Remarks
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-26, 28-32, and 73-76 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Remarks
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 2/2/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, 18, 21-26, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doyon (WO 2017/049387).
Regarding Claim 1,
Doyon discloses a method for execution by a video management server connectable to a communication network comprising:
Receiving a reading or scan of a physical component associated with an image capture device, the reading or scan comprising a particular network device identifier and authentication credentials associated with the particular network device identifier (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; receiving details, such as serial number, make, model, IP address, and/or MAC address. These can be later authenticated (e.g., paragraph 85), making them authentication credentials, and also include identifiers (e.g., addresses and serial numbers are identifiers), for example);
After the receiving, determining a device identifier of a certain device connecting to the communication network, the device identifier being identical to the particular network device identifier (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; after receiving the above-described information, the enrolment server associates the activation code with the device by storing the activation code and the above-described details, for example);
After the determining, attempting to authenticate the certain device over the communication network by issuing a test to the certain device to determine whether the authentication credentials were known to the certain device prior to the determining (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; test may be sending the activation code to be used to activate the device, for example. It is noted that paragraph 85, for example, explicitly authenticates that the security device information matches the information associated with the activation code); and
Accepting or rejecting video data received from the certain device over the communication network based on a result of the attempting to authenticate (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 2, 55, 62, 91 (as well as the above 82-86, describing the authentication and result there from) and associated figures; verifying video footage has been signed by the proper private key, for example).
Regarding Claim 31,
Claim 31 is a server claim that corresponds to at least method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 31 includes the following generic components: a processor, an interface, a memory operatively coupled to the processor and comprising computer-readable instructions executable by the processor, and execution of the computer-readable instructions by the processor which causes the video management server to carry out the method, found in Doyon (e.g., Figure 2 and associated written description).
Regarding Claim 32,
Claim 32 is a medium claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 2,
Doyon discloses considering that the attempting to authenticate is successful in case the video management server determines that the authentication credentials were known to the certain device prior to the determining (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; verifying that the above-described data (provided by the security device to the computing device to the enrolment server initially) matches, or verifying signature with public key sent to enrolment server, as examples).
Regarding Claim 3,
Doyon discloses considering that the attempting to authenticate is successful in case the video management server determines that the authentication credentials were known to the certain device prior to execution of the method (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; verifying that the above-described data (provided by the security device to the computing device to the enrolment server initially) matches, or verifying signature with public key sent to enrolment server, as examples).
Regarding Claim 5,
Doyon discloses after the determining, attempting a mutual authentication with the certain device over the communication network based on verification of prior mutual knowledge of the authentication credentials by the video management server and the certain device, wherein attempting to authenticate the certain device is included as part of the mutual authentication, wherein the prior mutual knowledge indicates the authentication credentials were respectively obtained by the video management server and the certain device at least prior to the determining (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; authentication verifies that both sides know the details associated with the activation code; Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; the details are known to both sides prior to associating with the activation code, for example).
Regarding Claim 13,
Doyon discloses determining provisioning parameters associated with the particular network device identifier (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, and associated figures; any provisioning parameters, for example, activation code, camera manufacturer, model, as examples).
Regarding Claim 14,
Doyon discloses that determining the provisioning parameters occurs between the receiving and the determining (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, and associated figures; after receiving the request and before responding with activation code response, for example).
Regarding Claim 15,
Doyon discloses that the provisioning parameters include video provisioning parameters (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, and associated figures; activation code, manufacturer, model, all associated with video provisioning, for example).
Regarding Claim 18,
Doyon discloses that the mutual authentication is carried out without exchanging the authentication credentials with the certain device over the communication network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraph 103 and associated figures; camera does not have a network interface, so all network communications go through a separate unit; and/or Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, 82-86, and associated figures; computing device sends the authentication credentials, instead of security device, in at least some embodiments, for example. Thus, the mutual authentication between the security device and enrolment server is performed using the credentials sent by the computing device).
Regarding Claim 21,
Doyon discloses that the mutual authentication is deemed successful in case the video management server verifies that the certain device had prior knowledge of the authentication credentials and the certain device verifies that the video management server had prior knowledge of the authentication credentials (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; if the sent and stored credentials match, for example).
Regarding Claim 22,
Doyon discloses that the mutual authentication is deemed successful in case the video management server verifies that the certain device had knowledge of the authentication credentials prior to the determining and the certain device verifies that the video management server had knowledge of the authentication credentials prior to the determining (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; if the sent and stored credentials match, for example).
Regarding Claim 23,
Doyon discloses that the determining comprises carrying out a discovery protocol (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; the system of Doyon is used to discover devices; and/or Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 140, 144, and associated figures; device discovery and protocol (e.g., cloud control protocol) for doing so, for example).
Regarding Claim 24,
Doyon discloses that the determining comprises receiving a message from the certain device over the communication network, the message comprising the particular network device identifier (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; receiving a message from security device and/or through the computing device, for example).
Regarding Claim 25,
Doyon discloses that the determining comprises receiving input from an operator of the video management server, the input specifying the particular network device identifier (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, and associated figures; user provides inputs for the provisioning process (e.g., paragraph 79), such as camera manufacturer, model, or the like, as examples).
Regarding Claim 26,
Doyon discloses that the particular network device identifier is at least one of a MAC address and an IP address (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 28,
Doyon discloses that the mutual authentication is deemed not successful in case video management server did not have knowledge of the authentication credentials prior to the determining or the video management server determines that the certain device did not have knowledge of the authentication credentials prior to the determining (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures; if the sent and stored credentials do not match, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-12 and 74-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyon in view of Angus (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0294829).
Regarding Claim 7,
Doyon does not appear to explicitly disclose that the reading or scan comprises an image obtained by optically scanning the physical component.
Angus, however, discloses that the reading or scan comprises an image obtained by optically scanning the physical component (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures; reading QR code, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the provisioning information providing techniques of Angus into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to allow the system to provide and read information from additional means, such as QR codes, RFID chips, and the like, to provide for better verification of authorized devices based on information within as well as on the devices, to track components throughout the supply chain, to reduce the risk of unauthorized device spoofing, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 8,
Doyon as modified by Angus discloses the method of claim 7, in addition, Angus discloses that the physical component includes one of a container for containing the image capture device and a label for being affixed to the image capture device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures; QR code can be read by external QR code reader, so it is on the outside of the device, which is, itself, a label, for example).
Regarding Claim 9,
Doyon as modified by Angus discloses the method of claim 7, in addition, Angus discloses that the image includes a scan of a QR code (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 10,
Doyon does not appear to explicitly disclose that the reading or scan comprises an image into which the authentication credentials have been encoded.
Angus, however, discloses that the reading or scan comprises an image into which the authentication credentials have been encoded (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the provisioning information providing techniques of Angus into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to allow the system to provide and read information from additional means, such as QR codes, RFID chips, and the like, to provide for better verification of authorized devices based on information within as well as on the devices, to track components throughout the supply chain, to reduce the risk of unauthorized device spoofing, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 11,
Doyon does not appear to explicitly disclose that receiving the reading or scan comprising the particular network device identifier and the authentication credentials comprises receiving the reading or scan from a source over a link external to the communication network.
Angus, however, discloses that receiving the reading or scan comprising the particular network device identifier and the authentication credentials comprises receiving the reading or scan from a source over a link external to the communication network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures; QR code reader reads QR code, or RFID to read an RFID tag, as examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the provisioning information providing techniques of Angus into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to allow the system to provide and read information from additional means, such as QR codes, RFID chips, and the like, to provide for better verification of authorized devices based on information within as well as on the devices, to track components throughout the supply chain, to reduce the risk of unauthorized device spoofing, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 12,
Doyon as modified by Angus discloses the method of claim 11, in addition, Doyon discloses storing the particular network device identifier and the authentication credentials in association with each other in a database (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; storing associations between the above described identifiers, authentication credentials, and the activation code is a database of associations, for example).
Regarding Claim 74,
Doyon as modified by Angus discloses the method of claim 11, in addition, Angus discloses that the source comprises an optical scanner (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures; QR codes are scanned optically, for example).
Regarding Claim 75,
Doyon as modified by Angus discloses the method of claim 74, in addition, Angus discloses that the link external to the communication network comprises a NFC or RFID (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 76,
Doyon as modified by Angus discloses the method of claim 7, in addition, Doyon as modified by Angus discloses that the image encodes the particular network device identifier and the authentication credentials associated with the particular network device identifier (Doyon: Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 80, and associated figures; authentication credentials and identifier can be given from security device to computing device, for example; Angus: Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 22, 23, 44, 48, 71, 74, and associated figures; MAC address (which also leads to the other information provided with the MAC address in the combination, as described above with respect to Doyon), public key, random number, location, being in QR code, for example).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyon in view of Hemphill (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0181521).
Regarding Claim 16,
Doyon does not appear to explicitly disclose that the video provisioning parameters include a geographic location of the camera.
Hemphill, however, discloses that the video provisioning parameters include a geographic location of the camera (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 7, 12, 31-37, 64, 66, 73-79, and associated figures; provisioning device including use of location, such as user’s location and device location, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the location-based provisioning techniques of Hemphill into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to allow the system to verify geographical regions prior to provisioning devices, to allow for additional security checks prior to provisioning, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 17,
Doyon as modified by Hemphill discloses the method of claim 16, in addition, Doyon as modified by Hemphill discloses that accepting the video data received from the certain device over the communication network comprises processing the video data in accordance with the video provisioning parameters (Doyon: Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, and associated figures; using the above-described video provisioning parameters to provision the device for use in the video system, for example; Hemphill: Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 7, 12, 31-37, 64, 66, 73-79, and associated figures; only allowing devices to be provisioned in appropriate locations, for example).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyon in view of Kumari (Anitha Kumari K et al., “Solution to Security and Secrecy in Cloud Environment using PAKE Protocol – A Bibliographic Survey”, International Journal of Computer Applications (0975-8887), Vol. 96, No. 2, June 2014).
Regarding Claim 19,
Doyon discloses that attempting the mutual authentication is at least partly carried out in accordance with a protocol with the certain device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the protocol is a PAKE protocol.
Kumari, however, discloses that attempting the mutual authentication is at least partly carried out in accordance with a PAKE protocol with the certain device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Sections 1-6; this entire documents discusses various PAKE protocols used for mutual authentication of prior knowledge of a credential, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the PAKE techniques of Kumari into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to resist detectable online and offline dictionary attacks, achieve mutual authentication within 3 message flows, resist offline password guessing attacks, secure against undetectable online password guessing attacks, secure against attacks who eavesdrop, insert, delete, or modify message, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 20,
Doyon discloses that the attempting the mutual authentication comprises the video management server providing a first parameter to the certain device and the certain device providing a second parameter to the video management server (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 82-86 and associated figures);
Kumari, however, discloses that the first and second parameters are public keys (Exemplary Citations, for example: Sections 2.3, 2.4, 3-3.2; public keys, exchange thereof, etc., for example); and
That attempting the mutual authentication comprises the video management server providing a first public key to the certain device and the certain device providing a second public key to the video management server (Exemplary Citations, for example: Sections 2.3, 2.4, 3-3.2; public keys, exchange thereof, etc., for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the PAKE techniques of Kumari into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to resist detectable online and offline dictionary attacks, achieve mutual authentication within 3 message flows, resist offline password guessing attacks, secure against undetectable online password guessing attacks, secure against attacks who eavesdrop, insert, delete, or modify message, to ensure that all entities can get all necessary public keys, and/or to increase security in the system.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyon in view of Koo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0242940).
Regarding Claim 29,
Doyon discloses that the communication network is an in building network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 54-57, 147, and associated figures; local network or corporate network behind a firewall, for example);
But does not explicitly disclose that the network is a closed-circuit network.
Koo, however, discloses that the communication network is an in-building, closed-circuit network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 40, 48, 66-72, 124-126, and associated figures; provisioning network devices that are CCTVs, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the CCTV network system of Koo into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to allow the provisioning of devices on CCTV networks, allow for automation devices of additional varieties, thereby expanding the extensibility and usability of the system, and/or allow for use of additional networks.
Regarding Claim 30,
Doyon discloses that the communication network is isolated from the Internet (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 54-57, 147, and associated figures; local network or corporate network behind a firewall, for example).
Koo also discloses that the communication network is isolated from the Internet (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 40, 48, 66-72, 124-126, and associated figures; provisioning network devices that are CCTVs, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the CCTV network system of Koo into the device enrolment system of Doyon in order to allow the provisioning of devices on CCTV networks, allow for automation devices of additional varieties, thereby expanding the extensibility and usability of the system, and/or allow for use of additional networks.
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyon in view of Angus and Logvinov (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0307218).
Regarding Claim 73,
Doyon as modified by Angus does not appear to explicitly disclose that the source comprises a USB key.
Logvinov, however, discloses that the source comprises a USB key (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 11-13; USB drive storing provisioning parameters, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the provisioning via USB drive techniques of Logvinov into the device enrolment system of Doyon as modified by Angus in order to allow the system to make use of the extremely well-known and widely-used USB to provision devices, to allow for another out of band communication mechanism, and/or to increase security in the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432 /Jeffrey Nickerson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights