in Declerck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy of detecting unknown objects proximate a patient.
Regarding claim 14, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Boulanger further teaches a microphone coupled to the controller, wherein the instruction is a vocal instruction received from the microphone (See Boulanger at least at Abstract; Paras. [0025]-[0027] (voice instruction), [0033], [0038]-[0044], [0072]-[0078] (controller, image sensors, microphone), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest), [0120]-[0123] (“a user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system (e.g., only high-level critical events generate alerts), or an alteration of one or more distress parameters (e.g., the duration of time for an object to remain submerged without generating an alert may be changed by a user command.”); See also Declerck at least at Paras. [0021]-[0040] (vocal instruction received by voice input and recognition system), [0079]; Claims 2-7, 10; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya, Declerck and Falck to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide a microphone and instruction received therefrom. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the monitoring of a patient as in Falck, the verbal instructions for analyzing objects in a region of interest as in Declerck and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would improve efficiency for an image recognition system.
Regarding claim 15, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Boulanger further teaches wherein the monitoring protocol is provided in the vocal instruction (See Boulanger at least at Paras. [0031], [0115], [0120] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system), or inputted commands.”), [0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya, Declerck and Falck to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide a microphone and instruction received therefrom. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the monitoring of a patient as in Falck, the verbal instructions for analyzing objects in a region of interest as in Declerck and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would improve efficiency for an image recognition system.
Regarding claim 16, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Declerck further teaches wherein the identity of the object is provided in the vocal instruction and the controller identifies the object based on the identity provided in the vocal instruction (See Declerck at least at Paras. [0005] (identifying abnormal patterns), [0021]-[0029] (“[A]utomatic determination of possible descriptions for possible regions of interest represented in patient functional data using an awareness of which possible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician […] the method of the present invention employs a voice controlled system to support the identification of features.” Identity of object/feature.), [0032]-[0037] (“The voice controlled system interprets the received comment and automatically identifies the most-likely segmented feature the clinician is referring to from the received voice description.”), [0040]-[0045], [0054] (suspected/unknown object identity lymph node), [0065]; Claims 2-7, 10; Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya, Boulanger and Falck to incorporate the teachings of Declerck and provide verbal control of an imaging system. Declerck is directed to context-sensitive identification of regions of interest and suspected objects. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck with the monitoring of a patient as in Falck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy for detecting regions of interest and unknown objects.
Regarding claim 17, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 14 and Khdaloya further discloses wherein the controller uses natural language voice recognition to deconstruct the voice instruction (See id. at least at Paras. [0030]-[0035] (algorithm for voice recognition and speech recognition and verification programs), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger, in view of Declerck and further in view of U.S. 2017/0193180 A1 to Kusens et al., hereinafter “Kusens.”
Regarding claim 10, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger and Declerck disclose the limitations of claim 8. The references may not specifically describe but Kusens teaches wherein the region of interest is a region of one of a patient and the caregiver (See Kusens at least at Paras. [0005], [0024], [0036]; Claims 8-10, 13-20; Figs. 1-7, 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya, Boulanger and Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Kusens and provide a region of interest including a caregiver and patient. Kusens is directed to methods and systems for audio call detection and commands. Incorporating the audio detection and monitoring as in Kusens with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the utility and applicability of detecting objects proximate a patient.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger, in view of Declerck, in view of Falck and further in view of Kusens.
Regarding claim 13, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 11. The references may not specifically describe but Kusens teaches wherein the region of interest is a body part of one of a patient and the caregiver (See id. at least at Paras. [0005], [0024], [0036]; Claims 8-10, 13-20; Figs. 1-7, 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Kusens and provide a region of interest including a caregiver and patient. Kusens is directed to methods and systems for audio call detection and commands. Incorporating the audio detection and monitoring as in Kusens with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck, the monitoring of a patient as in Falck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy for detecting regions of interest and objects near patients.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger, in view of Declerck, in view of Falck and further in view of U.S. 2020/0143643 A1 to Kusens et al., hereinafter “Kusens ‘643.”
Regarding claim 18, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 11. The references may not specifically describe but Kusens ‘643 teaches wherein, upon determining that an unknown object is located in the region of interest, the controller is configured to prompt the caregiver to define a monitoring protocol and a label for the unknown object (See Kusens ‘643 at least at Paras. [0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0034] (“On detecting the prohibited object came into close proximity to the patient, such as by entering the identification zone, the computerized communication system 212 may be configured to send an alert of the prohibited object to one or more designated recipients 220 (e.g., caregiver). In some embodiments, computerized communication system 212 may be configured to send an alert of the prohibited object to one or more designated recipients 220 only upon the computerized monitoring system 206 determining that the prohibited object is in close proximity to monitored individual 202 for a predetermined duration of time. Computerized communication system 212 may be an integral part of computerized monitoring system 206.”), [0038]-[0043] (Threshold proximity or distance. “[T]he central video monitoring system 318 and/or the attendant could then approve alert(s) to appropriate caregiver(s) 322 and/or call for emergency assistance.”), [0046]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0069]-[0070] (monitoring room or area particulars); Claims 2 (threshold), 11-14; Figs. 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Kusens ‘643 and provide a region of interest and prompting a caregiver or patient. Kusens ‘643 is directed to methods and systems for detecting prohibited objects. Incorporating the systems for detecting objects and prompting caregivers as in Kusens ‘643 with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck, the monitoring of a patient as in Falck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy for detecting regions of interest and objects near patients.
Regarding claim 19, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger, Declerck and Falck disclose the limitations of claim 11. The references may not specifically describe but Kusens ‘643 teaches wherein, upon determining that an unknown object appears in the same room as the system and exceeds one or more of a size or time threshold, the controller is configured to prompt the caregiver to define a monitoring protocol and a label for the unknown object (See Kusens ‘643 at least at Paras. [0019]-[0020], [0027]-[0034] (“On detecting the prohibited object came into close proximity to the patient, such as by entering the identification zone, the computerized communication system 212 may be configured to send an alert of the prohibited object to one or more designated recipients 220 (e.g., caregiver). In some embodiments, computerized communication system 212 may be configured to send an alert of the prohibited object to one or more designated recipients 220 only upon the computerized monitoring system 206 determining that the prohibited object is in close proximity to monitored individual 202 for a predetermined duration of time. Computerized communication system 212 may be an integral part of computerized monitoring system 206.”), [0038]-[0043] (Threshold proximity or distance. “[T]he central video monitoring system 318 and/or the attendant could then approve alert(s) to appropriate caregiver(s) 322 and/or call for emergency assistance.”), [0046]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0069]-[0070] (monitoring room or area particulars); Claims 2 (threshold), 11-14; Figs. 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Kusens ‘643 and provide a region of interest and prompting a caregiver or patient. Kusens ‘643 is directed to methods and systems for detecting prohibited objects. Incorporating the systems for detecting objects and prompting caregivers as in Kusens ‘643 with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck, the monitoring of a patient as in Falck, the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy for detecting regions of interest and objects near patients.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Declerck, in view of Boulanger.
