DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the rejections below. The added reference was necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchant, US 11,335,126 in view of Oyenan et al., US 2018/0012323, further in view of Pfeiffer et al., US 2025/0054287.
1 and 8 and 15. Merchant teaches a computer implemented method for automatically monitoring and deterring crime, comprising:
a processor and memory for carrying out instructions [Fig. 7, cols. 16-17, 46-51]for:
processing a video feed obtained by a camera [cameras 110, images 118/122, Figs. 1-3, cols. 6-7, ll. 66-31] using an artificial intelligence module [AI 124, Figs. 1, 6, 7, col. 7, 14-65; 9, 1-23] to detect one or more potential threats [threat detection 126, step 308, Figs. 1-3, cols. 2-3, ll. 19-25];
assigning a threshold level to each of the one or more potential threats based upon severity of each of the one or more potential threats [threat thresholds 128, step 310, Figs. 1-3, cols. 3-4, ll. 62-9; cols. 7-8, ll. 32-15; cols. 10-11, ll. 64-23; col. 13, 1-67];
determining an appropriate intervention measure based on the determined threat threshold [cols. 7-8, ll. 66-67; col. 9, 24-41; col. 11, 24-42; col. 13, 23-40].
Merchant is silent on assigning scores to deterrent measures and comparing them to threat thresholds.
Oyenan teaches a crime deterrence method including assigning a deterrence score to each of one or more available intervention measures for deterring the one or more potential threats [e.g. deterrent effect factor, Table 3, col. 6; also deterrence effect parameters in Tables, 1, 2, 4; paras. 37-39, 47-49, 50, 56, 60]; and
selecting a first intervention measure from the one or more available intervention measures based on a comparison of comparing-the threshold levels of the one or more potential threats with the deterrence scores for the one or more available intervention measures indicating that the first intervention measure is to determine if the one or more intervention measures are appropriate for deterring the one or more potential threats [deterrence parameters are compared to crime statistics (i.e. potential threats/thresholds) to determine appropriate deterrent actions (e.g. patrols), Figs.6, 9, paras. 63, 64, 66-70, 73, 75, 77] and causing the deployment of the first intervention measure [determined patrols are dispatched, Figs. 8, 9, paras. 69-70, 73, 75, 77];
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, in order to provide an intervention that is not excessive while still providing a deterrent effect (e.g. a burglary of an empty shed would not be met with a physical deterrent that could cause grave injury).
The above references are silent on intervention based on location of threat and selecting a second intervention measure when deterrence fails. Pfeiffer teaches a security system including selecting one or more available intervention measures from a plurality of intervention measures based on a location of the one or more potential threats [audio intervention is selected based on distance/location of threat, paras. 13, 65, 74, 112];
verifying that the one or more potential threats have not stopped in response to the first intervention measure [determining that a threat remains in an area after initial response action, paras. 104, 105]; and selecting a second intervention measure from the one or more available intervention measures for deployment [intervention action is escalated, paras. 104, 105].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using escalation protocol to attempt to deter the threat with the lowest, least dangerous manner possible and increasing the risk only when it is clear that a threat is undeterred. This prevents unnecessary injury or alarm to the subject or people in surrounding areas (e.g. by only increasing the volume of an alarm when necessary). Using the location of the threat to inform the intervention is efficient because distance to the threat is a measurable proxy for threat level (i.e. closer threats warrant greater intervention).
2 and 9 and 16. Merchant teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the camera is motion activated and transmits the video feed to the artificial intelligence module when motion is detected [col. 3, 26-39; col. 6, 35-40], or wherein the artificial intelligence module is located on the camera.
3 and 10 and 17. Merchant teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence module is trained to evaluate aggravating or mitigating circumstances to the one or more potential threats, wherein the aggravating or mitigating circumstances comprise one or more of presence of a weapon [Fig. 2B, cols. 3-4, ll. 62-33], speed or trajectory of the one or more potential threats, or frequency of crime in area being monitored by the camera.
4 and 11 and 18. Merchant teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: once the one or more potential threats are detected, transmitting to a user device evidence of the one or more potential threats [e.g. images of the threat, Figs. 2A, 2B, 3, cols. 6-7, ll. 66-31, col. 8, 16-66] and one or more recommended intervention measures to deter the one or more potential threats [notification actions include recommended actions such notifying law enforcement or intervention measure such as sounding alarm, Fig. 3, col. 8, 16-66].
7 and 14. Merchant teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more intervention measures comprise at least one of:
one or more non-contact intervention measures; or
one or more contact intervention measures, wherein the one or more non-contact intervention measures comprise at least one of two way voice or video, strobe light, siren [sounding alarm, col 8, 39-51], ammunition blank
PNG
media_image1.png
62
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or air horn,
wherein the one or more contact intervention measures comprise at least one of pepper spray or pepper balls, pellet or paint ball guns, rubber bullets, smoke bombs, or flashbang.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchant and Oyenan as cited above, further in view of Fernandez et al., US 2020/0137358 and deCharms, US 2014/0368601.
5 and 12 and 19. The above references are silent on transmitting a link providing access to video and a feedback mechanism to approve or deny intervention.
Fernandez teaches an event notification system comprising: once the one or more potential threats are detected, further transmitting to the user a one-time approval link, wherein the one-time approval link provides access to video footage of the one or more potential threats and a feedback mechanism for the user to approve or deny the one or more recommended intervention measures [when an event occurs (i.e. threat is detected), user receives alarm-based image and either confirms or rejects an alarm intervention, Fig. 3, paras. 6, 36-38].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, allowing the user to visually confirm whether an alarm is necessary and thereby avoid false alarms. This method also allows the user to take further action based on current information about the event.
The above references do not use a multifactor link. deCharms teaches a mobile security application that provides a notification and verifies a user device that can respond based on a multifactor input [para. 5]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate multifactor authentication to prevent unauthorized users (who may be involved in the security breach) from denying or rejecting a security intervention.
6 and 13 and 20. Fernandez teaches the method of claim 5, wherein if the user approves the one or more recommended intervention measures, the one or more recommended intervention measures are automatically deployed, wherein if the user denies the one or more recommended intervention measures, the one or more recommended intervention measures are not deployed [monitoring station controls alarm automatically in response to confirmation or rejection, without user having to manually control alarm, paras. 6, 17, 35-38].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights