DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 9 June 2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9 June 2026 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
KR101215948
Abstract
Multi-camera facial recognition and tracking of registered persons including extracting and comparing clothing features
US20080080743
Pars. 38-57
Search for person specific video segments from videos of multiple cameras to track persons path using time indexes
US7450735
Fig.’s 2B-3
Multi-camera tracking using time interval information to match persons as they appear in different cameras
US20020067258
Pars. 32-34
Time interval-based video surveillance using facial detection
US20030107649
Pars. 7-8
Color and texture-based people trajectory tracking
US20040143602
Pars. 182-185
Tracking people across multiple cameras
US20070039030
Pars. 57-63
Camera to camera person tracking
US20070239683
Pars. 171-172
Searching images using person features for tracking
US20110274314
Pars. 13-19
Person trajectory tracking over cameras using clothing recognition and biometric features
US20120213490
Pars. 26, 34-54
Searching faces in video to match known faces and clothing features using time-indexed cross-camera path tracking
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, 15, the analyze, detect, extract, find/track/searching cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The store, read 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 (such as the language using face collation technology). 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 5, 12, 19 the determine cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The store 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 claims 4, 11, 18 the 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.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 storing are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cheng et al., Pub. No.: US 20110228094 A1, hereinafter Cheng.
As per claim 1, Cheng discloses An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store program instructions and a black list which registers persons to be detected (pars. 23, 57-58, 61, 68 disclose creating and storing subject dossiers for watch list-based detection functionality);
one or more processors configured to read the program instructions to:
analyze videos which are captured by a plurality of cameras to detect a person registered in the black list by using face collation technology (pars. 23, 52, 57-58; also, see pars. 66-75 for facial feature signature matched/recognized against stored dossier database);
extract clothing features of the person from a second part of video which is determined based on predetermined time difference information that designates how long is time difference between a first part of video in which a face of the person is detected and the second part of video (pars. 67-72, 80 disclose that the subject dossiers include clothing features, and that the subject dossier stores temporal information signatures (that store a person’s location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.), which is time-based information, alongside clothing and facial features; par. 70 discloses using subject dossier stored clothing features, facial features and known temporal information (location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.) to match with extracted clothing features of unidentified persons who may potentially be a suspect being tracked from a group of cameras in a surveillance area where the suspect is headed, to be on the lookout for the suspect); and
find and track the person by searching a video, captured by a second camera located near a first camera that captured the first part of video, for the clothing features (see rejection above and at least pars. 24, 52, 70).
As per claim 2, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is further configured to store a table representing a correspondence between the person as a type of event to be detected and the clothing features as a type of a target object to be tracked (pars. 57-58, 61, 65, 67-70 disclose relational database stored subject dossiers that maps person specific event detection (face recognition against watch list) to clothing features to be tracked, the dossier links the person/subject (event type) to clothing features (target object type)).
As per claim 3, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the table stores the time difference information (see rejection of claim 2 and at least par. 65).
As per claim 4, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to read the program instructions to update the time difference information stored in the table when the clothing features are detected from a third part of video (par. 61, 65 disclose collecting biometric signatures and object tracking locations, managing subject dossiers, updating the subject dossiers, etc. which includes collecting, storing and updating of “temporal information (e.g., speed, direction, location, past activities, …)” in light of “information about object (e.g., person) such as, biometric information/signatures, soft biometric information…”; Par. 70 discloses that subject dossier store clothing features, facial features and known temporal information (location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.)).
As per claim 5, Cheng discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the table stores two or more time differences between the first part of video and the second part of video, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to read the program instructions to determine the second part of video according to the time differences (see rejection of at least the extract clothing features limitation of claim 1 and note that multiple time differences information is stored and used as claimed).
As per claim 6, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the table stores time width of the second part of video (see rejection of claim 1 including at least par. 41).
As per claim 7, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the table stores regions in the video corresponding to the type of event (pars. 57-58, 61, 65, 67-70 disclose relational database stored subject dossiers that maps person specific event detection (face recognition against watch list) to clothing features to be tracked, the dossier links the person/subject (the type of event) to clothing features (target object type) in connection with parts or regions of video).
As per claims 8-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 9 June 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments directed to the 35 USC 101 rejection on pages 7-8 of the remarks are not persuasive. The claims do not recite an improvement to camera operation, processors, face collation technology or video processing technology. The claims only specify desired results without reciting a technological improvement in how the underlying video analysis operations are performed. The rule based limitations of “predetermined time difference” and “second camera located near a first camera” do not describe how the actual technology is improved.
Regarding the prior art rejection, page 9 of the remarks presents:
PNG
media_image1.png
177
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cheng par. 70 includes “Moreover, temporal information provided in a subject dossier such as direction and speed of travel of a suspect may trigger the Knowledge Services to alert only certain sensory devices, such as a group of cameras in an area of the surveillance region where the suspect is headed, to be on the lookout for the suspect.” Thus, Cheng’s temporal information corresponds to “predetermined time difference information” because it informs the system to search for a match in a particular surveillance region based on direction and speed of travel in an area of the surveillance region where the suspect is headed, to be on the lookout for the suspect. This is a “designation of how long is time difference” between two parts of video in which a person is detected and it is “predetermined time difference information” because it is determined and indexed beforehand. In other words, the temporal information indicates when (i.e. later, time difference information) and where the detected person is expected to be, this information being used to extract clothing features of the person from video content obtained from cameras at that other location and at that later time.
Remarks further present:
PNG
media_image2.png
127
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that the phrase “face collation technology” has no explicit definition anywhere in the instant application. Accordingly, it is not clear what Applicant’s argument is. See Cheng, pars. 66-75, 80 for facial feature signature matched/recognized against the stored dossier database which includes clothing features, facial features, and known temporal information (location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.) to match with extracted clothing features of unidentified persons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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