DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 9 June 2026. Claims 1, 5, 9 and 13-24 have been examined.
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
US20110228094
Pars. 57-62
Search for people across multiple camera videos using watch lists, facial recognition and clothing recognition.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 include “selecting, based on the determined type of action, a subset of one or more queries from among a plurality of queries.” The specification does not describe this limitation. More specifically, the specification does not describe a preexisting pool of complete queries from which a subset is selected. The remarks do not indicate where support can be found for the amendments. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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, 5, 9 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 5, 9 and 13-24 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 5, 9, the determining, selecting, searching, identifying, assigned cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The controlling a display to display is recited at a high level of generality and does 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 claimed cameras). 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 13-17 and 19-23, the searching, determining, selected, determining, analyzing 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 18 and 24, displayed information is recited at a high level of generality and does 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, 5, 9 and 13-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Schneiderman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080080743 A1, hereinafter Schneiderman.
As per claim 1, Schneiderman discloses An information processing method comprising:
determining a type of action from among a plurality of types of actions (par. 14, 60, 61 disclose types of actions such as car arriving and/or at a street light junction, persons movement activity, animal movement activity, etc.);
selecting, based on the determined type of action, a subset of one or more queries from among a plurality of queries (further to the above mapping, note that face/object information, color signature, etc. are all stored and used as one or more query in order to search videos);
searching, using the selected subset of one or more queries, a storage storing a plurality of videos captured by a plurality of cameras (multiple alternative examples are disclosed in at least pars. 46, 61, 41 last sentence; note that databases of stored video content are searched using one or more indexed face/object information, color signature information, etc. as queries.);
identifying at least one of the stored plurality of videos in response to the searching the storage (see above as well as fig.’s 6-8 and- pars. 52, 54, 57); and
controlling a display to display information identifying the identified at least one of the plurality of videos, the displayed information comprising a thumbnail (see at least fig.’s 6-8 and pars. 50-55), wherein each of the plurality of types of actions is assigned a respective subset of one or more queries from among the plurality of queries, and wherein at least two of the plurality of types of actions are assigned a different respective subset (see rejection of first 2 limitations above).
As per claim 13, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of types of actions is assigned information indicating a time range respectively, and wherein the searching comprises searching for one or more videos corresponding to the time range indicated by the information indicating the time range corresponding to the determined type of action (see at least pars. 40, 53, 54, 57).
As per claim 14, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the determined type of action is a type of action in which a person enters a predetermined area (par. 60, 61).
As per claim 15, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 14, wherein the selected subset of one or more queries includes two or more queries (see rejection of selecting limitation of claim 1).
As per claim 16, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the type of action comprises analyzing an input video to detect an action in the video (see rejection of claim 1 including pars. 60, 61).
As per claim 17, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 16, wherein the analyzing the input video comprises detecting a person in the input video and tracking the detected person between frames of the input video (pars. 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 60, 61).
As per claim 18, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the displayed information further includes a name of a person corresponding to at least one query included in the selected subset of one or more queries (pars. 15, 50, 52).
As per claims 5, 9 and 19-24, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 have been fully considered. In view of claim amendments, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejection, page 11 of the remarks includes:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schneiderman, at pars. 14, 60, and 61, discloses types of actions such as car arriving and/or at a street light junction, persons movement activity, animal movement activity, etc. and that face/object information, color signature, etc. are all stored and used as one or more queries to search videos based on the observed action type. These portions of Schneiderman also disclose wherein each of the plurality of types of actions is assigned a respective subset of one or more queries from among the plurality of queries, and wherein at least two of the plurality of types of actions are assigned a different respective subset.
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