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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 40-55 and 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hickman et al. (US 20160259794 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Hickman discloses a method of associating evidence recorded by a first media source with a discrete occurrence, comprising:
obtaining, from the first media source, first evidence data captured by the first media source, the first evidence data comprising at least first media data and related first metadata, and storing at least the related first metadata in an evidence record (Hickman: paragraph [0045], at least some of the initial metadata may be generated automatically, e.g., by the digital media device 150 that was used to record the content);
obtaining, from a second media source, second evidence data captured by the second media source, the second evidence data comprising at least second media data and related second metadata, said second evidence data comprising an indication of the discrete occurrence and storing the indication in an occurrence record, the indication comprising at least location data associated with the discrete occurrence (Hickman: paragraph [0045], at least some of the initial metadata may be generated automatically, e.g., by the digital media device 150 that was used to record the content);
identifying a proximity relationship between the first media source and the second media source based at least on a first location associated with the first evidence data and a second location associated with the second media source (Hickman: paragraph [0046], if GPS or other location data is included in the initial metadata, matches may be identified based on comparisons of Start Time, End Time, and location information); and
creating an association between said first evidence data and one of said second media source or said second evidence data and storing the association in at least one of the evidence record and the occurrence record (Hickman: paragraph [0048], automated matching and tagging).
Regarding claim 41, Hickman discloses that said creating the association comprises creating a link in a database between the first media data and the second media data (Hickman: paragraph [0048], automated matching and tagging).
Regarding claim 42, Hickman discloses that at least one of the identifying of the proximity relationship and the creating of the association is performed at the first media source (Hickman: paragraph [0046], if GPS or other location data is included in the initial metadata, matches may be identified based on comparisons of Start Time, End Time, and location information).
Regarding claim 43, Hickman discloses that obtaining the first evidence data occurs at the first media source, the method comprising obtaining, at the first media source, the indication of the discrete occurrence (Hickman: paragraph [0045], at least some of the initial metadata may be generated automatically, e.g., by the digital media device 150 that was used to record the content).
Regarding claim 44, Hickman discloses that the indication is obtained when the second media source is capturing the second evidence data in proximity to the first media source (Hickman: paragraph [0046], if GPS or other location data is included in the initial metadata, matches may be identified based on comparisons of Start Time, End Time, and location information).
Regarding claim 45, Hickman discloses that the steps are performed within a server separate from the first media source and the second media source (Hickman: paragraph [0057], processing may be performed at a server).
Regarding claim 46, Hickman discloses that the indication is based on a geographical proximity of the second media source from the first media source (Hickman: paragraph [0046], if GPS or other location data is included in the initial metadata, matches may be identified based on comparisons of Start Time, End Time, and location information).
Regarding claim 47, Hickman discloses that said proximity relationship is further based on a time proximity between a recording of said first evidence data and the recording of said second evidence data (Hickman: paragraph [0046], if GPS or other location data is included in the initial metadata, matches may be identified based on comparisons of Start Time, End Time, and location information).
Regarding claim 48, Hickman discloses
wherein the method occurs automatically after the recording of the discrete occurrence without human intervention (Hickman: paragraph [0048], automated matching and tagging), and
wherein an access permission is required for viewing said first evidence data, said second evidence data, said proximity relationship and said association (Hickman: paragraph [0023], computer system 130 may require successful authentication of the user; paragraph [0025], an authenticated computing device 170 on an agency network sends search queries for potentially relevant content to the service provider computer system 130).
Regarding claim 49, Hickman discloses that the method is performed at a database remote from said first media source and said second media source (Hickman: paragraph [0057], processing may be performed at a server).
Regarding claim 50, Hickman discloses that at least said first evidence data is encrypted (Hickman: paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 51, Hickman discloses that at least said first location is based on geolocation data and at least said first media source comprises a GPS antenna for determining said geolocation data (Hickman: paragraph [0034], GPS).
Regarding claim 52, Hickman discloses that said first evidence data is stored as discrete segmented files each with respective metadata (Hickman: paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 53, Hickman discloses that the association refers to some but not all of said discrete segmented files of said first evidence data (Hickman: paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 54, Hickman discloses that the non-associated discrete segmented files of said first evidence data are discarded from consideration without human intervention (Hickman: paragraph [0041], content matched based on specific criteria).
Regarding claim 55, Hickman discloses that the non-associated discrete segmented files are discarded from amongst query results for a query performed by a user (Hickman: paragraph [0006], the computer system can provide search results based on the analysis of the modified metadata; paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 57, Hickman discloses that said first location is stored in said first metadata, and said second location is stored in said second metadata, and said identifying a proximity relationship is based only on information in said first metadata and said second metadata (Hickman: paragraph [0046], if GPS or other location data is included in the initial metadata, matches may be identified based on comparisons of Start Time, End Time, and location information).
Claim 58 recites the corresponding system for implementing the method of claim 40. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 40 are applicable to claim 58. Additionally, Hickman discloses at least one processor and system memory storing program modules operated by the processor (Hickman: paragraph [0059]). Accordingly, claim 58 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 40 above.
Regarding claim 59, Hickman discloses that said first evidence data and said second evidence data are transmitted automatically to the server and said server automatically engages in the creation of the association without human input (Hickman: paragraph [0048], automated matching and tagging; paragraph [0057], processing may be performed at a server).
Claim 60 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 51 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.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman et al. (US 20160259794 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20140214885 A1).
Regarding claim 56, Hickman does not specifically disclose that said proximity relationship is further based on a time-line path of a suspect or conveyance implicated in the occurrence. However, Park discloses an evidence video generating system, wherein a path analysis unit configured to acquire a path of the specific object among the multiple surveillance cameras by analyzing correlations between the search results, and then to output the path of the specific object (Park: paragraph [0016]). The path analysis unit may display the path of the specific object in time order using a map on which environments and locations in and on which the multiple surveillance cameras have been installed (Park: paragraph [0017]). The forensic data about the stored videos may include a video recording time in each camera from which video sources have been collected and still images of the original videos (Park: paragraph [0018]). Since Hickman and Park relate to video surveillance systems with automatic association of related video clips, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the path tracking of Park with the system of Hickman in order to provide efficient object searches by extracting robust object features in various surveillance camera installation environments and then indexing and searching for objects within videos, providing the path of a specific object by analyzing search results, and generating an evidence video used as forensic evidential material by collecting only videos including only a specific object (Park: paragraph [0088]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights