Verint Systems Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2022

2021001146 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2022)

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. 15/179,149 06/10/2016 Yaniv Knany 53489-141US1 9562 122004 7590 03/14/2022 ISUS Intellectual Property PLLC Anthony Jason Mirabito 1300 I Street, NW Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005 EXAMINER ALMANI, MOHSEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2022 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): admin@isusip.com jason@isusip.com officeus@isusip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YANIV KNANY, ODED COHEN, and SHAHAR DALIYOT Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 10, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed January 13, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed June 12, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 7, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed December 7, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Verint Systems LLC, Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a surveillance method and system for monitoring an area with a variety of sensors to obtain related records used to create profiles revealing relationships between sensed data items based on dates, times, and locations associated therewith. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 25. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 above depicts surveillance system 100 including different types of sensors 101 distributed around a monitored area to gather sensed data events recorded along with sensed times, dates and locations to thereby create corresponding records stored in and retrievable from database 120. Spec. ¶¶ 26, 27, 39. Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 3 Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized, illustrates the disputed subject matter: 1. A method for creating profiles from data gathered using a surveillance system, the method comprising: surveilling an area using a plurality of sensors to obtain records, wherein each record is one of a plurality of record types, and wherein each record comprises (i) sensed data corresponding to the record type and (ii) a date, a time, and a location corresponding to the sensed data, wherein surveilling the area comprises at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors communicating with at least another sensor of the plurality of sensors; relating records of different record types by correlating the date, time, and location of the records; creating a plurality of profiles based on the related records, wherein the profiles show a relationship between the related records, wherein the related records include records from at least two different times or two different locations; storing the profiles in a database; determining at least two profiles created based on a plurality of records wherein the at least two profiles have at least one matching record, wherein the matching records of the least two profiles include the same date, the same time, and the same location corresponding to the sensed data; creating a link between the at least two profiles that have at least partially matching records; storing the link with the profiles in the database; and using the link to relate subsequently obtained records. Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 4 III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Ruiz US 2004/0143602 A1 July 22, 2004 Nathan US 2014/0379296 A1 Dec. 25, 2014 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 as follows: Claims 1-14, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Ruiz. Final Act. 2-9. Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ruiz and Nathan. Id. at 10. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6-16 and the Reply Brief, pages 2-4.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Belated arguments are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”) Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 5 Brief.5 Final Act. 2-12; Ans. 3-13. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 1. Anticipation Rejection Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Ruiz anticipates claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-13. In particular, Appellant argues that Ruiz does not describe relating records of different types by correlating two different dates, times and locations to thereby create associated profiles, as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 12-13. Appellant argues that Ruiz discloses an adaptive surveillance system that automatically responds and adapts to events in a changing environment without continuously changing the camera systems parameters. Id. at 7 (citing Ruiz ¶ 9). According to Appellant, although Ruiz discloses storing surveillance data in a relational database and updating the configuration profile of the surveillance system in response to detected events, Ruiz does not indicate how the records are related to each other. Id. at 7-11 (citing Ruiz ¶¶ 9, 78-81, 93, 175, 176, 179). More particularly, Appellant argues that merely storing captured surveillance data in a relational database in a searchable manner does not result in relating records to create profiles. Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. 5 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 6 Ruiz discloses an adaptive surveillance system for storing in a relational database captured events as defined by Virtual Event Perimeters (VEP) sensed in a monitored area using Virtual Configuration Perimeters (VCP) to dynamically adjust the surveillance system to captured events. Ruiz, Abstr. In particular, Ruiz discloses using VEPs including real-time, just-in-time, recent time, and after the fact operation to define search data and data to be monitored so as to provide future configurations of the VCP including operational profiles of the surveillance system. Id. ¶¶ 9, 78-82, 93. More particularly, Ruiz discloses storing in the fields of a Relational Surveillance Database System (RSDS) captured surveillance data as specified by VEPs and VCPs fields of the RSDS to correlate events collected in the same or different dates, times, and locations thereby permitting the RSDS to search profiles containing specified parameters for subsequent presentation to the user. Id. ¶¶ 72, 73, 93, 153, 175. We agree with the Examiner that Ruiz’s disclosure of storing in the fields of a RSDS events collected according to dates, times, and locations within a monitored area describes related records stored in the RSDS according to different dates, times, and locations, which are subsequently used to generate profiles for automatically configuring the surveillance system describes the disputed claim limitations. Ans. 8-9, 12 (citing Ruiz ¶¶ 72, 73, 93, 175, 176, 179). That is, because the disclosed RSDS includes fields that relate different recorded events according to different locations, dates, and times of occurrence to thereby generate profiles to update the configuration of the adaptive surveillance system, we are satisfied that Ruiz describes the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 7 Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Ruiz. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-14, 16, and 18-20, Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. As such, claims 2-14, 16, and 18-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 2. Obviousness Rejection Regarding claims 15 and 17, Appellant argues that Nathan does not cure the noted deficiencies previously argued for patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive because we did not find any such discrepancies for Nathan to remedy. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Bas is Affirmed Reversed 1-14, 16, 18- 20 102 Ruiz 1-14, 16, 18- 20 15, 17 103 Ruiz, Nathan 15, 17 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2021-001146 Application 15/179,149 8 VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED