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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2025 was filed on the mailing date of the claims on 3/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) 1-10 recite(s) claim 1: “A security assistance system comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
receive an abnormality notification from a security system of a facility set as a security target;
transmit the acquired image to a predetermined terminal.
select a camera disposed at a road nearest to the facility; acquire an image captured by the camera.”
Identifies the expectation as certain methods of organizing human activity-specifically a fundamental economic/ business practice, because the steps of receiving a notification of an event, selecting an appropriate image source, acquiring an image, and transmitting that image to an interested party are steps similar to the actions, or the processing of information and transactions, involved in a security event, which is a form of business or administrative practice organizing information or activity. For example, monitoring a premises and responding to alarms by directing surveillance resources and relaying information to security personnel is an administrative and organizational practice.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims additional elements- a memory, one or more processors, a camera, and a predetermined terminal- are recited at a high level of generality and are used merely as tools to receive, select, acquire, and transmit information, which amounts to no more than generally liking the judicial exception to a technological environment. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, camera or communication network, any improved technique for image capture, sensing, or compression, or any particular technical mechanism for determining a “nearest” camera beyond consulting stored disposition data (Specification [0016]). The additional elements do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine that is integral to the claim, do not effect a transformation of an article to a different state, and do not add any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, considered individually and as ordered combination, do no more than implement the abstract idea on generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. “A memory configured to store instructions” and “one or more processors configured to execute the instructions” are generic computing components reciting only their conventional functions of storing and executing program instructions; a “camera” capturing and providing images, and a “terminal” receiving transmitted data over a network, are likewise generic and conventional. That such generic camera-select-and-transmit hardware architectures were well-understood, routine, and conventional as of the effective filing date is independently confirmed by the prior art of record: Dronge (US 7864983) and Crawford (EP 1480178 A2) both disclose material the same processor/camera/ telecommunications-module architecture. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed Cir. 2018).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7864983, Dronge in view of EP 14801782 A2, Crawford further in view of JP 2005-316578A Takahashi [English Translation Provided].
2. Regarding Claim 1, Dronge discloses A security assistance system (Title: Security Alarm system) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Fig. 1; Col. 9 lines 28-29, “The library is embodied in memory of the on-site computer 14”); and
one or more processors (abstract, “processor… to control the camera(s) and receive the image obtained”) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive an abnormality notification from a security system of a facility set as a security target (Col. 3 lines 22-24, “a motion detector detects motion in the field of view of an associated camera which then obtains one or more images… lines 34-37, the object is classified as "no threat" and the system stays in stand-by or the object is classified as "hostile" or a threat and a message or warning is sent”);
transmit the acquired image to a predetermined terminal (Col. 2 lines 44-50, “A telecommunications module is coupled to the processor…to cause the processor to provide images to the telecommunications module to be transmitted to the telecommunications unit.”).
select a camera disposed at a road nearest to the facility; acquire an image captured by the camera (Dronge’s processor selects and activates a camera associated with the triggering sensor to acquire an image, but Dronge’s cameras are mounted at the structure itself)
Crawford is relied upon for automatic selection of the camera nearest the alarmed location, independent of whether that camera is dedicated to the alarm installation:
Crawford in Col. 7 para [0024] lines 8-9, “The nearest Security system 10 camera 48 automatically records activities at the violation location 16… col. 7 para [0025], lines 18-20, “The Security system 10 application on the workstation automatically displays the video for the nearest camera 48.”
To the extent “a road nearest to the facility” is given patentable weight beyond “nearest location,” Takahashi is additionally relied upon:
“a function for selecting the nearest security terminal from the security terminal group based on the received location information, and a map representing the location information received from the mobile terminal; Each function means with the function to output the image from the selected security terminal is provided.” See Tech-Solution in para 1.
A person having ordinary skill in the art implementing Dronge’s alarms-and-camera processor logic in program instructions executed by one or more processors, and aware of Crawford’s teaching that automatically pulling the nearest camera’s video improves a responder’s situational awareness at the time of an alarm, would have found it obvious to program Dronge’s processor to extend its camera-selection function beyond camera mounted on the structure itself to reach nearby cameras- including third-party or municipal cameras positioned at the road nearest the facility as taught by Crawford and confirmed by Takahashi. The combination amounts to applying known technique (nearest-camera selection on alarm) to a known processor-controlled device (Dronge) to yield the predictable result of a wider-area image of the approach to the protected property. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
3. Regarding Claim 2, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 1,
Dronge discloses wherein the one or more processors (abstract, “processor… to control the camera(s) and receive the image obtained”) are further configured to execute the instructions to:
Crawford discloses select a camera having a high possibility of capturing an image of a person or a vehicle who has visited the facility based on a disposition of a camera around the facility [[,]]; and acquires acquire the image captured by the camera (in Col. 7 para [0024] lines 8-9, “The nearest Security system 10 camera 48 automatically records activities at the violation location 16.” Marconi’s location-to-camera association demonstrates selection driven by a known, stored relationship between camera position and monitored location. Applicant’s own Specification ([0024]-[0027]) as a look-up table of camera position/orientation data. Storing such correspondence in a table and having the processor consult it is a routine, predictable design choice.
4. Regarding Claim 4, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 1,
Dronge discloses wherein the one or more processors (abstract, “processor… to control the camera(s) and receive the image obtained”) are further configured to execute the instructions to:
Crawford discloses acquire an image before the abnormality notification is received from an image recording device that stores the image captured by the camera for a certain period of time; and
transmit the image before the abnormality notification is received to the predetermined terminal (Col 7 para [0024], lines 10-15, “the camera at a given location is recording continuously 24x7, and as a result of the event at the time of the event and for a period of time before and after, for instance, 4 to 5 minutes before and for 15 minutes after the event, the recorded video is "tagged" for future retrieval.” Continuous-recording with pre-event-tagging directly teaches a processor acquiring and transmitting footage captured before the notification is received).
5. Regarding Claim 5, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 1,
Dronge discloses wherein the abnormality notification includes information indicating a type of an abnormality detected by the security system, and wherein the one or more processors (abstract, “processor… to control the camera(s) and receive the image obtained”) are further configured to execute the instructions to:
select the camera that acquires the image based on the type of the abnormality (Col. 4lines 45-47, “the processor can be programmed to assign the hostile classification or “no threat”…Col 4 lines 51-52, “based on the object identification.” … [and generate different countermeasures] Col. 10 lines 25-26, “based on the object identification.”).
6. Regarding Claim 6, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
when the type of the abnormality includes information indicating that an intrusion into the facility has occurred, increase the number of cameras to be selected 9 unpatentable over combination applied to claim 5, as a routine and predictable extension of a known technique (type-dependent response, per Dronge) to a known parameter (number of cameras selected, per the base combination as applied to claims 1-2).
A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that a more serious classification (intrusion) warrants broader coverage (more cameras) as a matter of common sense and predictable engineering judgment.
7. Claim 9 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in system claim 1.
8. Claim 10 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in system claim 1.
9. Claim(s) 3 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 and 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 11538316, Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 2,
Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a traveling direction of the person or the vehicle based on the acquired image captured by the camera,
select a camera capable of capturing an area in the traveling direction,
acquire the image captured by the camera; and
transmit a series of acquired images
Further, Lee discloses wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 3: 160 and 220 processor(s)) are further configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a traveling direction of the person or the vehicle based on the acquired image captured by the camera (Lee discloses Col. 7 lines 60-62, “calculate the moving direction of the subject based on the image transmitted by the first network camera (100A in FIG. 4)”),
select a camera capable of capturing an area in the traveling direction (Col. 8 lines 2-3, “predict a path of the subject based on the moving direction of the subject.”),
acquire the image captured by the camera (Col. 8 lines 4-6, “detect the second network camera (100B in FIG. 4) located on the predicted path among the plurality of network cameras 100”); and
transmit a series of acquired images (Col. 8 lines6-7, “transmit the subject information to the second network camera (100B in FIG. 4).”).
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s direction/path-prediction camera hand-off into the base combination for the predictable benefit of following a fleeing subject from camera to camera.
11. Regarding Claim 7, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 5,
Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi does not explicitly disclose when the type of the abnormality includes information indicating that a suspicious person or a suspicious vehicle staying around the facility is detected and position information about the suspicious person or the suspicious vehicle, narrow down the camera to be selected to a camera around the suspicious person or the suspicious vehicle
Further, Lee discloses wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 3: 160 and 220 processor(s)) are further configured to execute the instructions to:
when the type of the abnormality includes information indicating that a suspicious person or a suspicious vehicle staying around the facility is detected and position information about the suspicious person or the suspicious vehicle, narrow down the camera to be selected to a camera around the suspicious person or the suspicious vehicle (Col. 1 lines 46-49, “detect at least one network camera located at a certain distance from the one network camera among the plurality of network cameras, and to transmit the subject information to the at least one network camera.” Distance based restriction of candidate cameras to those near a reported subject position is a narrowing operation.).
12. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2019/0026541, Hamada.
13. Regarding Claim 8, Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi discloses The security assistance system according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
Dronge discloses store feature data on appearance of a person or a vehicle set in advance for each facility as a security target (Col. 9 lines 25-27, “compare the derived silhouette of each object in the image to a library of stored silhouettes to determine the exact or closest match…claim 12, “and retrieves the object identification associated with the exact or closest match”; and
identify the person or the vehicle appearing in the image captured by the camera based on the feature data, and
Dronge in view of Crawford further in view of Takahashi does not explicitly disclose transmit an image on which a result of identification is superimposed to the predetermined terminal.
Further, Hamada teaches transmit an image on which a result of identification is superimposed to the predetermined terminal (Claim 1, “a display controller configured to generate a superimposed image which is at least one of the first face image and the second face image that is superimposed with a result of recognizing the first face image, and at least one of first information indicating a first region the similarity of which exceeds a first threshold and second information indicating a second region the similarity of which does not exceed a second threshold” [0103], “the face recognition apparatus 340 transmits, to the display control apparatus 330, the face recognition result and the collation result (similarity) of each pair of partial regions of the face images…[0104], “the display control apparatus 330 transmits the overlaid display image data to the operator terminal 210.”).
A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Dronge’s stored-feature-comparison identification function within the base Dronge/Crawford/Takahashi security notification combination, would have looked to Hamada, a commonly owned NEC reference addressing the closely related problem of communicating a face/object identification result to a remote viewer. Overlying the identification result directly on the image, as Hamada teaches, allows a receiving officer or security terminal operator to grasp the identification and its basis at a glance without needing to cross-reference separate data, see Hamada [0079]. Hence, to achieve the predictable result of a self-explanatory identification image at the receiving terminal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights