Carey, James

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2019004949 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/256,385 04/18/2014 James Carey 2034-15 9475
31554 7590 02/02/2021
CARTER, DELUCA & FARRELL LLP
576 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
MELVILLE, NY 11747
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@carterdeluca.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES CAREY
Appeal 2019-004949
Application 14/256,385
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant does not identify a real party in interest.
Appeal 2019-004949
Application 14/256,385
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “video observation, surveillance and
verification systems and methods of use.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An analytical recognition system, comprising:
at least one video camera configured to capture video;
and
a video analytics module configured to:
perform real-time video processing and analysis of the
captured video,
generate non-video data,
implement one or more algorithms to identify an
abnormal situation, each abnormal situation alerting the video
analytics module to automatically issue an alert and track one or
more objects or individuals by utilizing the at least one camera,
wherein the abnormal situation is selected from the group
consisting of action of a particular individual, inaction of a
particular individual, a temporal event, and an externally
generated event,
generate a library of individuals who visit a location with
a predetermined degree of regularity, and
exclude, from being tracked, individuals who are listed
within the library of individuals and who have been determined
to have visited the location with the predetermined degree of
regularity.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2019-004949
Application 14/256,385
3
Name Reference Date
Elazar US 2004/0161133 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Rathod US 2014/0129942 A1 May 8, 2014

REJECTION
Claims 1–11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Elazar and Rathod. Final Act. 2–4.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–11 and 21 over Elazar and Rathod
The Examiner finds Elazar and Rathod teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 6–7. In particular, the Examiner finds
[a]lthough Elazar discloses generating a library of individual[s]
who visit a location with a predetermined degree of regularity
. . ., it is noted that Elazar does not provide the particular to
exclude, from being tracked, individual[s] who are listed within
the library of individuals and who have been determined to have
visited the location with the predetermined degree of regularity.
Final Act. 3 (citing Elazar ¶ 47). The Examiner further finds
Rathod, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a video analytic
system (see fig. 1) to exclude, from being tracked (see “privacy
settings” in 2020 in fig. 2; e.g. see abstract), individual[s] who
are listed within the library of individuals (see 2010 in fig. 2) and
who have been determined to have visited the location with the
predetermined degree of regularity (see 2010-2015 in fig. 2).
Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons
[g]iven the teachings as a whole, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to incorporate Rathod[’s] teachings of privacy settings
in tracking into Elazar[’s] video content analysis for the benefit
Appeal 2019-004949
Application 14/256,385
4
[of] maintaining a person[’s] privacy in an open or shared
workspace and applications.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
Elazar does not teach “generate a library of individuals who visit a
location with a predetermined degree of regularity” (claim 1) because “the
surveillance system of Elazar does not take into consideration the number of
visits that a person has made to a certain location.” Appeal Br. 4; see also
Reply Br. 2–4 (arguing the interpretation of “predetermined degree of
regularity” (claim 1)). “[The] preferences and privacy settings [in Rathod]
are simply used in Rathod to tailor the news feed and are based on user
selection rather than tracking users [who] ‘have visited the location with the
predetermined degree of regularity.’” Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 5–6.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We determine the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Elazar discloses “[r]ecognized persons can be those persons that have
been previously identified in other objects or may be faces that are provided
to the system, such as from law enforcement agencies or that are previously
scanned by the employer.” Elazar ¶ 47.
Regarding “generate a library of individuals who visit a location with
a predetermined degree of regularity” (claim 1), even if we assume for our
analysis that Elazar’s recognized persons reasonably describe individuals
who visit a location with a predetermined degree of regularity, Elazar does
not teach excluding such individuals from being tracked. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-004949
Application 14/256,385
5
Rathod discloses “generating visual, video, stream media or
multimedia actions and activities feeds for one or more actions or activities
for one or more determined receiving users based on one or more filters,
preferences and privacy settings of sender(s) and/or receiver(s).” Rathod,
Abstract; see also Rathod, Fig. 2 (blocks 2020 (“privacy settings”), 2035
(“privacy settings”)).
To the extent Rathod’s privacy settings of senders and receivers
reasonably describe excluding a particular individual from being tracked,
Rathod does not teach that the excluded particular individual is an individual
who visits a location with a predetermined degree of regularity. Rather, the
excluded particular individual is excluded based on user preferences
(privacy settings). See Advisory Action (“The secondary reference merely
teaches the deficiency of the primary reference which is exclude from
tracking [an] individual based on user preference.”).
Thus, we determine neither Elazar nor Rathod, individually, teaches
“exclude, from being tracked, individuals who are listed within the library of
individuals and who have been determined to have visited the location with
the predetermined degree of regularity” (claim 1).
In combining the teachings of the references, the Examiner reasons
that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the applied
references “for the benefit [of] maintaining a person[’s] privacy in an open
or shared workspace and applications.” Final Act. 3. We determine this
reasoning lacks a rational underpinning. On the record, we do not readily see
why a skilled artisan would have excluded individuals who visit a location
with a predetermined degree of regularity from being tracked, as recited in
claim 1. At best, adding Rathod’s privacy settings to Elazar would result in
Elazar’s system having the ability to exclude particular individuals from
Appeal 2019-004949
Application 14/256,385
6
being tracked based on user preferences (see Advisory Action), but not
specifically based on individuals who visit a location with a predetermined
degree of regularity (see claim 1).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–11 and
21, which depend from claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 21 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 21 103 Elazar, Rathod 1–11, 21

REVERSED