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 .
Applicant has filed a fifth RCE and Reply on 03 June 2025 following the affirmance of all prior rejections at the PTAB on 01 April 2025 in Appeal Number 2024-002206. The PTAB’s decision is summarized below and copied from pg. 8 of the Decision
PNG
media_image1.png
766
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the following step of claim 1 is not disclosed or suggested:
“storing, based on associating the first information and the second information, the first information with a second identifier associated with the second information”.
In response, see Araya [0053], [0082], [0084]-[0089] storing video from the monitoring devices and the unique incident identifier (second identifier) and the identifying metadata (also second identifiers) such as time, date, and location associated with the (first and second information) in a central storage}.
In more detail, Applicant argues that Araya describes a common/unique incident identifier and not a “second identifier associated with the second information”. In response, the claim language merely recites one identifier (the second identifier) and not two. In other words, Araya’s common identifier is associated with both the first and second information and fully meets the broadly recited invention. See also the Examiner’s Answer, pg. 9 and the PTAB Decision, pgs. 5-6, citing Spec paragraphs 31, 35 in which a highly related and corresponding term “event identifier” encompasses at least various metadata including geographical proximity/location, event type, event severity, time the event was detected and type of data that was captured because these are consistent with the specification. As such, the “second identifier” clearly also has a BRI that encompasses the common identifier and/or various metadata of Araya.
As can be seen for [0037] and [0039], the instant specification discloses the event identifier in terms of a lookup or search function in which the first and second information may be commonly/jointly accessed using an “identifier” that is recited in claim 1 as “a second identifier associated with the second information”. One of ordinary skill in the art reading these passages would thus understand that at least geographical proximity/location and event type are consistent with this disclosure of an “second identifier associated with the second information” and are therefore within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “second event” because location and/or event type can be used as search criteria to look-up and retrieve information associated with the event including the media content associated with the first and second information. Likewise, event id and event severity are also indicative of the event and can be used to look-up and retrieve information associated with events.
In further response, Applicant’s arguments fail to address the additional assertion in the office action in which identifying metadata such as time, date and location are also “identifiers” and stored with the first and second information. Moreover, this type of identifier information (metadata) is different for each of the first and second information (each has a different time, date, and/or location).
In sum, Applicant’s arguments fail to appreciate the BRI of various claim terms including the second identifier or convincingly address the evidence presented in office action.
Applicant also argues, Section B, that the prior art does not disclose or suggest:
“in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information and based on the second identifier stored with the first information, sending, to a user device data for accessing the first media content and the second media content”.
The first part of the argument is based on Section A and has been wholly refuted above. Moreover, Section B continues to ignore Araya’s metadata (time, date and/or location) being used as an identifier and which metadata is stored with the (first and second) information.
As to Srinivasan, Applicant argues that this reference does not disclose a second identifier stored with the first information. In response, Araya was asserted as to this feature. Srinivasan is applied to the portions of this claim element in strike-through font except for the “data for accessing” to which Modestine is applied.
Further as to Srinivasan, note that the “user-initiated request”, see [0028], is used by the content server 106 to not only validate user identities but also as a search function to locate and retrieve content requested by users to stream/transmit the content (e.g. first and second media content) to the requesting user. Thus, the shared geographic proximity based on first and second information (location) of the houses 405, 415 and identifier (location of event) is used to determine whether to share (send to the user device) the media content with neighbors. See also Fig. 6 illustrating server determining the location of the security console 720 and identifying a group of other devices near the location. See also paragraphs [0047], [0048] as well as [0057], [0058], [0068] and [0003]}.
The remaining arguments, pgs. 10-12, are pro-forma assertions having no particular substantive argument that merits a response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 21-23, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya (US 2016/0042767 A1), Srinivasan (US 9,721,443, published 11 September 2014 as US 2014/0253321), and Modestine (US 2018/0233010 A1)
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Araya discloses a method comprising:
receiving first information associated with first media content captured by a first monitoring device located at a first premises, wherein the first information is associated with an event detected at the first premises
{Fig. 12 including recording an incident, 1200, at a first fixed-location surveillance camera, broadcasting an incident identifier (first information), that is received, 1204, by another, second fixed-location surveillance camera and wherein the first information is associated with an event detected at the first premises [0071]-[0075]. As to associated with an event detected see [0071], [0083] in which a stolen/wanted vehicle is detected via license plate recognition or a gunshot sound is recognized to trigger coordinated surveillance using broadcasted incident identifiers.
Moreover, the incident identifier and, independently, the location of incident are clearly examples of and well within the BRI of “first information” from the first monitoring device and “second information” from the second monitoring device. As set forth in the affirmed Appeal Brief, pg. 8 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of first and second “information” that is consistent with the specification encompasses a wide range of concepts. Indeed, the instant specification states that:
The first [and second] information may comprise, for example, an indication that the event was detected, an identifier of the event, an indication of the type of event that was detected, an indication of the severity of the event, a location of the premises, the time the event was detected, the type of data that was captured by the monitoring device, and/or one or more characteristics of the data that was captured by the monitoring device. However, it is understood that the information may comprise any type of data associated with the event (emphasis added to highlight the wide range of concepts being encompassed). Instant specification at [0031]. See also [0035] providing the same definition for the second information.
Moreover, the terms “based on” and “related to” are quite broad and do not specify any particular methodology but instead a generalized relationship between elements.”.}
causing, based on the first information, activation of a second monitoring device located at a second premises and reception of second information associated with second media content captured by the second monitoring device
{Fig. 12 including receive incident identifier (first information) which causes activation, begin recording 1206, by a second monitoring device at a second premises and initiation of another beacon broadcast (re-broadcast) by the second device as per [0055]-[0056], [0074]-[0076], [0080]} that is received by other local devices and a central dispatch system. As per [0079], [0081]-[0082] the recorded video data from all the devices and incident identifiers in the metadata may also transferred to and received by a central legal evidence management system for integration, retention, and possible use as legal evidence. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may be activated based on the first information, [0048]};
based on the activation of the second monitoring device associating the first information and the second information with the event detected at the first premise
{see [0082], [0084]-[0089] video from the monitoring devices and the incident identifiers and the identifying metadata such as time, date, and location (first and second information) are associated based on the activation of the second monitoring device};
storing, based on associating the first information and the second information, the first information with a second identifier associated with the second information {see Araya [0053], [0082], [0084]-[0089] storing video from the monitoring devices and the unique incident identifier (second identifier) and the identifying metadata (also second identifiers) such as time, date, and/or location associated with the (first and second information) in a central storage}; and
to the incident to a central situational awareness command to enable real-time visibility and a map-based view of the location and status of all devices involved in the incident}.
Although Ayra clearly gives a central dispatcher the ability to send, to a user device, the first and second media content and organizes/stores the media content using an incident identifier common to both media content, Araya does not clearly disclose that such a sending is in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information or that data for accessing the media content is sent instead of the media content itself.
Srinivasan is a highly relevant and analogous reference. See the application of Srinivasan to the claims of the application in the Examiner’s Answer which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Srinivasan also teaches
in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information and based on the second identifier stored with the first information, sending, to a user device
{see step 730, Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0068]-[0070. The user-initiated request for the information associated with the event corresponds to the content request in [0028] and/or the detection of the fire/burglar alarm in which location of the fire/burglar alarm serves as a request to send the shared alert message content to neighboring security consoles including second media content. Further as to “user-initiated request” see [0028], is used by the content server 106 to not only validate user identities but also as a search function to locate and retrieve content requested by users to stream/transmit the content (e.g. first and second media content) to the requesting user. Thus, the shared geographic proximity based on first and second information (location) of the houses 405, 415 and identifier (location of event) is used to determine whether to share (send to the user device) the media content with neighbors. See also Fig. 6 illustrating server determining the location of the security console 720 and identifying a group of other devices near the location. See also paragraphs [0047], [0048] as well as [0057], [0058], [0068] and [0003]}.
It 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 to have modified Arya’s method that already discloses giving a central dispatcher the ability to send, to a user device, the first and second media content and organizing/storing the media content using an incident identifier common to both media content such that the sending a sending is in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information as taught by Srivinasan because doing so enables more flexible retrieval by various different parties of the shared A/V recordings by client devices with a shared geographical region thus increasing neighborhood awareness of security incidents; because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Modestine is a highly relevant and analogous reference from the same field of cooperative surveillance/alerts and sharing of recorded video content between neighbors and their respective monitoring devices. See abstract, Figs. 14, 25, 31, 36, 66 and [0002]-[0006] and citations below. See the application of Modestine to the claims on the application in the Examiner’s Answer which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Modestine teaches, inter alia,
receiving, from a user device, a user-initiated request for information associated with the event
{[0194]-[0195] teaches that the A/V recording may be viewed at a later time per requests by the user of the first premises. See also [0251] providing further details of viewing shared video footage at a later time which includes client devices 830 sending playback request signals to the backend API 802.
See also the opt-in signal which is a user request from each client device to participate in the neighborhood alert system to receive information associated with the event (e.g. burglary) in [0314], Fig. 55 including B5501. See also neighborhood alert settings enabling opt-in and setting alert radius for each client device which permit a user to enter their requests for information (e.g. videos, media) associated with the geographically proximal event.
See also Fig. 41, [0266]-[0269] illustrating a GUI that receives a user request, from a particular house/premises/A/V security camera location, for information about various types of events such as burglary, theft, suspicious activity, and etc. As such, each homeowner can subscribe to only those types of events that are of interest such that, for example, only A/V recordings of burglaries being shared by a neighbor would be notified to the homeowner via a share notification signal}; and
in response to the user-initiated request, sending, to the user device data for accessing the first media content and the second media content
{[0194]-[0195] teaches that the A/V recording may be viewed at a later time per requests by the user of the first premises. Note also that [0200] teaches that a single user may have plural A/V recording and communication devices (first and second monitoring devices) at different locations (e.g. separate structures/premises) and that such these devices share one alert radius. See also Figs. 12, 31 illustrating alert radii and sharing for monitoring devices at different premises. As such, when the user of these devices shares their recordings or other people request this shared footage the result is sharing of both first and second media content. See also [0251] providing further details of viewing shared video footage at a later time which includes client devices 830 sending playback request signals to the backend API 802. The playback request comprises “data for accessing” the media content as does the identifier of the shared video footage and/or the URL (uniform resource locator) that used by the API to retrieve the shared video footage for playback. In response, the backend API 802 transmits the requested video signal including the shared video footage. See also Fig. 26, 27.}.
It 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 to have modified the base combination of Araya and Srinivasan that already includes a method that in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information and based on the second identifier stored with the first information, sends, to a user device the first media content and the second media content such that the sending step sends data for accessing the first media content and the second media content as taught by Modestine because this data enables retrieval such as later-retrieval of the shared A/V recordings by client devices that have opted in and/or are within the geographic neighborhood as motivated by Modestine; because sending data for accessing reduces network bandwidth as compared with sending the entire video and such that the user has the option of actually downloading the videos and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Araya discloses wherein the event comprises at least one of a detected condition, an alarm condition, a burglary, or a fire {see mapping of claim 1 including detected conditions/events as per [0071], [0083] in which a stolen/wanted vehicle (burglary) is detected via license plate recognition or a gunshot sound is recognized (detected condition and/or alarm condition) to trigger coordinated surveillance using broadcasted incident identifiers
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Araya discloses wherein the first monitoring device comprises at least one of a camera, a video camera, or a motion sensor {see mapping of claim 1. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may include a camera, video camera, and motion sensor, [0005]-[0007], [0035], [0048]-[0049.], [0063]-[0064], [0060]}.
Independent Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Araya discloses a method comprising:
receiving first information associated with first data captured by a first monitoring device located at a first location, wherein the first information and the first data are associated with one or more alarm conditions detected at the first location
{Fig. 12 including recording an incident, 1200, at a first fixed-location surveillance camera, broadcasting an incident identifier (first information associated with first data captured (video data, licensed plate recognition for wanted car, gunshot, etc.)) that is received, 1204, by another, second fixed-location surveillance camera and wherein the first information and first data is associated with an alarm condition detected at the first location [0071]-[0075]. As to associated with an alarm condition(s) see [0071], [0083] in which a stolen/wanted vehicle is detected via license plate recognition or a gunshot sound is recognized to trigger coordinated surveillance using broadcasted incident identifiers.
Moreover, the incident identifier and location of incident are clearly examples of and well within the BRI of “first information” from the first monitoring device and “second information” from the second monitoring device. As set forth in the affirmed Appeal Brief, pg. 8 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of first and second “information” that is consistent with the specification encompasses a wide range of concepts. Indeed, the instant specification states that:
The first [and second] information may comprise, for example, an indication that the event was detected, an identifier of the event, an indication of the type of event that was detected, an indication of the severity of the event, a location of the premises, the time the event was detected, the type of data that was captured by the monitoring device, and/or one or more characteristics of the data that was captured by the monitoring device. However, it is understood that the information may comprise any type of data associated with the event (emphasis added to highlight the wide range of concepts being encompassed). Instant specification at [0031]. See also [0035] providing the same definition for the second information.
};
determining, based on receiving the first information, to activate a second monitoring device located at a second location
{Fig. 12 including receive incident identifier (first information) which causes activation, begin recording 1206, by a second monitoring device at a second premises and initiation of another beacon broadcast (re-broadcast) by the second device as per [0055]-[0056], [0074]-[0076], [0080]} that is received by other local devices and a central dispatch system. As per [0079], [0081]-[0082] the recorded video data from all the devices and incident identifiers in the metadata may also transferred to and received by a central legal evidence management system for integration, retention, and possible use as legal evidence. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may be activated based on the first information, [0048]};
associating, based on determining to activate the second monitoring device and receiving second information associated with second data captured by the second monitoring device, the first information and the second information with one or more alarm conditions
{see [0082], [0084]-[0089] in which, based on the activation of the second monitoring device, video from the monitoring devices and the incident identifier and the identifying metadata such as time, date, and location (first and second information) are associated with the event detected at the first premises};
storing, based on associating the first information and the second information, the first information with a second identifier associated with the second information
{see Araya [0053], [0082], [0084]-[0089] storing video from the monitoring devices and the unique incident identifier (second identifier) and the identifying metadata (also second identifiers) such as time, date, and/or location associated with the (first and second information) in a central storage}; and
{see [0082], [0084]-[0089] which stores multiple video, audio with associated metadata into an integrated data stream for an incident which may be identified and retrieved via the incident identifier or the metadata, [0038]-[0039], [0040]-[0042], [0046]-[0049], [0053], [0058] in which the central system can trigger display/streaming of the video data feeds relevant to the incident to a central situational awareness command to enable real-time visibility and a map-based view of the location and status of all devices involved in the incident}.
Although Ayra clearly gives a central dispatcher the ability to send, to a user device, data for access the first and second media content and organizes/stores the media content using an incident identifier common to both media content, Araya does not clearly disclose that such a sending is in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information or that information for accessing is sent instead of the data itself.
Srinivasan is a highly relevant and analogous reference. See the application of Srinivasan to the claims on the application in the Examiner’s Answer which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Srinivasan also teaches
in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information and based on the second identifier stored with the first information, sending, to a user device
{see step 730, Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0068]-[0070. The user-initiated request for the information associated with the event corresponds to the content request in [0028] and/or the detection of the fire/burglar alarm in which location of the fire/burglar alarm serves as a request to send the shared alert message content to neighboring security consoles including second media content. Further as to “user-initiated request” see [0028], is used by the content server 106 to not only validate user identities but also as a search function to locate and retrieve content requested by users to stream/transmit the content (e.g. first and second media content) to the requesting user. Thus, the shared geographic proximity based on first and second information (location) of the houses 405, 415 and identifier (location of event) is used to determine whether to share (send to the user device) the media content with neighbors. See also Fig. 6 illustrating server determining the location of the security console 720 and identifying a group of other devices near the location. See also paragraphs [0047], [0048] as well as [0057], [0058], [0068] and [0003]}.
It 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 to have modified Arya’s method that already discloses giving a central dispatcher the ability to send, to a user device, the first and second data (e.g. media content) and organizing/storing the media content using an incident identifier common to both media content such that the sending is in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information as taught by Srivinasan because doing so enables more flexible retrieval by various different parties of the shared A/V recordings by client devices with a shared geographical region thus increasing neighborhood awareness of security incidents; because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Modestine is a highly relevant and analogous reference from the same field of cooperative surveillance/alerts and sharing of recorded video content between neighbors and their respective monitoring devices. See abstract, Figs. 14, 25, 31, 36, 66 and [0002]-[0006] and citations below. See the application of Modestine to the claims on the application in the Examiner’s Answer which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Modestine teaches, inter alia,
receiving, from a user device, a user-initiated request for information associated with the event
{[0194]-[0195] teaches that the A/V recording may be viewed at a later time per requests by the user of the first premises. See also [0251] providing further details of viewing shared video footage at a later time which includes client devices 830 sending playback request signals to the backend API 802.
See also the opt-in signal which is a user request from each client device to participate in the neighborhood alert system to receive information associated with the event (e.g. burglary) in [0314], Fig. 55 including B5501. See also neighborhood alert settings enabling opt-in and setting alert radius for each client device which permit a user to enter their requests for information (e.g. videos, media) associated with the geographically proximal event.
See also Fig. 41, [0266]-[0269] illustrating a GUI that receives a user request, from a particular house/premises/A/V security camera location, for information about various types of events such as burglary, theft, suspicious activity, and etc. As such, each homeowner can subscribe to only those types of events that are of interest such that, for example, only A/V recordings of burglaries being shared by a neighbor would be notified to the homeowner via a share notification signal}; and
in response to the user-initiated request to access the first information and based on the second identifier stored with the first information, sending, to a user device information for accessing the first and second data (media content)
{[0194]-[0195] teaches that the A/V recording may be viewed at a later time per requests by the user of the first premises. Note also that [0200] teaches that a single user may have plural A/V recording and communication devices (first and second monitoring devices) at different locations (e.g. separate structures/premises) and that such these devices share one alert radius. See also Figs. 12, 31 illustrating alert radii and sharing for monitoring devices at different premises. As such, when the user of these devices shares their recordings or other people request this shared footage the result is sharing of both first and second media content. See also [0251] providing further details of viewing shared video footage at a later time which includes client devices 830 sending playback request signals to the backend API 802. The playback request comprises “information for accessing” the media content as does the identifier of the shared video footage and/or the URL (uniform resource locator) that used by the API to retrieve the shared video footage for playback. In response, the backend API 802 transmits the requested video signal (data) including the shared video footage. See also Fig. 26, 27.}.
It 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 to have modified the base combination of Araya and Srinivasan that already includes a method that, in response to the user-initiated request to access the first information and based on the second identifier stored with the first information, sending, to a user device the first and second data (media content) such that the sending step sends information for accessing the first and second data (media content) as taught by Modestine because this data enables retrieval such as later-retrieval of the shared A/V recordings by client devices that have opted in and/or are within the geographic neighborhood as motivated by Modestine; because sending data for accessing reduces network bandwidth as compared with sending the entire video and such that the user has the option of actually downloading the videos and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Araya discloses wherein the second information comprises one or more of image data, video data, or audio data {see mapping of claim 8. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may include a camera, video camera, microphone, and motion sensor such that the second information may be image data, video data or audio data as per [0005]-[0007], [0035], [0048]-[0049.], [0063]-[0064], [0060]}.
Claim 11
In regards to claim 11, Araya discloses wherein the first monitoring device comprises one or more of a camera, a video camera, a motion sensor, a smoke detector, or a flood detector; and the second monitoring device comprises one or more of a camera or a video camera {see mapping of claim 8. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may include a camera, video camera, microphone, and motion sensor as per [0005]-[0007], [0035], [0048]-[0049.], [0063]-[0064], [0060]}.
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, Araya discloses wherein the first monitoring device is a different type of device than the second monitoring device {see mapping of claim 8. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may include a camera, video camera, microphone, and motion sensor as per [0005]-[0007], [0035], [0048]-[0049.], [0063]-[0064], [0060]. See also Figs. 1-11 illustrating different types of monitoring devices}.
Independent Claim 21
In regards to independent claim 21, Araya discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first premises system located at a first premises and based on an event associated with a second premises system located at a second premises, an indication to capture media content
{Fig. 12 including receiving a broadcast incident identifier 1204 at a first fixed-location surveillance camera (first premises) based on an event associated with a second premises system located at a second premises (second fixed-location surveillance camera), in step 1200, wherein the receipt of the broadcast incident identifier in 1204 indicates capturing media content in begin recording step 1206 as per
[0071]-[0075]. Further as to event associated with second premises see [0071], [0083] in which a stolen/wanted vehicle is detected via license plate recognition or a gunshot sound is recognized to trigger coordinated surveillance using broadcasted incident identifiers};
determining, by the first premises system and based on first information associated with the event, to cause a monitoring device of the first premises system to capture media content
{See above mapping including [0071]-[0075] which determines to record/capture video media content in 1206 based on the incident identifier and/or location (first information associated with the event); and
sending, to a computing device external to the first premises and the second premises, second information associated with the captured media content
{see [0082], [0084]-[0089] which stores multiple video, audio, and metadata into an integrated data stream for an incident in a central system (computing device external to first and second premises) which may be identified and retrieved via the incident identifier, [0038]-[0039], [0040]-[0042], [0046]-[0049], [0053], [0058] in which the central system can trigger display/streaming of the video data feeds relevant to the incident to a central situational awareness command to enable real-time visibility and a map-based view of the location and status of all devices involved in the incident},
wherein the computing device is configured to store, based on associating the first information and the second information, the first information with a second identifier associated with the second information
{see [0053], [0082], [0084]-[0089] storing video from the monitoring devices and the unique incident identifier (second information) and the identifying metadata (also second information) such as time, date, and location (first and second information) in a central storage. See also the central system mappings above}, and
send, based on the second identifier stored with the first information
{see [0082], [0084]-[0089] which stores multiple video, audio, and metadata (premises data) into an integrated data stream for an incident which may be identified and retrieved/sent via the incident identifier or the metadata, [0038]-[0039], [0040]-[0042], [0046]-[0049], [0053], [0058] in which the central system can trigger display/streaming/sending of the video data feeds relevant to the incident to a central situational awareness command to enable real-time visibility and a map-based view of the location and status of all devices involved in the incident}.
Although Ayra clearly gives a central dispatcher the ability to send, based on the second identifier stored with the first information, the captured media content and premises data of the second premises system and organizes/stores the media content using an incident identifier common to both media content, Araya does not clearly disclose that such a sending is in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information or that it includes data for accessing the captured media content.
Srinivasan is a highly relevant and analogous reference. See the application of Srinivasan to the claims on the application in the Examiner’s Answer which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Srinivasan also teaches
send, based on the second identifier stored with the first information and in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information
{see step 730, Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0068]-[0070. The user-initiated request for the information associated with the event corresponds to the content request in [0028] and/or the detection of the fire/burglar alarm in which location of the fire/burglar alarm serves as a request to send the shared alert message content to neighboring security consoles including second media content. Further as to “user-initiated request” see [0028], is used by the content server 106 to not only validate user identities but also as a search function to locate and retrieve content requested by users to stream/transmit the content (e.g. first and second media content) to the requesting user. Thus, the shared geographic proximity based on first and second information (location) of the houses 405, 415 and identifier (location of event) is used to determine whether to share (send to the user device) the media content with neighbors. See also Fig. 6 illustrating server determining the location of the security console 720 and identifying a group of other devices near the location. See also paragraphs [0047], [0048] as well as [0057], [0058], [0068] and [0003]}.
It 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 to have modified Arya’s method that already discloses giving a central dispatcher the ability to send, to a user device, the first and second media content and organizing/storing the media content using an incident identifier common to both media content such that the sending a sending is in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information as taught by Srivinasan because doing so enables more flexible retrieval by various different parties of the shared A/V recordings by client devices with a shared geographical region thus increasing neighborhood awareness of security incidents; because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Modestine is a highly relevant and analogous reference from the same field of cooperative surveillance/alerts and sharing of recorded video content between neighbors and their respective monitoring devices. See abstract, Figs. 14, 25, 31, 36, 66 and [0002]-[0006] and citations below. See the application of Modestine to the claims on the application in the Examiner’s Answer which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Modestine teaches, inter alia,
receiving, from a user device, a user-initiated request for information associated with the event
{[0194]-[0195] teaches that the A/V recording may be viewed at a later time per requests by the user of the first premises. See also [0251] providing further details of viewing shared video footage at a later time which includes client devices 830 sending playback request signals to the backend API 802.
See also the opt-in signal which is a user request from each client device to participate in the neighborhood alert system to receive information associated with the event (e.g. burglary) in [0314], Fig. 55 including B5501. See also neighborhood alert settings enabling opt-in and setting alert radius for each client device which permit a user to enter their requests for information (e.g. videos, media) associated with the geographically proximal event.
See also Fig. 41, [0266]-[0269] illustrating a GUI that receives a user request, from a particular house/premises/A/V security camera location, for information about various types of events such as burglary, theft, suspicious activity, and etc. As such, each homeowner can subscribe to only those types of events that are of interest such that, for example, only A/V recordings of burglaries being shared by a neighbor would be notified to the homeowner via a share notification signal}; and
send, based on the second identifier stored with the first information and in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information data for accessing the captured media content and premises data of the second premises system
{[0194]-[0195] teaches that the A/V recording may be viewed at a later time per requests by the user of the first premises. Note also that [0200] teaches that a single user may have plural A/V recording and communication devices (first and second monitoring devices) at different locations (e.g. separate structures/premises) and that such these devices share one alert radius. See also Figs. 12, 31 illustrating alert radii and sharing for monitoring devices at different premises. As such, when the user of these devices shares their recordings or other people request this shared footage the result is sharing of both first and second media content. See also [0251] providing further details of viewing shared video footage at a later time which includes client devices 830 sending playback request signals to the backend API 802. The playback request comprises “data for accessing” the media content as does the identifier of the shared video footage and/or the URL (uniform resource locator) that used by the API to retrieve the shared video footage for playback. In response, the backend API 802 transmits the requested video signal including the shared video footage. See also Fig. 26, 27.}.
It 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 to have modified the base combination of Araya and Srinivasan that already includes a method that sends, based on the second identifier stored with the first information and in response to a user-initiated request to access the first information the captured media content and premises data of the second premises system such that the sending step sends data for accessing the captured media content as taught by Modestine because this data enables retrieval such as later-retrieval of the shared A/V recordings by client devices that have opted in and/or are within the geographic neighborhood as motivated by Modestine; because sending data for accessing reduces network bandwidth as compared with sending the entire video and such that the user has the option of actually downloading the videos and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 22
In regards to claim 22, Araya discloses wherein the monitoring device is selected, based on one or more of a location or an orientation of the monitoring device within the first premises, to capture the media content
{see claim 1 mapping including Fig. 12 receive incident identifier (first information) which causes selects and activates, begin recording 1206, the monitoring device within the first premises to capture the media content. [0055]-[0056], [0074]-[0076], [0080]. See also fig. 4 showing multiple monitoring devices 33, 34, 32 which may be activated/selected based on the location of the monitoring device [0048]. In other words, location data and/or beacon range is used to select monitoring devices in the vicinity}.
Claim 23
In regards to claim 23, Araya discloses wherein the monitoring device is selected, based on the location indicating an outside location, to capture the media content {see above mapping for claim 22. Note that the locations indicated by the broadcasted incident identifier may indicate outside locations. See also Figs. 1-11}.
Claim 26
In regards to claim 26, Araya discloses wherein the first media content comprises a first view of the event and the second media content comprises a second view of the event {See above mapping for claim 1. See also Figs. 1-11 illustrating different views of the event from different monitoring devices. As another example, the initial incident may occur at a fixed-location surveillance camera thus triggering the beacon that causes other monitoring devices to record such as, for example, other fixed-location surveillance cameras near the event and/or the cameras from responding police officers and their body camera(s)}.
Claim 27
In regards to claim 27, Araya discloses wherein the determination further comprising:
determining that the at least a portion of the second information is related to the first information based on a determination that second media content captured by second monitoring device is relevant to a premises monitoring system located at the first premises
{see above citations for claim 1 including [0071]-[0075] in which shared geographic proximity (relevance) is used to trigger coordinated surveillance in which the system determines that the at least a portion of the second information (e.g. location) is related to the first information (proximal relationship/vicinity) based on a determination that second media content captured by second monitoring device is relevant (nearby to location or within range of beacon) to a premises monitoring system located at the first premises}.
Claim 28
In regards to claim 28, Araya discloses wherein the determination further comprising: determining that the at least a portion of the second information is related to the first information based on a determination that the first information and the second information have a similarity in one or more of time or location
{see cites and explanations for claims 1 and 27 wherein both geographic proximity/vicinity and an event trigger (beacon emission time) is used to determine similarity/relevance of an event}.
Claim 31
In regards to claim 31, Araya discloses wherein the second monitoring device was selectively activated among a plurality of monitoring devices at the second premises {see cites and explanations for claims 1 and 27 wherein both geographic proximity/vicinity and an event trigger (beacon emission time) are used to selectively activate the second monitoring device wherein it is noted that “premises” is defined in [0012] of the instant specification as “Example locations of premises monitoring systems may include, for example, a household, an apartment, a condominium, a business, a
warehouse, or any location where it may be desirable to monitor for one or more conditions using one or more monitoring devices 104. These locations may be referred to herein as ‘premises.’”. Thus, the BRI of “premises” encompasses large buildings such as warehouses and apartment complexes the geographic extent of which may exceed the vicinity/proximity range of the determination and/or beacon range while noting that the beacon may use Wi-Fi or Bluetooth which have limited ranges as per [0072] of Araya (e.g. Bluetooth range is about 10 meters and warehouses are larger than 10 meters).
Claim 32
In regards to claim 32, Araya discloses wherein the second monitoring device is among a plurality of monitoring devices at the second premises that were activated
{see cites and explanations for claims 1, 27 and 31. See also Figs. 1-11 clearly contemplating activating plural monitoring devices. As another example, the initial incident may occur at a fixed-location surveillance camera at the second premises thus triggering the beacon that causes other monitoring devices to record such as, for example, other fixed-location surveillance cameras at the second premises and/or the cameras from responding police officers and their body camera(s)}.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, Srivinasan and Modestine as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Chang (US 6,538,689).
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Araya discloses wherein the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device are associated with a central monitoring system {see central dispatch, [0060], Fig. 12, central office, central location, [0071]-[0072], [0075], [0078], [0082]}, and
Chang is highly analogous because it discloses a centralized surveillance system (see Fig. 1 including cameras 20 at different locations/premises which route alarms and video data to a centralized monitoring system 50. See also column 4, lines 32—column 5, line 35). Chang also teaches wherein the premises monitoring system is associated with a first subscriber of the central monitoring system and the second premises monitoring system is associated with a second subscriber of the central monitoring system. See column 3, lines 30-39; column 6, lines 4-55).
It 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 to have modified the Araya to include wherein the first monitoring device is associated with a first subscriber of the central monitoring system and the second monitoring device is associated with a second subscriber of the central monitoring system as taught by Chang because doing so provides a more cost effective solution than not sharing the resources of a centralized monitoring system a) as explicitly motivated by the problem discussed in the background section and solved by Chang by sharing the centralized monitoring system using a subscription model, b) because a subscription model extends the range of cooperative surveillance beyond the broadcast signal range of Araya and/or c) because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or d) because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13
In regards to claim 13, Araya discloses
wherein the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device are configured to communicate with a central monitoring system {see central dispatch, [0060], Fig. 12, central office, central location, [0071]-[0072], [0075], [0078], [0082]}, and
Chang is highly analogous because it discloses a centralized surveillance system (see Fig. 1 including cameras 20 at different locations/premises which route alarms and video data to a centralized monitoring system 50. See also column 4, lines 32—column 5, line 35).
Chang also teaches wherein the first monitoring device is associated with a first subscriber of the central monitoring system and the second monitoring device is associated with a second subscriber of the central monitoring system {See column 3, lines 30-39; column 6, lines 4-55).
It 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 to have modified the Araya to include
wherein the first monitoring device is associated with a first subscriber of the central monitoring system and the second monitoring device is associated with a second subscriber of the central monitoring system as taught by Chang because doing so provides a more cost effective solution than not sharing the resources of a centralized monitoring system a) as explicitly motivated by the problem discussed in the background section and solved by Chang by sharing the centralized monitoring system using a subscription model, b) because a subscription model extends the range of cooperative surveillance beyond the broadcast signal range of Araya and/or c) because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or d) because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 15 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, Srivinasan and Modestine as applied to claim above, and further in view of Ida (US 20180091741 A1).
Claim 15
In regards to claim 15, Araya is not relied upon to disclose but Ida teaches determining, prior to activating the second monitoring device, that the second monitoring device is capable of capturing data associated with the one or more alarm conditions at the first location.
Ida discloses a highly analogous video surveillance system having surveillance cameras [9(#1-#n), Fig. 1] and a centralized surveillance control apparatus 10. Ida also discloses various data associations (see Figs. 4, 8). Ida also teaches a surveillance monitoring device capability determination that reads on the claimed determining, prior to activating the second monitoring device, that the second monitoring device is capable of capturing data associated with the one or more alarm conditions at the first location
(see paragraphs [0047], [0054], [0058], [0071], and [0077]-[0081]).
It 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 to have modified the base combination to include determining, prior to activating the second monitoring device, that the second monitoring device is capable of capturing data associated with the one or more alarm conditions at the first location
as taught by Ida because doing so prevents activation of surveillance cameras that do not have the capability to view the event triggering the alarm condition which conserves bandwidth, storage and processing resources.
Claim 33
In regards to claim 33, Araya is not relied upon to disclose but Ida teaches wherein causing activation of a second monitoring device located at a second premises and reception of second information associated with second media content captured by the second monitoring device is further based on:
determining, based on the first information, that the second monitoring device is capable of capturing information associated with the event detected at the first premises (see paragraphs [0047], [0054], [0058], [0071], and [0077]-[0081]).
It 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 to have modified the base combination to include determining, based on the first information, that the second monitoring device is capable of capturing information associated with the event detected at the first premises
as taught by Ida because doing so prevents activation of surveillance cameras that do not have the capability to view the event triggering the alarm condition which conserves bandwidth, storage and processing resources.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, Srinivasan, and Modestine as applied to claims 22/21 above, and further in view of Rasheed (US 2016/0165187 A1).
Claim 24
Although Araya selects monitoring device to be activated to capture media content based on location (vicinity), Araya is not relied upon to discloses wherein the monitoring device is selected, based on the orientation causing the monitoring device to capture a view of the first premises, to capture the media content.
Rasheed is a highly analogous system that performs coordinated video camera surveillance using video camera metadata and surveillance rules. See Abstract, Fig. 2 showing various monitoring devices (computing devices 210, 220, 230 with video cameras 215, 225, 235, respectively), and implementing the method of Fig. 3, 4, 8. Furthermore, Rasheed teaches wherein the monitoring device is selected, based on the orientation causing the monitoring device to capture a view of the first premises, to capture the media content. See paragraph [0073] in which the orientation (field of view) of the video cameras is used to select which video cameras satisfy the monitoring rule. See also paragraphs [0065], [0076]-[0082], and particularly [0107].
It 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 to have modified the base combination, particularly Araya’s selection of monitoring device to be activated to capture media content based on location (vicinity), to include wherein the monitoring device is selected, based on the orientation causing the monitoring device to capture a view of the first premises, to capture the media content as taught by Rasheed because doing so prevents activation of surveillance cameras that do not have the capability (orientation, field of view) to view the event triggering the alarm condition which conserves bandwidth, storage and processing resources.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, Srinivasan, and Modestine as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Claim 29 and 30
Srinivasan teaches wherein the determination that the at least a portion of the second context information is related to the first context information is based on a determination that (claim 29) the first premises is located across a street from the second premise or (claim 30) the first premises and the second premises are located on a same street {see above citations for claim 1 clearly explaining that shared geographic proximity (relevance) based on first and second (location) information of the houses 405, 415 is used to determine whether to share the media content between local neighbors. See also Fig. 6 illustrating server determining the location of the security console 720 and identifying a group of other devices near the location. See also paragraphs [0043], [0047], [0048] as well as [0057], [0058], [0068] and [0003] in which geolocation information such as street address and geographic coordinates of the security console at each house. Moreover, step 725 determines which group of security consoles/houses are within a predetermined distance of the triggered security console.
Furthermore, Official Notice has been taken, and not timely challenged, that typical household neighborhoods such as a typical suburban neighborhood have streets such that neighboring houses within a predetermined distance are either “across a street” or “located on a same street” particularly as broadly claimed}.
It 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 to have modified Araya’s and Srinivasan’s geographic-proximity based sharing of alarms (broadcast incident beacon) and media content between proximally close devise such that the determination that the at least a portion of the second information is related (within predetermined distance) to the first information is based on a determination that (claim 29) the first premises is located across a street from the second premise or (claim 30) the first premises and the second premises are located on a same street as taught by Srivinasan and clarified by the Official Notice regarding neighboring premises because a) doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or b) the
choices of “across the street” or “located on a same street” for determining local proximity in a neighborhood is merely routine optimization particularly in view of the very limited ways of defining location in a neighborhood relative to a street. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2145.05(II)(A). Here, more than mere general conditions are disclosed because Srinivasan clearly discloses determining shared geographic proximity in a neighborhood using street address and/or geographic coordinates and due to the very limited ways of defining location in a neighborhood relative to a street.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guzik (US 20110018998 A1) discloses a correlated media source management system in which Devices 111-114 may have the ability to associate metadata either before capture or at time of capture. For example, the respective devices may provide for a user to provide a default tag for all files such as camera identifier (ID). During capture, the respective devices may store data/time stamp information or location service tracking location data such as GPS with the file. An example of a default tag associated before time of capture is an Event ID (also called a Pounce.TM. ID) that may be used to indicate which files are candidates for correlating for an event. Generally, an Event ID corresponds to a unique event. The end to end process is discussed in the context of FIG. 4. Metadata association is discussed in more detail below in the context of FIG. 5. Accounts 121-124 may be aggregated on web service as 120 as a group 130. As a default, a group may be identified to include all users with data files with the same Event ID. See [0046]-[0049], [0061]-[0063], [0074].
Lemberger US-20170289450 A1 is a highly analogous reference that powers up cameras based on shared video footage and identifies which cameras to power up based on both location and orientation (field of view). See title, abstract, Figs. 17, 18 (showing shared regions/vicinities for receiving share notifications from various A/V doorbells). Fig. 19, step B566 determines which monitoring devices (A/V doorbells) are within a predefined distance (vicinity) of the first A/V doorbell. See also Fig. 38 showing that context information including location is associated with the A/V doorbells. See also alternate areas data structure 810 in Fig. 43 and paragraph [0162].
Buehler US 20070182818 A1 discloses a video surveillance system with multiple input sensors 125 that capture data depicting the interaction of people and things in a monitored environment in paragraphs [0036], [0044], [0046]. Furthermore, [0073] teaches monitoring an area corresponding to the determined coordinates of a tripwire rule, an area of interest rule, and/or an approach rule. For example, each video camera can be associated with its physical location and/or the coordinates of possible FOVs of the video camera. Accordingly, the coordinates of the rule can be used to search the coordinates of the video cameras and/or the coordinates of possible FOVs of the video cameras.
Ross US-20150078727 A1, Fig. 4a-b, discloses metadata structures with proximity tags
Kim US 20150078618 A1 discloses system for tracking dangerous situations with multiple surveillance areas. Fig. 5 coordinated camera control showing metadata generation, transmission.
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 Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights