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 arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Page 3 of the Office Action asserts that various claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant respectfully asserts that, in the pending claim set, only claim 50, which uses the term "means," should properly be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f). The other terms listed in paragraph 3 of the Office Action have well understood meanings in the art.”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to provide and cite the “well understood meanings in the art.” The claims are construed to be consistent with the Specification. See Claim Construction section below.
Applicant argues: “As noted during the December 22, 2025 telephone interview, however, the cited passages of Scalisi teach only that a user can select the quality and/or amount of data that is transmitted from a doorbell to a computing device, and the cited passages of Kimpe teach only that a device can select an optimal transmission channel and/or compression algorithm to transmit high-resolution images to another device. Neither reference teaches anything concerning selecting a subset of image frames of video data for transmission to another device.”
Examiner notes that the claims are not specific as to which “subset of image frames” is selected for transmission and thus does not overcome the various examples in the prior art that reduce the video quality to accommodate bandwidth or receiver limitations. See reasons for rejection below.
Response to Amendment
Examiner withdraws the rejections of Claims 1-2, 4, 12, 15-18, 22, 24, 43-44, 46, 49-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, in view of the amendments
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
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).
Claims 1-2, 4, 12, 15-17, 24, 43, 46, 50-53, 56-61 recite “a first transmitter configured to send video image data … a second transmitter different from the first transmitter, configured to communicate with a base station … a gateway … a base station … a first wireless communications link … a second wireless communications link … a controller configured to … first means for sending, via a first wireless communication link … second means different from the first means, for communicating with a base station …” generic terms modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Specification provides support for the higher power image data communications means/circuits such as “a cellular network, … a wifi connection, etc.” See Specification, page 16, second paragraph, and page 11, last paragraph. Specification also supports an imaging circuit as the imager part of the camera. See page 26, first paragraph. Specification also describes “a controller external to the camera, … the controller includes a security system base station …” on Page 3, last paragraph, indicating that the controller and the base station can be embodied in a computer or a local server. Specification also describes “broadband/Internet connection from the router or gateway” on Page 7, line 19, which indicates that the gateway can be an internet router.
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 (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 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 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 1-2, 4, 12, 15-17, 24, 43, 46, 50-53, 56, 58-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160330413 to Scalisi (“Scalisi”) in view of US 20210396046 to Johnson (“Johnson”) and in view of US 20070183493 to Kimpe (“Kimpe”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A camera comprising: (“The electronic doorbell may comprise a camera” thus the electronic doorbell is a camera system. Scalisi, Paragraph 13.)
an image sensor configured to image an area of a property near the camera; (“the camera may capture a first video comprising the first image,” in the field of view of the camera. Scalisi, Paragraph 14.)
a first transmitter, configured to send, via a first wireless communication link and [to a gateway] connected to a wide area network, video image data acquired by the image sensor; (“Wireless communication 230 can enable the doorbell 202 to communicate with the computing device 204. Some embodiments enable communication via cellular and/or WiFi networks. … The wireless communication 230 can include the following communication means: radio, WiFi …” See Scalisi, Paragraph 43 and Fig. 3 “The outgoing wireless communication may comprise the first video,” which comprises image data acquired by the camera. See Scalisi, Paragraph 109. See additional treatment below.)
Note that Scalisi does not explicitly teach that wireless communication link such as WiFi communicates “to a gateway,” however it is well known that WiFi connects by the way of a router which embodies a gateway. Cumulatively, Johnson teaches: “a first wireless communication device 40 that communicates with Network Systems via a device, including but not limited to a router,” in the context of doorbells and mobile video communication. See Johnson, Paragraphs 141, and similarly in 5, 383.
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 Scalisi to use a router as a gateway as taught in Johnson, in order to use a wireless network that uses routers, such as WiFi. See Johnson, Paragraphs 141, and similarly in 5, 383.
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.
a second transmitter, different from the first transmitter, configured to communicate with a base station at the property via a second wireless communication link, (“Wireless communication 230 can enable the doorbell 202 to communicate with the computing device 204. Some embodiments enable communication via cellular and/or WiFi networks.” Scalisi, Paragraphs 43. In this case, the computing devices can embody a base station and the cellular network can embody the second wireless communication link. There are many variant embodiments of communication links: “can include the following communication means: radio, WiFi (e.g., wireless local area network), cellular, Internet, Bluetooth, telecommunication, electromagnetic, infrared, light, sonic, and microwave.” See similar examples of this in Johnson, Paragraphs 210, 335-336, and statement of motivation above.)
a bandwidth of the second wireless communication link being lower than a bandwidth of the first wireless communication link; and (“Some embodiments enable communication via cellular and/or WiFi networks.” In this case, the cellular circuit can embody the second wireless communication link with a lower bandwidth. See Scalisi, Paragraphs 106, 43. See similar examples of this in Johnson, Paragraphs 210, 335-336, and statement of motivation below.)
a controller configured to: (“Each 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 …” Scalisi, Paragraphs 131.)
determine that the first transmitter cannot properly communicate first video image data acquired by the image sensor to a server via the gateway, (For example “if the doorbell 202 loses power, loses connectivity to the computing device 204, loses connectivity to the Internet, and/or loses connectivity to a remote server, … the remote server 206 can manage communication between the doorbell 202 and the computing device 204.” Scalisi, Paragraph 48. See further treatment of determination below.)
Scalisi implies but does not explicitly describe that the determination of the first transmitter connectivity is performed by the system.
Kimpe teaches the above claimed function in the context of a smart camera: “According to another aspect of the present invention, the used encoding algorithms can be adapted in real-time based on the current channel characteristics. Channel characteristics are for instance but not limited to: currently available bandwidth, … statistics of latency introduced by the transmission channel, …” Kimpe, Paragraphs 65-66. Also note that “the portable imaging device may determine which transmission channel to use for transmitting the requested data.” Kimpe, Paragraph 20.
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 Scalisi and Johnson to determine bandwidth and availability of a wireless communication channel as taught in Kimpe, in order “to configure the client-server system optimally.” Kimpe, Paragraph 66.
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.
the first video image data including a plurality of image frames,
(“video comprising the first image,” and characterized by having multiple image frames. Scalisi, Paragraphs 14. And similarly, “Of course decomposing the image/video stream to be transmitted is done periodically ( can be done for each individual frame or only once every few frames) so that changes in object types can be detected and taken into account.” Kimpe, Paragraphs 60, 64, 87, and statement of motivation above.)
analyze the first video image data to select a subset of image frames from among the plurality of image frames (“allow a user to select the quality and/or amount of the data transmitted from the doorbell 202 to the computing device 204 … video can be sent …” Scalisi, Paragraphs 54-55. Of course, to be thus transmitted, this quality selection must be analyzed by the doorbell or the server, as noted below.
Further, a quality level can be expressed in terms of a frame rate to be used for transmission: “quality-level or performance-level at the client side for codecs supported by the client. The server then can take this information into account when deciding [analyzing] which codecs will be used for the transmission. For instance: … a raw-data transmission … 10 frames per second … at resolution 1024x768 … less than 4 frames per second … with maximum resolution 1600x1200 … maximum framerate of 2 frames per second and maximum resolution 1280x 1024.” Kimpe, Paragraph 87. Thus, at least the frame rate and resolution of the video is analyzed to select a subset of frames for transmission based on available bandwidth or the capability of the client device. Kimpe, Paragraphs 65, 87. See statement of motivation above.)
depicting one or more features or objects, and (Note that video frames ordinarily depict one or more features or objects. See depicting general objects and features of a door bell video in Scalisi, Paragraph 38 as well as classified objects in Kimpe, Paragraph 60.)
cause the second transmitter to communicate the subset of image frames to the base station.” (“communication systems can use a computing device [base station] to enable … Viewing by a remotely located person can occur via the Internet, cellular networks, telecommunication networks, servers, and wireless networks,” which are various channels that can be used to communicate the data. Scalisi, Paragraph 78. Note similarly that “the portable imaging device may determine which transmission channel to use for transmitting the requested data.” Kimpe, Paragraphs 20, 77, and statement of motivation above. Thus, if the internet or a wireless network loses connectivity, the information can be sent by a cellular network or another network at a lower bandwidth.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The camera of claim 56, wherein the controller is further configured to cause electrical power to be provided to the image sensor in response to the detection of motion.” (“the doorbell may wake up (e.g., enter a mode that consumes more power), start recording a video, …” Scalisi, Paragraph 106. “The camera live view mode may consume [be provided with] more power than the camera sleep mode.” Scalisi, Paragraph 14. See statements of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The camera of claim 2, wherein the image sensor is configured to be ready to capture image data at an end a startup period of time after the electrical power is provided to the image sensor, and … the controller is further configured to cause the second transmitter to send the notification before the end of the startup period of time.” (For example: “The wireless communication request may be a first wireless communication request. The electronic doorbell is configurable to send a second wireless communication request to the mobile application. The second wireless communication request may be sent at a predetermined time interval after the first wireless communication request is sent. The predetermined time interval may be, for example, 15 seconds. The wireless communication request may be a first wireless communication. The electronic doorbell may be configurable to re-enter the camera sleep mode at least partially in response to receiving a second wireless communication. … The delay may also be caused by the time it takes for the system to "wake up"” Scalisi, Paragraphs 14, 93. See similarly in Johnson, Paragraph 439. This indicates that the communication module can send communications before, during, or after camera start up, and that camera startup can be subject to a natural circuit startup period or an additional startup period predetermined by the system.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The camera of claim 1, wherein the second transmitter requires less power for operation than first transmitter.” (Scalisi teaches that the wireless communication circuit can be Bluetooth, infrared, light, and other communication means which require less power for operation than WiFi. See Scalisi, Paragraph 43 and similarly in Johnson, Paragraph 210. Scalisi also indicates that the listen mode requires communication with the lowest power consumption , in Paragraphs 108-109, 111, 115. Further, “In order to conserve power”, Scalisi appears to prefer a “Bluetooth connection” rather than a WiFi connection, in Paragraph 117. All of this indicates that it would have been obvious in the art to select a lower power communication protocol for a lower power doorbell mode. See similarly in Johnson, Paragraphs 210, 336.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The camera of claim 2, wherein the activation circuit is further configured to cause electrical power to be provided to the image sensor and the first transmitter in response to an instruction from the security system base station to capture image or video data.” (For example “The user of the remote computing device 204 can select a button on application software running on the remote computing device 204 to initiate two-way audio and/or video communication with the visitor … the remote computing device 204 may send a signal 604 to the doorbell 202 that overrides the sleep mode ( e.g., changes a power setting 702) to cause the doorbell 202 to "wake up." Waking up the doorbell 202 can cause the doorbell 202 to enter a higher-power mode that may enable the camera to record. This overriding can enable the video feed to start. The signal 604 can be sent” over the communication circuit. See Scalisi, Paragraphs 80, 86, 39, 50-51. See sending video data via WiFi in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The camera of claim 15, wherein the instruction is received by a transceiver including the second transmitter in response to an input to the base station.” (For example “a user may select a button in a software application ( e.g., an app ), … the remote computing device 204 [acting as a base station] may send a signal 604 to the doorbell 202 that overrides the sleep mode ( e.g., changes a power setting 702) to cause the doorbell 202 to "wake up." Waking up the doorbell 202 can cause the doorbell 202 to enter a higher-power mode that may enable the camera to record.“ See Scalisi, Paragraphs 79-80, 86, and similarly in 39, 50-51.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The camera of claim 16, wherein the input comprises an indication that a user has operated an application to request image data from the camera.” (For example “The user of the remote computing device 204 can select a button on application software running on the remote computing device 204 to initiate two-way audio and/or video communication with the visitor … the remote computing device 204 may send a signal 604 to the doorbell 202 that overrides the sleep mode ( e.g., changes a power setting 702)” See Scalisi, Paragraphs 39, 50-51, 80.)
Claim 24, “A method for operating a camera at a property,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the method steps of Claim 24 are implemented by the apparatus elements of Claim 1, because “a sensor configured to detect a condition near the camera” of Claim 24 is exemplified by “a motion detector configured to detect motion of objects near the camera” of Claim 1, because the system elements of Claim 1 perform the method steps of Claim 24.)
Claim 43 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 12 in view of the Claim 24 rejection.
Claim 46 is rejected for reasons stated in Claim 2 in view of the Claim 59 rejection.
Claim 50, “A camera,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the first means and second means of Claim 50 correspond to the first transmitter and the second transmitter of Claim 1 respectively. See claim construction section above.
Regarding Claim 51: “The method of claim 46, further comprising: causing electrical power to be provided to the image sensor and the first transmitter in response to an instruction from the base station to capture image or video data.” (“the remote computing device 204 may send a signal 604 to the doorbell 202 that overrides the sleep mode ( e.g., changes a power setting 702) to cause the doorbell 202 to "wake up." Waking up the doorbell 202 can cause the doorbell 202 to enter a higher-power mode that may enable the camera to record. This overriding can enable the video feed to start.” Scalisi, Paragraph 80. See use of WiFi to transmit the video feed in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 52: “The method of claim 51, wherein the instruction is received a transceiver including the first transmitter in response to an input to the base station.” (“The signal 604 can be sent when the user selects a button on the remote computing device 204” Scalisi, Paragraph 80.)
Regarding Claim 53: “The method of claim 52, wherein the input comprises an indication that a user has operated an application to request image data from the camera.” (“a user may select a button in a software application ( e.g., an app ), which causes a live or previously recorded video to display on the remote computing device 204.” Scalisi, Paragraph 79.)
Regarding Claim 56: “The camera of claim 1, wherein:
the second transmitter is configured to be continuously powered on and ready to communicate wirelessly with the base station; and (“an event (e.g., motion or smoke) … When a sensor detects an event ( e.g. smoke) the sensor may send a communication regarding the event to the doorbell. [which acts as a base station that communicates with other devices] … in response to receiving an incoming wireless communication 230. … Overriding the power setting or power settings of the doorbell 202 … enter a transmit mode 814 to send an outgoing wireless communication 230 to the remote computing device 204.” Thus, the wireless device that listens to the sensors is continuously powered, while the wireless device that communicates to the remote computing devices over the network, such as WiFi above, is turned off. See Scalisi, Paragraphs 106, 43. See similar examples of this in Johnson, Paragraphs 210, 335-336, and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the controller is further configured to: … cause, in response to detection of motion, electrical power to be provided to at least the first transmitter to transition the first transmitter from a sleep mode to an operational mode, and (Purring it all together, “a user can configure a doorbell 202 to alert the user in response to an event (e.g., motion or smoke) … When a sensor detects an event ( e.g. smoke) the sensor may send a communication regarding the event to the doorbell. [in listen mode] … For example, when the doorbell receives the communication from the sensor [in listen mode], the doorbell may wake up (e.g., enter a mode that consumes more power), start recording a video [camera recording mode], send a communication to a remote computing device [transmit mode], send communication to a second sensor [another transmit mode], etc. … Some embodiments enable communication via cellular and/or WiFi networks.” This indicates that when receiving communications from the sensor in the listening mode, the receive circuitry is on but the circuitry for communicating to the network and the circuitry for communicating to the second sensor are turned off. See Scalisi, Paragraphs 106, 43. See similar examples of this in Johnson, Paragraphs 210, 335-336, and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
cause the second transmitter to send a notification of detected motion to the base station before the first transmitter has transitioned to the operational mode.” (“an event (e.g., motion or smoke) … When a sensor detects an event ( e.g. smoke) the sensor may send a communication regarding the event to the doorbell. [which acts as a base station that communicates with other devices] … in response to receiving an incoming wireless communication 230. … Overriding the power setting or power settings of the doorbell 202 … enter a transmit mode 814 to send an outgoing wireless communication 230 to the remote computing device 204.” Thus, the wireless device that listens to the sensors is continuously powered, while the wireless device that communicates to the remote computing devices over the network, such as WiFi above, is turned off. See Scalisi, Paragraphs 106, 43. See similar features in Johnson Paragraphs 350, 439, and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
As noted above, Scalisi does not explicitly describe that in a listen mode “the second transmitter” is continuously powered, however it is well understood in the art of electronics that while listening circuitry is being used it draws power to perform the listening function, and the other circuitry is not consuming power while it is either not being used or it is in a sleep mode that provides a further power reduction.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to power the circuits that perform the function enabled by the system, and provide less or no power to the circuits that perform functions not enabled by the system. See Scalisi, Paragraphs 82, 108, 43, 50.
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.
Further, as noted above, Scalisi indicates that the wireless device that listens to the sensors can be on while the wireless device for sending video to the remote computer can be off.
However, Scalisi does not provide an explicit example that a WiFi device is used to communicate image data, and that the listening mode is implemented by a wireless device that is different from a WiFi device. Scalisi suggests that those are the available and substitutable options: “Some embodiments enable communication via cellular and/ or WiFi networks. … Other communication means are used by some embodiments. … Several embodiments use near field communication (NFC) to communicate between the computing device 204 and the doorbell 202. … Bluetooth, radio-frequency identification, …” Scalisi, Paragraphs 43-44. This indicates that Scalisi is aware that some modes (such as the live view mode) can require WiFi and some modes can operate on another, lower power communication protocol.
Johnson teaches the claimed example explicitly: “The camera 10(c) consumes less power in a standby mode because the first radio 10(d) consumes less power when configured to receive triggers and the third radio 10(d) is very efficient at transmitting video over Network Systems.” Johnson, Paragraphs 335-336. “In one embodiment, the first wireless connectivity circuit may be a Bluetooth chip … The second wireless connectivity circuit may be a WiFi chip that allows the smart door lock to communicate using a WiFi protocol with a back-end server system” Johnson, Paragraph 210.
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 Scalisi to select WiFi as a protocol for communicating image data and another wireless protocol for other communication tasks that consume lower power, as suggested in Scalisi and in Johnson, so that “The camera 10(c) consumes less power in a standby mode because the first radio 10(d) consumes less power when configured to receive triggers.” Johnson, Paragraph 336.
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 58: “The camera of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to select the subset of image frames at least in part by:
determining that audio data included in the first video image data includes at least one audio feature; and (“the computing device 204 can later review all video and/or audio records from when the security device 202 detected movement and/or the presence of a person,” featuring the audio of the detected person or the movement. Scalisi, Paragraph 61.)
selecting one or more of the plurality of image frames that coincide with the at least one audio feature.” (“the computing device 204 can later review all video and/or audio records from when [coinciding with] the security device 202 detected movement and/or the presence of a person.” Scalisi, Paragraph 61.)
Claims 59-61 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 57-58 in view of the Claim 24 rejection.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160330413 to Scalisi (“Scalisi”) in view of US 20210396046 to Johnson (“Johnson”) and in view of US 20070183493 to Kimpe (“Kimpe”) in view of US 20210076016 Svirdenko (“Svirdenko”). Scalisi, Johnson, Kimpe
Regarding Claim 57: “The camera of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to select the subset of image frames at least in part by analyzing the first video image data to select one or more of the plurality of image frames that depict a face.” (“the computing device 204 can later review all video and/or audio records from when the security device 202 detected movement and/or the presence of a person,” including the feature of the detected person or the movement. Scalisi, Paragraph 61. “the camera 10(c) is turned on in sufficient time to take a face or body picture of the individual,” thus the captured video depicts a face. Johnson, Paragraph 350.
Scalisi and Johnson imply that the captured and transmitted image frames would be frames that image faces, but they do note explicitly select images based on depicting a face.
Svirdenko teaches this feature in the context of communicating video over networks: “On the encoder side, the proposed system is able to automatically select only a small number of frames with relatively high-quality faces represented in them, then encode these frames for data compression and transmission.” Svirdenko, Paragraph 24.
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 Scalisi, Johnson, Kimpe to select the subset of image frames at least in part by analyzing the first video image data to select one or more of the plurality of image frames that depict a face as taught in Svirdenko, in order to ensure that video data transmitted over a low-bitrate channel preserves a high quality for the objects of interest of the viewer. Svirdenko, Paragraphs 24, 27.
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.
Conclusion
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
