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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's other arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Section 112, Applicant argues: “With respect to Claim 1, the Office Action alleges that there is no written support for a combination of remote processors, or a processor of a remote computing device for the scope of the claimed functions. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection and provides the following response to show that the specification adequately supports the claims. … A person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA") would understand that the steps recited in the claims may be executed by any processor capable of performing the required instructions. As stated in the specification, "[e]ach of the routines, processes, methods, and algorithms described in the preceding sections may be embodied in, and fully or partially automated by, code modules executed by one or more computers, computer processors, or machines configured to execute computer instructions." (See Present Application, Par. [0145]). … "The remote computing device 905 may comprise, among other things, a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, a computer, a smart watch, or any combination of these things" (See Present Application, Par. [0 13 I}).”
Examiner notes that this argument does not address the full reason for rejection. Rejection states: “Claim 1 recites: “a non-transitory, computer-readable media, executable by a processor selected from the group consisting of a processor of a remote computing device, a processor of the electronic doorbell, and a combination thereof,” however there is no support in the Written Description to which this application seeks priority, of a non-transitory computer-readable media …”
Applicant cites written description of “code modules” which are not the “non-transitory, computer-readable media” which are claimed and rejected. It does not appear that written description supports sharing a physical medium across multiple local and remote devices in the claimed manner.
Applicant further argues: “Also with respect to Claim 1, the Office Action alleges that there is no written support for "preventing transmission of the wireless communication request to the remote computing device; and preventing the electronic doorbell from entering a higher power mode." (Emphasis added) (See Office Action, Page 4, Par. 2). Applicant respectfully disagrees. A PHOSITA would understand that, in an invention where a power setting may be overridden … is de facto preventing the component from entering a high power setting.”
Examiner notes that this argument is moot because Applicant has removed this claim language from the claims.
Regarding section 103, Applicant argues: “The disclosure of the Present Application includes multiple sensors that include metadata. Namely, the first and second detectors as recited in independent Claim 1 are selected from a group consisting only of metadata-capable sensors ( e.g., a microphone, a motion detector, and a camera), and not binary signals.”
First, Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., multiple sensors that include metadata) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, there is nothing in Specification or the Claims to describe the “metadata-capable sensors” or the manner in which they are used in the argument.
Applicant argues: “Developing a system that seamlessly and efficiently moves from sleep to live mode (and vice versa) based on sensors being triggered is one of many benefits presented by the device as recited in the Present Application. Specifically, ensuring that a higher power mode is achieved only when a second indication validates a first indication is a benefit brought by the Present Application that is nowhere to be found in Patterson or other prior art.”
Examiner notes that the examination is limited to the features in the claims, and the cited portion of the prior art in the reasons for rejection below appear to teach the claimed features and thus provide the benefits of the claimed features.
Applicant argues: “Patterson appears to disclose differentiating between valid and false alarms. Claim I as currently presented seeks to increase power efficiency by avoiding unnecessarily entering the higher power mode. … A PHOSITA would not have turned to Patterson to combine with Howarter in order to reduce power consumption by only overriding a low power setting after validation occurs between two detectors.”
Examiner notes that Patterson teaches: “predetermined standards for the intrusion detection panel 16 to trigger the alarms, stop the alarms that have been triggered, add new detectors, change detector settings, view the monitoring status in real time, etc.” See Patterson, Paragraph 21. Thus, it teaches a methodology that is generally useful in the context of intrusion detection as in Howarter or the Specification. Cumulatively, Specification also teaches this feature “allow for one sensor's data to be validated by another sensor's data … to reduce false alarms.” See Specification, Page 26, lines 3-7. Thus, Patterson is directly relevant to the claimed feature as it is supported by the Specification. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Information Disclosure Statement
Given the large number of references submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements in this case, without citation to relevant portions or explanation of relevance to the present claims, only a cursory consideration has been afforded to this disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 15-16, 21, 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “a non-transitory, computer-readable media, executable by a processor selected from the group consisting of a processor of a remote computing device, a processor of the electronic doorbell, and a combination thereof,” however there is no support in the Written Description to which this application seeks priority, of a non-transitory computer-readable media executable by a combination of remote processors, or of being executable on a processor of a remote computing device for the scope of the claimed functions, such as “transmitting a wireless communication request to the remote computing device; causing the electronic doorbell to enter a higher power mode; receiving a response to the request from the remote computing device.”
Claims 3, 5-6, 10, 15-16, 21 23-29 are rejected as dependent on Claim 1.
Claim Construction
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
This paragraph resolves the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Present claims are in the field of video recording and transmission, and they reference the following without elaborating on the underlying structures or methodology: “wherein the electronic doorbell is configurable to send a wireless communication request to a mobile application loaded on the remote computing device … when the mobile application is opened on the remote computing device the electronic doorbell exits the camera sleep mode …”. Thus, in order to comply with the enablement and definiteness requirements under 35 US.C. 112, a person of ordinary skill in this art is expected to know the structures and methodology underlying these and related elements as well as equivalents, variants, and applications of these elements in the field.
Where prior art recites claimed features combined with additional features, omission of the additional features in the claim does not distinguish it over the prior art reference. Further, an omission of an element and its function is obvious. M.P.E.P. 2144.04(II)(A), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 15-16, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7746223 to Howarter (“Howarter”) cited in and IDS in view of US 20150254950 to Patterson (“Patterson”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A system, comprising:
an electronic doorbell; and (“The doorbell 308 may be a smart device including a processor, …” Howarter, Column 7, lines 36-38. Note similar features in Freund, Paragraphs 25-26.)
a non-transitory, computer-readable media, executable by a processor selected from the group consisting of a processor of a remote computing device, a processor of the electronic doorbell, and a combination thereof, … the non-transitory, computer-readable media configured to cause the processor to carry out the steps of: (“The doorbell 308 may be a smart device including a processor, memory [media executable by a processor], antenna, wireless transceiver and other components for implementing the features herein described.” Howarter, Column 7, lines 36-38. Note similar features in Freund, Paragraphs 25-26.)
receiving a first indication from a first detector selected from the group consisting of a microphone configured to capture sound, a motion detector configured to detect motion, and a camera configured to capture at least one of images and video, the first detector associated with the electronic doorbell; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the first detector is either a microphone, a motion detector, or a camera. Prior art teaches: “content may include still pictures, video, … The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds [microphone], a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices.” Howarter, Column 2, lines 33-40. See similarly “for motion detectors, cameras and microphones that are exemplary of sensor types 28b” in Patterson, Paragraph 22. Although the references allow other sensors to be used as well, they indicate that it would have been known or obvious to select one of the claimed sensors as a detector. Omission of other sensors does not appear to serve any function other than to indicate that their functionality is not desired.)
receiving a second indication from a second detector selected from the group consisting of a microphone configured to capture sound, a motion detector configured to detect motion, and a camera configured to capture at least one of images and videos, the second detector associated with the electronic doorbell; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the second detector is either a microphone, a motion detector, or a camera. Prior art teaches: “content may include still pictures, video, … The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds [microphone], a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices,” indicating a plurality of each type of sensor. Howarter, Column 2, lines 33-40. See similarly “receive intrusion detection sensor data from at least two different sensors … for motion detectors, cameras and microphones that are exemplary of sensor types 28b” also indicating a plurality of each type of sensor in Patterson, Paragraphs 4, 22. Although the references allow other sensors to be used as well, they indicate that it would have been known or obvious to select one of the claimed sensors as a detector. Omission of other sensors does not appear to serve any function other than to indicate that their functionality is not desired.)
in response to receiving the first indication and the second indication, wherein the second indication validates data from the first indication; (“configured to cause the processor to receive intrusion detection sensor data from at least two different sensors … analyze the metadata received from the second sensor to validate whether the indicated alarm condition is a valid alarm or a false alarm” Patterson, Paragraph 4. See statement of motivation below.)
transmitting a wireless communication request to the remote computing device; (“For example, “WiMAX™ signal may be sent from the doorbell and received by the set top box. once the doorbell signal is received in Step 502, an alert, indicator, or pop-up box may be flashed to the user” Howarter, Column 10, lines 57-67. Similarly, “the intrusion detection panel 16 determines whether to trigger alarms, e.g., by … sending alarm messages to the monitoring station 18.” Patterson, Paragraph 20. See statement of motivation below.)
overriding at least one power setting of the doorbell, causing the electronic doorbell to enter a higher power mode; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “overriding at least one power setting” embodies changing a power setting, such as by turning off / on additional devices or functions, such as turning on a camera or “enable the camera to record.” See Specification, Page 16 lines 28-31.
Prior art provides the same examples: “The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on [activation of recording by] motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, … the signal may activate a wireless camera and set top box for streaming [higher power mode] security content to the set top box and connected television.” Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 12, line 25 – 28.)
receiving a response to the request from the remote computing device;” (“A user may access the intrusion detection panel 16 is accessed to control the intrusion detection system, e.g., … to trigger the alarms, stop the alarms … an alert message would be communicated to a system user for final confirmation of whether an alarm state should be initiated.” Patterson, Paragraphs 21, 28. See statement of motivation below.)
As noted above, while Howarter teaches using the claimed sensors to detect alarm events, and using a camera as a detector subsequent to another detection, it does not explicitly teach validating detection of one sensor with another sensor.
Patterson teaches this claim feature in the context of operating a security system including door switches and sensors: To “analyze the metadata received from the second sensor to validate whether the indicated alarm condition is a valid alarm or a false alarm” Patterson, Paragraph 4.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Howarter to perform the claim functions as cited above to Patterson, in order to “significantly reduce the rate of false alarms.” Patterson, Paragraph 7.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 23: “The system of Claim 1, wherein
the camera is the first detector or the second detector (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor …” indicating that at least one activity detector can be a camera. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 1. See similarly in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
and is configured to transition from a sleep mode to a live-view mode in response to the doorbell entering a higher power mode, (As noted in Claim 1, the system enters a higher power mode based on activity detection. Here, “The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices. The security content may be automatically displayed [live view] by the cell phone, a computer with an Internet connection …” This describes three operation modes, (1) an activity detection with presence detectors without using the camera [i.e. camera sleep mode], (2) using a camera as a monitoring device [higher power mode], (3) using a camera as a streaming device [even higher power mode]. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 11. See similar teachings in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
based on a signal from the other detector of the first detector and the second detector.” (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices.” This describes that a camera can change modes from a lower power / sleep mode (when it is not monitoring or recording) to a higher power mode (when it is monitoring or recording), based on a signal from another detector. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The electronic doorbell system of Claim 23, wherein, while the camera is in the live-view mode, the camera is configured to capture video data comprising the images.” (“Security content may include still pictures, video, video clips, streaming video, or other feeds, as viewed, recorded, or streamed by the wireless cameras or wired cameras.” See Howarter, Column 2, lines 33-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 11. See similarly in Patterson, Paragraph 42.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The system of Claim 1, wherein the wireless communication request comprises a first wireless communication request, and wherein the non-transitory, computer-readable media is further configured to cause the processor to carry out the step of transmitting a second wireless communication request to the remote computing device after a predetermined time interval from the first wireless communication request.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, communicating after predetermined time interval can embody a later communication by another sensor or a command in a predetermined sequence of determining an alarm conditions. Prior art teaches various embodiments of this: “Alternatively, an alert may be generated [first communication] before the security content is displayed [later second communication] to inform the user that security content is forthcoming or may be viewed at the option of the viewer.” Howarter, Column 2, lines 29-46. See similarly in Jezierski, Paragraph 18 and in Patterson, Paragraphs 20-21, 28: “The detectors 28 … may communicate with the intrusion detection panel 16 wirelessly,” with some sensors communicating at a later time, and at a later time still “A user may access the intrusion detection panel 16 is accessed to control the intrusion detection system, e.g., … to trigger the alarms.”)
Regarding Claim 6: “The system of Claim 5, wherein the nontransitory, computer-readable media is further configured to cause the processor to carry out the step of transmitting the first wireless communication request and the second wireless communication request to the remote computing device via a server that is communicatively coupled to both the remote computing device and the electronic doorbell.” (“The security content may be sent by the set top box 103 as an attachment, streaming data, an alert, or a link to download information from the set top box 103 or a secure server.” Howarter, Column 5, lines 30-33. Similarly note: “The central monitoring station 18 includes one or more monitoring server(s) 82 each processing messages from the panels 16 and/or user devices … communicate over the network 24, with a suitably equipped interconnected panel 16 and/or user device (not shown).” Patterson, Paragraph 47 and Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The system of Claim 1, wherein the first detector, the second detector, or both are remote from the electronic doorbell.” (For example, “The doorbell 114 is a device for informing a user of the presence of an individual at the door … a number of wireless [remote] cameras including front door camera 120, nursery camera 122, garage camera 124, and back yard camera 126 … For example, the front door camera 120 and the back yard camera 126 may be motion sensitive. … in response to an individual engaging the doorbell 114.” Howarter, Column 3, lines 21-29, and Column 4, lines 53-60, and Figs. 1, 3. Similarly see Patterson, Paragraph 20 and Figs. 1-2.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The system of Claim 1,
wherein the first detector, the second detector, or both comprise a camera, and (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor …” indicating that at least one activity detector can be a camera. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 1. See similarly in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
wherein the non-transitory, computer-readable media is further configured to cause the processor to perform the steps of: … receiving the wireless communication request and the image; (“The security content may be automatically displayed by the cell phone, a computer with an Internet … Alternatively, an alert [communication request] may be generated before the security content [image] is displayed to inform the user that security content is forthcoming or may be viewed at the option of the viewer.” Howarter, Column 2, lines 40-46. “Generally, processor may include any appropriate processor and/or logic that is capable of receiving and storing information, and of communicating over a network (not shown).” Patterson, Paragraph 71. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
in response to receiving the wireless communication request, opening the non-transitory, computer-readable media; and displaying, visually, the image via the non-transitory, computer-readable media.” (“The security content may be automatically displayed by the cell phone, a computer with an Internet … Alternatively, an alert [communication request] may be generated before the security content [image] is displayed to inform the user that security content is forthcoming or may be viewed at the option of the viewer.” Howarter, Column 2, lines 40-46. “Generally, processor may include any appropriate processor and/or logic that is capable of receiving and storing information, and of communicating over a network (not shown),” thus the displayed content would ordinarily be buffered in the memory of the receiving processor before the image can be rendered for display. Patterson, Paragraph 71. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The system of Claim 1,
wherein the first detector, the second detector, or both comprise a camera, and (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor …” indicating that at least one activity detector can be a camera. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 1. See similarly in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
wherein the non-transitory, computer-readable media is further configured to cause the processor to perform the step of transmitting the images to a remote server for storage.” (“security content activity detected from specified cameras, … The security content may be sent by 30 the set top box 103 as an attachment, streaming data, an alert, or a link to download information from the set top box 103 or a secure server” which acts as storage for the images. Howarter, Column 5, lines 30-33. “Servers can be any of a variety of computing devices … Generally, processor may include any appropriate processor and/or logic that is capable of receiving and storing information, and of communicating over a network (not shown),” thus the displayed content would ordinarily be buffered in the memory of the receiving processor before the image can be rendered for display. Patterson, Paragraphs 70-71. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claims 21, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7746223 to Howarter (“Howarter”) cited in and IDS, in view of US 20150254950 to Patterson (“Patterson”), US 20160021291 to Freund (“Freund”).
Regarding Claim 21: “The system of Claim 24, wherein the mobile application is configured to display images captured by the camera.” (“displaying security content received from wireless cameras by a set top box connected device or wireless device, such as a cell phone. Security content may include still pictures, video …” Howarter, Column 2, lines 29-33. “The display 316 is a graphical interface for sending and receiving information from the doorbell 308. The display may display text, video, graphics, and other streaming or recorded data. The display 316 may also include a touch screen or text pad … the display 316 may be any device suitable for displaying content or a graphical representation from the cell phone 312.” Howarter, Column 8, lines 7-18.
Howarter does not explicitly state that a cell phone is running a mobile application, however it is well understood from the context of Howarter that a custom mobile application is used to provide a user of the cell phone with a graphical user interface to control the cameras, the security settings, and the networked devices.
Cumulatively, Freund, explicitly teaches that the control and image viewing applications can be provided using an application running on a mobile device such as a phone. See Freund, Paragraphs 37, 44-45, 50.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Howarter and Patterson to use a mobile application as taught in Freund, in order to run a graphical user interface of a cell phone. See Freund Paragraph 11 and Howarter, Column 8, lines 7-18.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 24: “The system of Claim 1, wherein the non-transitory, computer-readable media is further configured to cause the processor to carry out the step of receiving a third indication from the remote computing device that a user of the remote computing device has closed a mobile application running on the remote computing device.” (Note that this function can be performed in the context of a user mobile application, such that the “user selection of the "dismiss" or other button or element) … communicates a request to an operating system of the wireless device 104 to terminate execution of the camera program … then the anti-falsing module 126 also optionally returns the wireless device 104 to the mode or power state the wireless device 104 was in prior to receipt of the indication to launch the camera.” Thus, termination of the program by the user results in termination of remote services and power modes. See Freund, Paragraphs 35-36 and statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
Regarding Claim 25: “The system of Claim 24, wherein the non-transitory, computer-readable media is further configured to cause the processor to carry out the step of reducing a power consumption of the electronic doorbell in response to receiving the third indication.” (“The user may use the remote control [sending an indication] 106 and camera view selectors 128 to switch between camera views displayed on the television 102, thus disabling the streaming mode of unselected cameras. See Howarter, Column 4, lines 17-19. “the camera view selectors may be any mechanical or electronic indicator suitable for selecting a channel on the television 102, the remote control 106, or cell phone.” Howarter, Column 5, lines 41-43, and Column 11, lines 16-17. Note that the remote function and the electronic indicators can be performed by a user mobile application, such that the “user selection of the "dismiss" or other button or element) … communicates a request to an operating system of the wireless device 104 to terminate execution of the camera program … then the anti-falsing module 126 also optionally returns the wireless device 104 to the mode or power state the wireless device 104 was in prior to receipt of the indication to launch the camera.” Thus, termination of the program by the user results in termination of remote services and power modes. See Freund, Paragraphs 35-36 and statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
Regarding Claim 26: “The system of Claim 24,
the camera is the first detector or the second detector and (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor …” indicating that at least one activity detector can be a camera. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 1. See similarly in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
is configured to transition from a live-view mode to a sleep mode in response to reducing a power consumption of the electronic doorbell, (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices. The security content may be automatically displayed [live view] by the cell phone, a computer with an Internet connection …” This describes transitioning the camera between three operation modes, (1) an activity detection with presence detectors without using the camera [i.e. camera sleep mode], (2) using a camera as a monitoring device [higher power mode], (3) using a camera as a streaming device [even higher power mode]. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 11. For example a user of a cell phone can disable a live view mode of the camera, as noted in Howarter, Column 4, lines 17-19. Further, in the context of a user mobile application, such that the “user selection of the "dismiss" or other button or element) … communicates a request to an operating system of the wireless device 104 to terminate execution of the camera program … then the anti-falsing module 126 also optionally returns the wireless device 104 to the mode or power state the wireless device 104 was in prior to receipt of the indication to launch the camera.” Thus, termination of the program by the user results in termination of remote services and power modes. See Freund, Paragraphs 35-36 and statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
based on a signal from the other detector of the first detector and the second detector.” (“The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices.” This describes that a camera can change modes from a lower power / sleep mode (when it is not monitoring or recording) to a higher power mode (when it is monitoring or recording), based on a signal from another detector. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40.)
Regarding Claim 27: “The system of Claim 24, wherein the mobile application is configured to allow the user to select the electronic doorbell from a plurality of electronic doorbells.” (“The user may use the remote control [sending an indication] 106 and camera view selectors 128 to switch between camera views displayed on the television 102, thus disabling the streaming mode of unselected cameras. See Howarter, Column 4, lines 17-19. “the camera view selectors may be any mechanical or electronic indicator suitable for selecting a channel on the television 102, the remote control 106, or cell phone.” Howarter, Column 5, lines 41-43, and Column 11, lines 16-17. As noted above, the remote control function can be performed as an application on the phone, as noted in Freund, Paragraphs 35-36. See statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
Regarding 28: “The system of Claim 27, wherein the mobile application is further configured to modify a power setting of the selected electronic doorbell.” (As noted in Claim 4 modifying a power setting of the camera modifies the power consumption of the doorbell. As noted in Claim 1, the system enters a power mode based on activity detection or a user selection. Here, “The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices. The security content may be automatically displayed [live view] by the cell phone, a computer with an Internet connection …” This describes three operation modes, (1) an activity detection with presence detectors without using the camera [i.e. camera sleep mode], (2) using a camera as a monitoring device [higher power mode], (3) using a camera as a streaming device [even higher power mode]. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 11. See similar teachings in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding Claim 29: “The system of Claim 28, wherein the power setting comprises a plurality of operation modes comprising a sleep mode, a recording mode, a listen mode, and a transmit mode.” (As noted in Claim 4 modifying a power setting of the camera modifies the power consumption of the doorbell. As noted in Claim 1, the system enters a power mode based on activity detection or a user selection. Here, “The wireless camera may be constantly monitoring, or may monitor or record based on motion sensors, sounds, a doorbell, events, sensors, or other presence detection devices. The security content may be automatically displayed [live view] by the cell phone, a computer with an Internet connection …” This describes three operation modes, (1) an activity detection with presence detectors without using the camera [i.e. camera sleep mode], (2) using a camera as a monitoring device [i.e. recording mode], (3) using a camera as a streaming device [i.e. transmit mode]. See Howarter, Column 2, lines 37-40 and Column 10, line 65 – Column 11, line 11. Also there is an option for a listening mode where (4) “an alert may be generated before the security content is displayed to inform the user that security content is forthcoming or may be viewed at the option of the viewer,” where the camera system is listening for a signal with user selection. Howarter, Column 2, lines 43-46. See similar teachings in Sengupta, Paragraph 15 and Freund, Paragraphs 13-14.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006008799c3 to Sengupta (“Sengupta”) and US 20140108943 to Lee (“Lee”) as cited in previous Office Actions and noted above.
US 20070025712 to Jezierski (“Jezierski”) as cited in the previous Office Actions.
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483