Regarding claim 20, Declerck discloses A method of detecting and monitoring an unknown object within a region of interest, the method comprising: acquiring images from an image sensor (See Declerck at least at Paras. [0014]-[0028], [0077] (medical imaging device); Figs. 1-7); to receive a vocal instruction from a caregiver, the vocal instruction identifying the region of interest in which the unknown object is located (See Declerck at least at Paras. [0021]-[0023] (“[A]utomatic determination of possible descriptions for possible regions of interest represented in patient functional data using an awareness of which possible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician.”), [0032]-[0037], [0041]-[0045], [0054] (suspected/unknown object located in an area of interest); Claims 1-7; Figs. 1-7); and using a controller (See Declerck at Para. [0083] (processor is the controller)) to analyze images from the image sensor in response to the vocal instruction (See id. at least at Paras. [0021]-[0023] (“[P]ossible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician.”), [0032]-[0037], [0041]-[0045], [0054]; Claims 1-7; Figs. 1-7); and detecting and identifying the unknown object within the region of interest within the analyzed images (See id. at least at Paras. [0005] (identifying abnormal patterns), [0021]-[0029] (“[A]utomatic determination of possible descriptions for possible regions of interest represented in patient functional data using an awareness of which possible regions of interest are currently rendered to the screen in a display visible to the clinician, and then selecting from this list, the possible region of interest that most closely matches the verbal description given by the clinician […] the method of the present invention employs a voice controlled system to support the identification of features.” Identity of object/feature.), [0032]-[0037] (“The voice controlled system interprets the received comment and automatically identifies the most-likely segmented feature the clinician is referring to from the received voice description.”), [0040]-[0045], [0054] (suspected/unknown object lymph node identified), [0065]; Figs. 1-7; See also Boulanger at Paras. [0115] (Modes of operations changing based on “an unapproved or unidentified object breeching a perimeter or fencing of environment, an object running on wet pavement, an object jumping or diving on another object […] an object breaching a boundary or exceeding a proximity threshold, and the like.”), [0116]-[0123] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system.”), [0168]; Claims 6 (monitoring parameters stored in database), 8; Figs 1-12; See also Khadloya at least at Paras. [0033]-[0039] (“[T]he image sensor 114 to detect objects in the environment, capture motion information about the detected objects, track and classify objects in the environment, […] a module or function of the image sensor 114 can be or can include image analysis to determine if motion exists in the environment (e.g., by comparing changes in pixel information from a series of frames acquired by the image sensor 114), or can include image analysis to determine if a human form, or a particular human or other object, is present in the field of view of the image sensor 114. In response to motion or a positive identification or a human or other object, the image sensor 114 or the image processor circuit 116 can generate an event indication that can, among other things, cause video information corresponding to the event to be recorded or displayed to a user, such as a system administrator, such as for authentication or validation […] Any image or video that is passed into the face recognition engine, such as from the image sensor 114, can be processed […] If a face is detected but not determined to be part of an enrolled list of users, then the face recognition engine can return an unknown face detected event.”), [0046] (image recognition and audio signature recognition), [0049] (microcontroller), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10).
Declerck may not specifically describe but Boulanger teaches using a microphone; and monitoring the object according to a monitoring protocol (See Boulanger at least at Abstract; Paras. [0005]-[0008] (determine objects, object identifier, status data based on image data or object identifier), [0025]-[0027] (voice instruction), [0031]-[0033] (monitoring gestures and changing monitoring protocol), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest and receiving verbal cues for analyzing images or changing operating parameters), [0115] (Modes of operations changing based on “an unapproved or unidentified object breeching a perimeter or fencing of environment, an object running on wet pavement, an object jumping or diving on another object […] an object breaching a boundary or exceeding a proximity threshold, and the like.”), [0116]-[0123] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system.”), [0168]; Claims 6 (monitoring parameters stored in database), 8; Figs 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Declerck to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide analyzing images and monitoring objects using a protocol. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the verbal identification of objects and regions of interest as in Declerck would thereby improve monitoring and identifying objects in images.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger.
Regarding claim 21, Khadloya discloses A system for monitoring a region of interest, the system comprising: an image sensor capturing images including the region of interest (See Khadloya at least at Abstract; Paras. [0025]-[0026], [0033]-[0039] (image sensor), [0053]-[0054]; Figs. 1-10); and a controller coupled to the image sensor for receiving the images (See id. at least at Paras. [0033]-[0039] (“[T]he image sensor 114 to detect objects in the environment, capture motion information about the detected objects, track and classify objects in the environment, […] a module or function of the image sensor 114 can be or can include image analysis to determine if motion exists in the environment (e.g., by comparing changes in pixel information from a series of frames acquired by the image sensor 114), or can include image analysis to determine if a human form, or a particular human or other object, is present in the field of view of the image sensor 114. In response to motion or a positive identification or a human or other object, the image sensor 114 or the image processor circuit 116 can generate an event indication that can, among other things, cause video information corresponding to the event to be recorded or displayed to a user, such as a system administrator, such as for authentication or validation […] Any image or video that is passed into the face recognition engine, such as from the image sensor 114, can be processed […] If a face is detected but not determined to be part of an enrolled list of users, then the face recognition engine can return an unknown face detected event.”), [0046] (image recognition and audio signature recognition), [0049] (microcontroller), [0053]-[0060] (“[T]he audio processing engine can process audio commands received or detected by the audio sensor 110. In an example, the audio commands are selected to cause the first system 100 to operate in an assistant mode or a monitoring mode or an authentication mode.”); Figs. 1-10).
Khadloya may not specifically describe but Boulanger teaches the controller is configured to: analyze the images to detect and read a marker, the marker including information (See Boulanger at least at Paras. [0005]-[0007] (determine objects in analyzed images, object identifier (information), status data based on image data or object identifier), [0008], [0031]-[0033] (monitoring gestures or objects and changing monitoring protocol), [0044], [0073]-[0078] (“For each frame received from all imaging modules the following process may be executed: run detector convolutional neural networks to find objects of interest (e.g., object 106), run feature extractor convolutional neural networks on detected objects to extract further detailed description of the detected objects of interest, a two-dimensional (2D) to 3D back projection algorithm to reference the images from both cameras on a common 3D coordinates system […] information associated with an object 106 (e.g., a person) within environment 107 […] system 100 may include one or more sensors 118 configured to generate surveillance data […] Surveillance data may include data or information related to environment 107 […] imaging module 102 may include a field of view (FOV) 122 that includes at least a portion of an area of interest (e.g., environment 107), where FOV is an angular extent of a scene captured in an image of imaging module.”), [0108]-[0111] (commands and objects of interest and receiving verbal cues for analyzing images or changing operating parameters), [0115]-[0123], [0133]-[0136], [0168]; Claims 6, 8; Figs 1-12); and look up a pre-stored monitoring protocol associated with the information; and monitor the region of interest according to the monitoring protocol by analyzing images from the image sensor (See id. at least at Paras. [0005]-[0006] (determine objects, object identifier, status data based on image data or object identifier), [0008], [0031]-[0033] (monitoring gestures or objects and changing monitoring protocol), [0073]-[0078] (“[S]ystem 100 may include one or more sensors 118 configured to generate surveillance data […] Surveillance data may include data or information related to environment 107 […] imaging module 102 may include a field of view (FOV) 122 that includes at least a portion of an area of interest (e.g., environment 107), where FOV is an angular extent of a scene captured in an image of imaging module.”), [0108]-[0111], [0115] (Modes of operations changing based on “an unapproved or unidentified object breeching a perimeter or fencing of environment, an object running on wet pavement, an object jumping or diving on another object […] an object breaching a boundary or exceeding a proximity threshold, and the like.”), [0116]-[0123] (“[A] user command by a user may initiate or change a specific mode of operation of system 100. User command may include a command gestures (as shown in FIGS. 7A-7F), verbal commands (e.g., commands received by a microphone of system) […] user commands may adjust mode of operation of system, such as […] types of critical events being monitored by system.”); Claims 6, 8; Figs 1-12; See also Khadloya at least at Paras. [0035], [0039]-[0044], [0051]-[0054] (visually detected objects and determining an event and missing objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide an identity of an object associated with a marker that is surveilled in an environment. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would improve efficiency and accuracy for an image recognition system.
Regarding claim 22, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger disclose the limitations of claim 21 and Boulanger further teaches wherein the information includes the identity of an object associated with the marker (See Boulanger at least at Abstract; Paras. [0005]-[0008], [0038]-[0044], [0073]-[0078] (“For each frame received from all imaging modules the following process may be executed: run detector convolutional neural networks to find objects of interest (e.g., object 106), run feature extractor convolutional neural networks on detected objects to extract further detailed description of the detected objects of interest, a two-dimensional (2D) to 3D back projection algorithm to reference the images from both cameras on a common 3D coordinates system […] information associated with an object 106 (e.g., a person) within environment 107 […] system 100 may include one or more sensors 118 configured to generate surveillance data […] Surveillance data may include data or information related to environment 107 […] imaging module 102 may include a field of view (FOV) 122 that includes at least a portion of an area of interest (e.g., environment 107), where FOV is an angular extent of a scene captured in an image of imaging module.”), [0108]-[0111]; Claims 3-9; See also Khadloya at least at Paras. [0035], [0039]-[0044], [0051]-[0054] (visually detected objects and determining an event and missing objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya to incorporate the teachings of Boulanger and provide an identity of an object associated with a marker that is surveilled in an environment. Boulanger is directed to surveillance safety systems and methods. Incorporating the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger with the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would improve efficiency and accuracy for an image recognition system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger and further in view of Falck.
Regarding claim 23, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger disclose the limitations of claim 21. The references may not specifically describe but Falck teaches wherein the region of interest is a region within the analyzed images that is less than the field of view of the image sensor (See Falck at least at Paras. [0052]-[0056] (“For instance, red may indicate no bed and/or patient is in the field of view 6 (or that the region of interest determined from the image data is out of the field of view) and that the position of the bed and/or patient shall be changed. Yellow may indicate a partial occlusion (or that the region of interest is partly outside the field of view) and green may indicate that the bed and the patient are fully detectable and that there are no occlusions (from people and/or objects) (or that the region of interest is fully within the field of view)”); Claim 7; Figs. 1-5; See also Boulanger at Para. [0076], Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Falck and provide analyzing images and different field of views. Falck is directed to a system for monitoring a patient. Incorporating the monitoring of a patient as in Falck with the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy of detecting objects in or out of a field of view.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadloya, in view of Boulanger and further in view of Kusens.
Regarding claim 24, Khadloya as modified by Boulanger disclose the limitations of claim 21. The references may not specifically describe but Kusens teaches wherein the region of interest is a body part of one of a patient and the caregiver (See Kusens at least at Paras. [0005], [0024], [0036]; Claims 8-10, 13-20; Figs. 1-7, 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Khadloya and Boulanger to incorporate the teachings of Kusens and provide a region of interest including a caregiver and patient. Kusens is directed to methods and systems for audio call detection and commands. Incorporating the audio detection and monitoring as in Kusens with the surveillance systems and methods of Boulanger and the person or object identification and authentication techniques as in Khadloya would thereby increase the applicability, utility, and efficacy of detecting objects proximate a patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not entirely persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter eligibility are not persuasive. The claims have been addressed with regard to the updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection discussed above in this second Nonfinal Office Action and considered under relevant sections of the MPEP. The arguments at pages 7-14 of Applicant’s Remarks are not persuasive. At pages 7-10 the Examiner disagrees that there is not an abstract idea and not a mental process. However, the current claims are included as a mental process(es) for the judicial exception as well as organizing human activity as following rules or instructions. That it may be tedious or laborious to perform analyses in the mind or manually is not of consequence in the eligibility analysis. The controller is merely leveraged as a tool to employ the abstract idea as instructions. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The Examiner disagrees at Pages 10-14 that there is a clear technological improvement to the underlying computer/image processing systems found in the claim limitations, alone or in combination.
The Examiner compares the limitations to Example 47 from the PEG where an LLM and functions are recited at a high level, and amount to applying the exception using a generic computer component - like the claimed controller and image sensor. In Example 47, for claim 2, the “detecting” and “analyzing” were mental processes, and “using the trained ANN” (similar to software executing on a computer controller for analyzing and detecting images and objects of interest) amounted to generic computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the microphone is used to generally link the abstract idea to a particular environment and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. For at least these reasons and those stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to prior art rejections are not persuasive. The amended claims have been addressed with regard to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection discussed above. The arguments pertaining to prior art references of the Applicant’s Remarks are moot at least in light of new references Declerck and Falck and new citation to Khadloya and Boulanger. Therefore, the claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 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, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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 T. MONTICELLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights