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 list(s) of references is/are of extensive length. Additionally, there exists a significant lack of clarity as to how a large percent of the listed references could possibly be material to patentability of the presently claimed invention. Forcing an examiner to find a needle in a haystack is probative of bad faith (Molins PLC V. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Such acts of cloaking relevant references by inclusion in a long list of citations may not comply with Applicant's duty of disclosure (Penn Yah Boats', Inc. V. Sea Lark Boats', Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Fla. 1972)). Similarly, failing to highlight to an examiner buried references disclosing a particularly relevant embodiment to the pending claims has been found to be misrepresentation, resulting in holding patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Golden Valley Microwave Foods' Inc. V. Weayer Popcorn Co. Inc., 837 F. Supp. 1444, 1477 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Penn Yah Boats', Inc. V. Sea Lark Boats', Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948,965 (S.D. Fla. 1972)).
Each non-patent literature document listed in the information disclosure statements and not crossed-through has been considered only to the extent of the title of the document or, if lacking a title, the first word of the first page. Each foreign patent document listed in the information disclosure statements and not crossed-through has been considered only to the extent of the country from which the document originates and the document number. Each communication from the U.S.P.T.O. or a foreign patent authority, listed in the information disclosure statements, and not crossed-through has been considered only to the extent of the application number, the country or authority from which the communication originates, the communication type, and the date the communication was mailed or, if a different date appears on the document instead of a mailing date, the different date. Each document listed in the information disclosure statements that is (1) not a U.S. Patent or U.S. Publication, (2) not covered by one of the preceding sentences in this paragraph, and (3) not crossed-through has been considered only to the extent of the first word of the first page. If Applicant(s) desires Examiner perform further consideration of the references, Applicant(s) must provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted, how the information is understood to be relevant, and whether one or more are highly relevant with pinpoint citations to specific pages and specific lines (See, MPEP § 609.04(a)(III), final paragraph, Provision of these explanations with specific citations to pages and lines is encouraged by the Office).
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 judicial exception, namely abstract ideas including mental process without significantly more. The claims recite inter alia, a processing unit including an artificial intelligence module configured to respond to a vice command by analyzing captured audio, captured video, and/or external data using natural-language queries, and to provide an answer ro guidance to the wearer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving information concerning an incident, analyzing or evaluating that information in response to an inquiry, determining responsive information or guidance based on the evaluation, and communicating the determined information to user. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited analysis and determination constitute a mental process because they encompass observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can practically be performed by a person.
Furthermore, an artificial intelligence module to perform the analysis does not, by itself, remove the underlying information evaluation form the mental-process grouping. The claim does not recite a particular AI architecture, training technique, computer-version algorithm, natural-language processing architecture, signal-processing technique, or other particular technological mechanism by which the recited analysis is accomplished.
In addition, the claims recite a body-worn camera; a microphone; a processing unit; an artificial intelligence module; a speaker; and performance of the analysis and guidance in a body-worn, real-time environment. These additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, wherein the additional elements simply performs their ordinary functions of acquiring information, processing information, and presenting information. No particular unconventional arrangement of these components, nor foes require a specific improvement in camera technology, microphone technology, processor architecture, AI architecture, speech recognition, natural-language processing or data transmission.
These additional elements merely identifies tools used to perform the claimed information analysis and do not supply an inventive concept where the claim does not require any particular improvement in operation of the claimed elements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,557 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same limitations as claimed, such as microphone; voice command form wearer; captured audio/video/external data; AL module analyzes data; provides answer/guidance; real-time field environment; body-worn camera; speaker/audio response.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10-15, 17, 19, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/267,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same concept and limitation as shown in the table listed below:
Application #19/235,611
3. The body-worn safety device of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence module being additionally configured to operate in a cloud server, wherein in the cloud server, the artificial intelligence module to: generate a transcript of the incident using the audio using the natural language queries.
Application #19/267,070
1. A cloud-based data management system, comprising: a server accessible only to authorized personnel, ensuring both security and accessibility for training and review purposes; and an artificial intelligence module in the server being configured to: generate a transcript of an incident using at least one of an audio and a video data captured from a body-worn safety device that captures an incident surrounding a first responder, wherein at least one of the audio and video data is uploaded to the server from the body-worn safety device, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and discerns different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, analyze transcribed text with a private Large Language Model (LLM), to interpret at least one of the audio and video data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and generate an incident report based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for the first responder.
4. The body-worn safety device of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally: generate a description of the incident based on what is perceived in the video using the natural language queries.
2. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1 wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally generate a description of the incident based on what is perceived in the video.
5. The body-worn safety device of claim 4, wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally: generate an incident report of the incident based on at least one of the audio and what is perceived in the video using the natural language queries.
1. A cloud-based data management system, comprising: a server accessible only to authorized personnel, ensuring both security and accessibility for training and review purposes; and an artificial intelligence module in the server being configured to: generate a transcript of an incident using at least one of an audio and a video data captured from a body-worn safety device that captures an incident surrounding a first responder, wherein at least one of the audio and video data is uploaded to the server from the body-worn safety device, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and discerns different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, analyze transcribed text with a private Large Language Model (LLM), to interpret at least one of the audio and video data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and generate an incident report based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for the first responder.
7. The body-worn safety device of claim 4, wherein summarized incident reports, a safety advisory, and an environmental impact assessment is made accessible to a relevant government body, contributing to public safety awareness and policy development.
3. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1 wherein summarized incident reports, a safety advisory, and an environmental impact assessment is made accessible to a relevant government body, contributing to public safety awareness and policy development.
9. The body-worn safety device of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a human subject visible in the captured video, including identifying at least one of an identity, characteristic, and apparel of a person in the video and associating a metadata tag with the video for each detected attribute of the person.
4. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a human subject visible in the captured video, including identifying at least one of an identity, a characteristic, and an apparel of a person in the video and associating a metadata tag with the video for each detected attribute of the person.
10. The body-worn safety device of claim 9, wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect a license plate visible in the captured video to detect specific patterns of behavior that may indicate a threat.
5. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect a license plate visible in the captured video to detect specific patterns of behavior that may indicate a threat.
11. The body-worn safety device of claim 10, wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a pre-assaultive behavior visible in the captured video, including identifying an occurrence of the presumptive behavior in videos of other incidents, and providing guidance in real-time using the natural language queries.
6. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a pre-assaultive behavior visible in the captured video, including identifying an occurrence of the presumptive behavior in videos of other incidents.
12. The body-worn safety device of claim 1 wherein the body-worn safety device to capture audio around the clock, ensuring no important interaction or incident is missed.
7. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1 wherein the body-worn safety device to capture audio around the clock, ensuring no important interaction or incident is missed.
13. The body-worn safety device of claim 1 wherein the body-worn safety device is connected to a police database to provide real-time information about at least one of persons of interest, warrants, and vehicle registrations during stops or encounters.
8. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1 wherein the cloud-based data management system is connected to a police database to provide real-time information about at least one of persons of interest, warrants, and vehicle registrations during stops or encounters.
14. The body-worn safety device of claim 1 wherein the body-worn safety device is able to filter out background noise and focus on relevant audio inputs to be augmented, improving the quality and clarity of recordings in noisy environments.
9. The cloud-based data management system of claim 1 wherein the body-worn safety device is able to filter out background noise and focus on relevant audio inputs to be augmented, improving the quality and clarity of the transcript in noisy environments.
15. The body-worn safety device of claim 13 wherein the body-worn safety device to employ advanced speech-to-text technology to transcribe all captured audio in real-time, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and may discern different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, wherein transcribed text is fed into a private LLM, to analyze and interpret the data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of interest or concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and wherein transcribed data may be stored securely, with access restricted to authorized personnel only to maintain integrity of the data and to ensure it is available for review or legal proceedings if necessary.
1. A cloud-based data management system, comprising: a server accessible only to authorized personnel, ensuring both security and accessibility for training and review purposes; and an artificial intelligence module in the server being configured to: generate a transcript of an incident using at least one of an audio and a video data captured from a body-worn safety device that captures an incident surrounding a first responder, wherein at least one of the audio and video data is uploaded to the server from the body-worn safety device, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and discerns different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, analyze transcribed text with a private Large Language Model (LLM), to interpret at least one of the audio and video data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and generate an incident report based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for the first responder.
17. The body-worn safety device of claim 1: wherein the body-worn safety device is be equipped with robust encryption and security protocols to ensure transmission of data to the LLM is secure, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, wherein the body-worn safety device to adhere to legal guidelines regarding consent and recording in public spaces, wherein the body-worn safety device to integrate with GPS tracking with the existing audio and video analysis capabilities to capture a precise location of the wearer whenever the body-worn safety device is activated, and wherein this GPS information is continuously updated and transmitted to a central system, and wherein the body-worn safety device is a comprehensive tool for situational awareness and incident management in law enforcement.
11. The cloud-based data management system of claim 10, wherein the cloud-based data management system is equipped with robust encryption and security protocols to ensure transmission of data to the private LLM is secure, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and wherein the cloud-based data management system to use GPS tracking of the body-worn safety device with the existing audio and video analysis capabilities to capture a precise location of the wearer whenever the body-worn safety device is activated to provide context to the transcript.
19. The method of a wearable safety system of claim 18 further comprising: automatically generating an incident report based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for officers.
15. A method of a cloud-based data management system, comprising: generating a transcript of an incident using at least one of an audio and a video data captured from a body-worn safety device that captures an incident surrounding a first responder, wherein at least one of the audio and video data is uploaded to the server from the body-worn safety device, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and discerns different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements; feeding transcribed text into a private Large Language Model (LLM), to analyze and interpret the data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of interest based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident; and generating an incident report based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for the first responder.
20. A wearable safety system comprising: a body-worn camera configured to capture audiovisual data during operational activities; a transcription module configured to convert captured audio into text; a report drafting module configured to automatically generate a narrative report based at least in part on the transcribed text and captured video metadata; and a data storage module configured to store the drafted report linked to the corresponding audiovisual evidence.
1. A cloud-based data management system, comprising: a server accessible only to authorized personnel, ensuring both security and accessibility for training and review purposes; and an artificial intelligence module in the server being configured to: generate a transcript of an incident using at least one of an audio and a video data captured from a body-worn safety device that captures an incident surrounding a first responder, wherein at least one of the audio and video data is uploaded to the server from the body-worn safety device, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and discerns different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, analyze transcribed text with a private Large Language Model (LLM), to interpret at least one of the audio and video data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and generate an incident report based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for the first responder.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1).
Consider claim 1, Claire clearly shows and discloses a body-worn safety device, comprising: a body-worn camera (110, Fig. 1) configured to capture a video of an incident from a perspective of a wearer of the body-worn camera [0021]; a microphone (112, Fig. 1) configured to capture audio concurrently with the video [0023]; a processing unit coupled with the body-worn camera and the microphone [0031], the processing unit to include an artificial intelligence module [0029] and being configured to: respond to a voice command from the wearer by analyzing at least one of the captured audio, the captured video, and an external data using a natural language queries of the artificial intelligence module [0041-0044], and provide at least one of an audible answer and a guidance in real-time using the natural language queries [0045]; and a speaker operatively coupled with the processing unit to output at least one of an audio response and an alert to the wearer [0026].
Consider claim 4, Claire clearly shows and discloses the body-worn safety device, wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally: generate a description of the incident based on what is perceived in the video using the natural language queries [0042-0045].
Consider claim 12, Claire clearly shows and disclose the body-worn safety device wherein the body-worn safety device to capture audio around the clock, ensuring no important interaction or incident is missed [0059].
Consider claim 16, Claire clearly shown and disclose the body-worn safety device wherein the body-worn safety device to change color based on its operational state to show it is actively recording or analyzing to balance transparency with discretion, ensuring that the device's recording status is clear without causing undue alarm and privacy concerns [0027].
Consider claim 18, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 as set forth above.
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 2, 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guzik et al. (Pub # US 2023/0083330 A1).
Consider claim 2, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire does not teach wherein the body-worn safety device to automatically generate incident reports based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for officers.
In the same field of endeavor, Guzik et al. teaches wherein the body-worn safety device to automatically generate incident reports based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for officers [0014-0018] for the benefit of reducing subsequent report preparation activity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the body-worn safety device to automatically generate incident reports based on the recorded and analyzed data, reducing paperwork and administrative workload for officers as shown in Guzik et al., in Claire device for the benefit of reducing subsequent report preparation activity.
Consider claim 5, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device including the artificial intelligence module.
Claire does not teach wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally: generate an incident report of the incident based on at least one of the audio and what is perceived in the video using the natural language queries.
In the same field of endeavor, Guzik et al. teaches wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally: generate an incident report of the incident based on at least one of the audio and what is perceived in the video using the natural language queries [0016-0018] for the benefit of automatically preparing the police incident report.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the artificial intelligence module to additionally: generate an incident report of the incident based on at least one of the audio and what is perceived in the video using the natural language queries as shown in Guzik et al., in Claire device for the benefit of automatically preparing the police incident report.
Consider claim 6, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire does not teach wherein the incident report is automatically submitted and is integrated with existing incident reporting systems within law enforcement agencies, ensuring consistency and completeness of records.
In the same field of endeavor, Guzik et al. teaches wherein the incident report is automatically submitted and is integrated with existing incident reporting systems within law enforcement agencies, ensuring consistency and completeness of records [0020-0021] for the benefit of centralized uploading and storage to manage the integrity of the record.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the incident report is automatically submitted and is integrated with existing incident reporting systems within law enforcement agencies, ensuring consistency and completeness of records as shown in Guzik et al., in Claire device for the benefit of centralized uploading and storage to manage the integrity of the record.
Consider claim 19, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 2 as set forth above.
Claim 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shastry et al. (Pub # US 2022/01889501 A1).
Consider claim 3, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device, wherein the artificial intelligence module being additionally configured to operate in a cloud server [0023].
Claire does not teach wherein in the cloud server, the artificial intelligence module to: generate a transcript of the incident using the audio using the natural language queries.
In the same field of endeavor, Shastry et al. teaches wherein in the cloud server, the artificial intelligence module to: generate a transcript of the incident using the audio using the natural language queries [0026-0030] for the benefit of automated transcript of the same type of body-camera audio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein in the cloud server, the artificial intelligence module to: generate a transcript of the incident using the audio using the natural language queries as shown in Shastry et al., in Claire device for the benefit of automated transcript of the same type of body-camera audio.
Consider claim 14, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire does not teach wherein the body-worn safety device is able to filter out background noise and focus on relevant audio inputs to be augmented, improving the quality and clarity of recordings in noisy environments.
In the same field of endeavor, Shastry et al. teaches wherein the body-worn safety device is able to filter out background noise and focus on relevant audio inputs to be augmented, improving the quality and clarity of recordings in noisy environments [0026-0030] for the benefit of improving the audio supplied to AI system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the body-worn safety device is able to filter out background noise and focus on relevant audio inputs to be augmented, improving the quality and clarity of recordings in noisy environments as shown in Shastry et al., in Claire device for the benefit of improving the audio supplied to AI system.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) in view of Guzik et al. (Pub # US 2023/0083330 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Buhulaiga et al. (Pub # US 2020/0193699 A1).
Consider claim 7, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire and Guzik et al. combined reference does not teach wherein summarized incident reports, a safety advisory, and an environmental impact assessment is made accessible to a relevant government body, contributing to public safety awareness and policy development.
In the same field of endeavor, Buhulaiga et al. teaches wherein summarized incident reports, a safety advisory, and an environmental impact assessment is made accessible to a relevant government body, contributing to public safety awareness and policy development [0037-0039] for the benefit of reporting environmental conditions and providing response information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein summarized incident reports, a safety advisory, and an environmental impact assessment is made accessible to a relevant government body, contributing to public safety awareness and policy development as shown in Buhulaiga et al., in Claire and Guzik et al. combined device for the benefit of reporting environmental conditions and providing response information.
Consider claim 8, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire and Guzik et al. combined reference does not teach wherein data captured from first responder operations, including environmental conditions, incident progression, and team responses, is automatically sent to a central department database as a public record.
In the same field of endeavor, Buhulaiga et al. teaches wherein data captured from first responder operations, including environmental conditions, incident progression, and team responses, is automatically sent to a central department database as a public record [0033-0039] for the benefit of automatically sending first-responder incident data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein data captured from first responder operations, including environmental conditions, incident progression, and team responses, is automatically sent to a central department database as a public record as shown in Buhulaiga et al., in Claire and Guzik et al. combined device for the benefit of automatically sending first-responder incident data.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gokturk et al. (Pub # US 2009/0196510 A1).
Consider claim 9, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device including artificial intelligence model.
Claire does not teach wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a human subject visible in the captured video, including identifying at least one of an identity, characteristic, and apparel of a person in the video and associating a metadata tag with the video for each detected attribute of the person.
In the same field of endeavor, Gokturk et al. teaches wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a human subject visible in the captured video, including identifying at least one of an identity, characteristic, and apparel of a person in the video and associating a metadata tag with the video for each detected attribute of the person [0097-0098] for the benefit of generating recognition information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a human subject visible in the captured video, including identifying at least one of an identity, characteristic, and apparel of a person in the video and associating a metadata tag with the video for each detected attribute of the person as shown in Gokturk et al., in Claire device for the benefit of generating recognition information.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) in view of Gokturk et al. (Pub # US 2009/0196510 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Leizerovich et al. (US Patent # 10,366,586 A1).
Consider claim 10, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device including the artificial intelligence model.
Claire and Gokturk et al. combined reference does not teach wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect a license plate visible in the captured video to detect specific patterns of behavior that may indicate a threat.
In the same field of endeavor, Leizerovich et al. teaches wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect a license plate visible in the captured video to detect specific patterns of behavior that may indicate a threat (Column 2 lines 34-48) for the benefit of assigning a threat probability based on the movement/position correspondence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect a license plate visible in the captured video to detect specific patterns of behavior that may indicate a threat as shown in Leizerovich et al., in Claire and Gokturk et al. combined device for the benefit of assigning a threat probability based on the movement/position correspondence.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) in view of Gokturk et al. (Pub # US 2009/0196510 A1) and Leizerovich et al. (US Patent # 10,366,586 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shastry et al. (Pub # US2022/0189501 A1).
Consider claim 11, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device including the artificial intelligence model.
The combined reference does not teach wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a pre-assaultive behavior visible in the captured video, including identifying an occurrence of the presumptive behavior in videos of other incidents, and providing guidance in real-time using the natural language queries.
In the same field of endeavor, Shastry et al. teaches wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a pre-assaultive behavior visible in the captured video, including identifying an occurrence of the presumptive behavior in videos of other incidents, and providing guidance in real-time using the natural language queries [0039-0042] for the benefit of identifies behavior, emotion and events.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the artificial intelligence model to: automatically detect and tag a pre-assaultive behavior visible in the captured video, including identifying an occurrence of the presumptive behavior in videos of other incidents, and providing guidance in real-time using the natural language queries as shown in Shastry et al., in the combined device for the benefit of identifies behavior, emotion and events.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malbotra (US Patent # 11,551,1127 B1).
Consider claim 13, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire does not teach wherein the body-worn safety device is connected to a police database to provide real-time information about at least one of persons of interest, warrants, and vehicle registrations during stops or encounters.
In the same field of endeavor, Malbotra teaches wherein the body-worn safety device is connected to a police database to provide real-time information about at least one of persons of interest, warrants, and vehicle registrations during stops or encounters (Column 7 lines 6-26) for the benefit of obtaining the information from authorized source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the body-worn safety device is connected to a police database to provide real-time information about at least one of persons of interest, warrants, and vehicle registrations during stops or encounters as shown in Malbotra, in Claire device for the benefit of obtaining the information from authorized source.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claire (Pub # US 2021/0081749 A1) in view of Malbotra (US Patent # 11,551,1127 B1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gray et al. (US Patent # 11,769,017 B1).
Consider claim 15, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device.
Claire and Malbotra combined reference does not teach wherein the body-worn safety device to employ advanced speech-to-text technology to transcribe all captured audio in real-time, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and may discern different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, wherein transcribed text is fed into a private LLM, to analyze and interpret the data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of interest or concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and wherein transcribed data may be stored securely, with access restricted to authorized personnel only to maintain integrity of the data and to ensure it is available for review or legal proceedings if necessary.
In the same field of endeavor, Gray et al. teaches wherein the body-worn safety device to employ advanced speech-to-text technology to transcribe all captured audio in real-time, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and may discern different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, wherein transcribed text is fed into a private LLM, to analyze and interpret the data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of interest or concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and wherein transcribed data may be stored securely, with access restricted to authorized personnel only to maintain integrity of the data and to ensure it is available for review or legal proceedings if necessary (Column 3 lines 21-55) for the benefit of processing natural-language content to generate responsive content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the body-worn safety device to employ advanced speech-to-text technology to transcribe all captured audio in real-time, wherein the transcription is highly accurate, even in noisy environments, and may discern different speakers, making it valuable for documenting interactions and statements, wherein transcribed text is fed into a private LLM, to analyze and interpret the data, and to at least one provide insights, summaries, and flag potential areas of interest or concern based on the context and content of a conversation during the incident, and wherein transcribed data may be stored securely, with access restricted to authorized personnel only to maintain integrity of the data and to ensure it is available for review or legal proceedings if necessary as shown in Gray et al. in Claire and Malhotra combined device for the benefit of processing natural-language content to generate responsive content.
Consider claim 17, Claire teaches the body-worn safety device including wherein the body-worn safety device to integrate with GPS tracking with the existing audio and video analysis capabilities to capture a precise location of the wearer whenever the body-worn safety device is activated, and wherein this GPS information is continuously updated [0024].
Claire does not teach wherein the body-worn safety device is be equipped with robust encryption and security protocols to ensure transmission of data to the LLM is secure, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, wherein the body-worn safety device to adhere to legal guidelines regarding consent and recording in public spaces, and transmitted to a central system, and wherein the body-worn safety device is a comprehensive tool for situational awareness and incident management in law enforcement.
In the same field of endeavor, Malhotra teaches wherein the body-worn safety device is be equipped with robust encryption and security protocols to ensure transmission of data to secure, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, wherein the body-worn safety device to adhere to legal guidelines regarding consent and recording in public spaces, and transmitted to a central system, and wherein the body-worn safety device is a comprehensive tool for situational awareness and incident management in law enforcement (Column 16 lines 28-53) for the benefit of securing the data during the transmission.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Gray et al. teaches wherein the body-worn safety device is to ensure transmission of data to the LLM (Abstract) for the benefit of generating output summaries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the body-worn safety device is be equipped with robust encryption and security protocols to ensure transmission of data to the LLM is secure, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, wherein the body-worn safety device to adhere to legal guidelines regarding consent and recording in public spaces, and transmitted to a central system, and wherein the body-worn safety device is a comprehensive tool for situational awareness and incident management in law enforcement as shown in Malhotra and Gray et al., in Claire device for the benefit of generating output summaries and securing the data during the transmission.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzik et al. (Pub # US 2023/0083330 A1), and further in view of Shastry et al. (Pub # US 2022/0189501 A1).
Consider claim 20, Guzik et al. teaches a wearable safety system comprising: a body-worn camera configured to capture audiovisual data during operational activities [0014].
Guzik et al. does not teach a transcription module configured to convert captured audio into text; a report drafting module configured to automatically generate a narrative report based at least in part on the transcribed text and captured video metadata; and a data storage module configured to store the drafted report linked to the corresponding audiovisual evidence.
In the same field of endeavor, Shastry et al. teaches a transcription module configured to convert captured audio into text [0026-0030]; a report drafting module configured to automatically generate a narrative report based at least in part on the transcribed text and captured video metadata [0040]; and a data storage module configured to store the drafted report linked to the corresponding audiovisual evidence [0041-0042] for the benefit of analyze the environment and automatically generating report.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a transcription module configured to convert captured audio into text; a report drafting module configured to automatically generate a narrative report based at least in part on the transcribed text and captured video metadata; and a data storage module configured to store the drafted report linked to the corresponding audiovisual evidence as shown in Shastry et al., in Guzik et al. system for the benefit of analyze the environment and automatically generating report.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
