DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 29 April 2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the detect, determine, perform search cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea) and/or as a mathematical concept. The obtain limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 2, 9, 16 the correspondence, determine cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The store is recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 the correspondence, determine, update, detect cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not 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 (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 8 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elazar et al., Pub. No.: US 20040161133 A1, hereinafter Elazar, in view of F. Hugosson, Pub. No.: US 20120014659 A1, hereinafter Hugosson
As per claim 1, Elazar discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store program instructions (fig. 1, par. 28); one or more processors (fig. 1, par. 28) configured to read the program instructions to:
detect a type of event in a first part of a video (pars. 3, 29, 31-33, 46, 50 disclose that video feeds from multiple cameras are analyzed for events such as arrival event, walking event, exiting event, crowding event, unattended luggage event / object abandonment event, etc. Detection rules are user-defined or template-based, and the system continuously processes camera input to detect specific events/behaviors. Par. 33 discloses specifically identifying (detecting) one particular event type of multiple events types from an events database (unattended luggage event) by analyzing sub-events/video scene characteristics captured by cameras);
determine, based on the detected type of event, a type of a target object to be detected (See mapping above and see par. 33 which says “the event will be identified by the system as a situation in which an unattended suitcase was left in the security-sensitive area. Thus, the unattended suitcase will be considered as a [target] suspicious object [type].” Additionally, and/or alternatively, par.33: the known sub-event type (of multiple pre-determined/known sub-events) of object entry into video scene are used to determine that the entered object is made up of two combined object types (person and suitcase) and determine these are both different types of target objects to be detected in other scenes from multiple cameras);
Elazar does not expressly disclose, however Hugosson discloses obtain a time difference value, from among a plurality of time difference values, based on the detected type of event (Hugosson, pars. 15, 34-36, 39, 41, 48-50, 52, 59 disclose retrieving event type parameters including number of pre event and post event frames for a respective event type. Par. 48 includes “Each event type is related to event type parameters, such as a number of pre-event frames #PrEF and number of post-event frames #PoEF” and pars. 49-50, 59 includes a time period of interest before the occurrence, a latency period representing the time difference, the time period from the occurrence of the event to the detection of the event, a time-based post event frames, post-event time limit, etc.);
detect a second part of the video based on the time difference value, wherein the time difference value indicates a time period between the first part of the video and the second part of the video (Hugosson pars. 35-36, 48-53, 59-60 disclose using the event type specific pre event and post event parameters, including the latency time difference, to retrieve the required numbered of buffered frames and to set the post event end point, thereby determining the video portion before and/or after the detected event according to the time-difference value) ;
detect the target object associated with the determined type in the determined second part of the video (Elazar, see mapping above including at least pars. 31, 33-34, 39, 42, 48-49, discloses detecting the target object from a second part of video different from the first part in which the event was detected. Hugosson, pars. 35-36, 51, 59-60 disclose selecting/recording the event specific pre event and post event video portions according to the retrieved temporal parameters) ; and
perform a search based on the detected target object (Elazar, par. 29 discloses that the event database stores search parameters for searching objects or events; the search params include object, shape, location, type, ID, face recognition info, color histogram, and info collected from different cameras that captured the same object. Par. 29 also discloses that the DSA application submits queries to the event database and performs requested video replay).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Elazar’s event driven object investigation and cross video retrieval using Hugosson’s event-type specific pre-event, post-event, and latency parameters, because the combination would automatically and efficiently select the video portion most likely to contain the object associated with the detected event and support different temporal requirements for different event types.
Analogous claims 8 and 15 are likewise rejected. See Elazar fig. 1 and par. 28 for the method and medium of claims 8 and 15.
Claim 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elazar in view of Hugosson and further in view of Oya et al., Pub. No.: US 20100271478 A1, hereinafter Oya.
As per claim 2, Elazar as modified discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1. The combination does not expressly disclose, however Oya discloses wherein the memory configured to store a table representing a correspondence between the type of event and the type of the target object to be detected (Oya, pars. 25, 39 disclose linking event types, such as desertion event, to related object behaviors such as a person object and storing this association in an index and par. 39 discloses stored event info including event type, camera ID, object ID, and event details). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the event-driven detection and tracking in Elazar with the event-object mapping in the combined teaching to facilitate efficient, targeted retrieval of relevant objects based on detected events.
As per claim 3, Elazar as modified discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the table represents a correspondence between the type of event and a time difference between the first and second part of video (Hugosson, pars. 15, 48-50, 52, 59 disclose storing event type parameters correlating each detected event type with a number of pre event frames, post event frames, and a latency period corresponding to the time difference between occurrence and detected of the event; Oya, at least pars. 25, 39, 44-45 disclose an event index storing related event times and playback start/stop times), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program instructions to determine the second part of video according to the time difference (Hugosson, pars. 35-36, 51, 59-60 disclose retrieving from the buffer the event required pre event frames and recording event required post event frames based on the stored parameters; Oya, at least pars. 44-45 disclose determining playback start, stop times according to occurrence times of related events).
As per claim 4, Elazar as modified discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program instructions to update the time difference included in the table when the target object is detected from a third part of video (Hugosson, par. 50 discloses a dynamic latency value representing the actual time, measured by the system, from occurrence of event until the event detector provides the event detection signal and pars. 61, 65-66, 76, 81, 84, 87 disclose that when a new event is detected in a later video portion, the existing post event endpoint or last session frame is reviewed, replaced, deleted or recalculated using the parameters of the newly detected event and the event list is updated with new start frame and end frame values; Oya, pars. 25, 45, 51, 59 disclose detecting events and creating, in real time, multiple time-based index entries, that “playback time and stop time are determined by the playback apparatus 200 depending on the occurrence times of related events” and stored in the index (i.e. updating/recalculating time difference info); note that par. 51 includes “generates an index capturing moments of the appearance of a person who has brought in a deserted object and the desertion of the object and plays back related recorded video images based on the index according to the designation of an event on the time line”).
As per claim 5, Elazar as modified discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the table represents a correspondence between the type of event and two or more time differences between the first part of video and two or more second parts of the video (see rejection of claim 3 including Hugosson as cited and see Oya, pars. 25, 40, 44-45, 54-59 disclose multiple related event times and multiple indexed playback portions for one event), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program instructions to determine the two or more second parts of the video according to the time difference (see Hugosson as cited in the rejection of claim 3. Oya, pars. 25, 44, 56, 59 disclose multiple times per event are indexed which means multiple time differences for second video parts).
As per claim 6, Elazar as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the table represents a correspondence between the type of event and time width of the second part of video (see Hugosson pars. 15, 35-36, 41, 48, 52, 59-60 and Oya, par. 44 includes “If the playback time before or after an event is set as ∆T … duration time 4∆T will be played back…” which shows that each event type determines a playback time width (4∆T)).
As per claims 9-13 and 16-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elazar as modified and further in view of Titus et al., Pub. No.: US 20100026802 A1, hereinafter Titus.
As per claim 7, Elazar as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2 wherein the table represents a correspondence between the type of event (see rejection of claim 2) and the combination thus far does not expressly disclose, however Titus discloses an area in the second part of video, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program instructions to detect the target object in the area of the second part of video (see Titus, pars. 122-127, 138-140, 185, 202 and rejection of claim 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the event-driven detection and tracking in Titus with the event-object mapping in Elazar as modified to facilitate efficient, targeted retrieval of relevant objects based on event types. Analogous claim 14 is likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered. Hugosson has been introduced as a new reference to address amended subject matter.
Arguments directed to the 35 USC 101 rejection are not persuasive. The claimed limitations merely analyze video info, determine object types, obtain stored time values, identify related video portions, detect an object, and perform a search. These do not constitute an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Any improvement in search accuracy or speed results from applying the abstract idea on a computer, not from a technological improvement to computer or search technology.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights