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 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 1, Applicant argues that,
“Claim 1, as previously presented, recites "authenticating the display terminal based on the location indicia for the display terminal being in a vicinity to the camera location and the access policy for the camera." Applicant submits the proposed Coleman-Trenciansky combination fails to teach or suggest embodiments as disclosed and claimed by Applicant.
For example, Applicant submits the proposed Coleman-Trenciansky combination fails to teach or suggest "authenticating the display terminal based on the location indicia for the display terminal being in a vicinity to the camera location." Coleman describes an approach in which "the user employs many cameras spread throughout a plurality of regions," wherein "the user may locate and select images from a specific camera by first selecting a region 100, then subsequently selecting a municipality 102a, 102b within the region 100, and then selecting a specific location 104a-104c within the municipality 102a, 102b." (See, Coleman, para. [0051]). The system described by Coleman therefore allows a user to select any camera from any municipality (of a plurality of municipalities) in any region (of a plurality of regions), regardless of the location of the user.”
(original emphases)
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are moot since Coleman was not relied upon to teach the limitation. Instead, the Office Action cited paragraphs [0047]-[0049] and [0065] of Trenciansky for the recited limitation.
On pages 1-2, Applicant argues that,
“Furthermore, Applicant submits the proposed Coleman-Trenciansky combination fails to teach or suggest "authenticating the display terminal based on the … access policy for the camera." Applicant points out that embodiments disclosed by Applicant include "an access policy for each camera, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time." (Emphasis added.) In contrast, Trenciansky discloses an access policy based on the user. Trenciansky describes internal employees as "internal users", wherein users are assigned to groups and each group is assigned attributes including priority levels such that the cameras accessible by a user depend on the group the user is assigned to and the access level assigned to the group. Thus, security personnel assigned to a warehouse may have the highest priority for that facility "so that the security personnel always have access to the video cameras in that facility." (See, Trenciansky, para. [0049]. Emphasis added.)
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits the proposed Coleman-Trenciansky combination fails to teach or suggest embodiments as disclosed and claimed by Applicant.”
(original emphases)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, at least in [0049], Trenciansky states,
[0049] Each user is also assigned to a group. For internal users, the group is typically based on the user's geographical location and job function. For external users, the group is typically based on role. Each group has attributes associated therewith that are assigned to the individual users of the group. In this embodiment, the attributes comprise video camera priority levels, video camera access restrictions and functional access restrictions. The video camera priority levels allow users to lock video cameras so that other users with lower assigned video camera priority levels are unable to interrupt control of locked video cameras. Video camera access restrictions establish time windows in which control of video cameras is permitted. For example, security personnel in a given retail establishment or warehouse of a business unit are typically assigned the highest video camera priority level for that facility so that the security personnel always have access to the video cameras in that facility [1]. Other users depending on job function may have higher video camera priority levels at certain times of the day as compared to other times of the day. Some users, such as for example external auditors, may only have access to video cameras in the facility at certain times of the day and have no access to video cameras in the facility at other times of the day [2]. Typically, auditors are provided with access to video cameras at times that are not likely to conflict with security functions and/or other higher priority tasks. Auditors are also typically given a fixed time to complete audits. The functional access restrictions permit the users of groups to use particular functions. For example, a functional access restriction may permit users of one or more selected groups to create audits while inhibiting users of other groups from creating audits.
(Emphases added)
Thus, [1] corresponds to the first access policy and [2] corresponds to the second access policy. At least both of these access policies are applied to each of the cameras. Therefore, there is an access policy for each camera, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera as given in [1] above, or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time as given in [2] (for example, Trenciansky teaches an access policy that allows a group of people to access at certain times of the day, which means “there is a time window” for the access, thus, starting at the starting of the window and for a fixed amount of time equal to the time window).
In other words, the claim does not require each of the camera has an exclusive access policy that is different from an access policy for another camera.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 2009/0213229 A1 – hereinafter Coleman) and Trenciansky et al. (US 2012/0281095 A1 – hereinafter Trenciansky).
Regarding claim 1, Coleman discloses a method for operation of a video security surveillance server, the method comprising: storing, in a memory: a map of camera locations for a plurality of cameras, each camera having a view of a camera location of the plurality of camera locations ([0051]; Fig. 2 – storing a directory of cameras, which is a map of cameras because it shows where a given camera is located); in response to receiving a request from an emergency services agency (ESA) terminal, the request including location indicia for a display terminal and a request for access to a video stream from one or more cameras having a view of a camera location within a range of the location indicia (Fig. 2; [0051] – receiving a request from a wireless display terminal 38 to a region, municipality, and/or specific location to display one of the video feeds provided by the cameras within the region, municipality, and/or specific location, thus the request includes at least identifiers of region, municipality, and/or specific location, which serves as location indicia): authenticating the display terminal ([0026]; [0054] – authenticating the display terminal prior to accessing video from the cameras); instantiating a virtual machine ([0042]-[0043]; [0054] – instantiating a virtual machine by running a corresponding software from memory – Examiner interprets any piece of software that is running as a virtual machine because it abstracts the computer in performing tasks); instantiating a video server application coupling the virtual machine to the map of camera locations ([0042]-[0043]; [0054]; Fig. 2 – initiating an application on the system coupling the virtual machine to the directory of cameras to provide a video stream from the cameras to the display terminal the directory cameras to the user for selection as described at least in [0051]); and instantiating an application programming interface (API) operable between an initiation time and a termination time for real-time data communication with the display terminal ([0051]; [0054] – instantiating a API to interface with the display terminal within a session); selecting a camera from the one or more cameras based on the location indicia ([0051] – selecting a camera from the cameras in the directory based on selected region, municipality, and specific location); receiving a video stream from the selected camera ([0038] – receiving a captured video stream from the selected camera); and transmitting the video stream from the selected camera through the API to the display terminal ([0038] – delivering the video stream to the display terminal).
However, Coleman does not disclose Coleman does not disclose storing, in the memory, an access policy for each camera, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time; authenticating the display terminal based on the location indicia for the display terminal being in a vicinity to the camera location and the access policy for the camera, wherein the termination time is based on the initiation time and the fixed amount of time; and transmitting the video stream from the selected camera until the termination time.
Trenciansky discloses storing, in a memory (Fig. 6 – storing in memory of a server of an enterprise management system), an access policy for each camera, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera if an emergency service provider is within a vicinity of the camera and starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time ([0049] – storing an access policy that always enables access to a camera by a certain group of users while restricting access to the camera by other groups of users to only certain defined time window, thus starting at the starting of the window and for a fixed amount of time equal to the time window - further the access policy that restricts access to the camera by other groups of users to only certain defined time window regardless of whether there is an emergency service provider being within a vicinity of the camera, thus including the case “if an emergency service provider is within a vicinity of the camera”); authenticating the display terminal based on the location indicia for the display terminal being in a vicinity to the camera location and the access policy for the camera ([0047]-[0049]; [0065] – authenticating the display terminal using log-in credentials based on the location of the users relative to the cameras and access policy for the camera), wherein a termination time is based on the initiation time and the fixed amount of time ([0049] – when the policy is enforced, accessing, e.g. any video stream transmitted, from the camera is limited to a termination time that is when the time window is reached); and transmitting a video stream from the camera until the termination time (Fig. 8; [0067] – when the policy is enforced, accessing, e.g. any video stream transmitted, from the camera is limited to a termination time that is when the time window is reached).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Trenciansky to into the method taught by Coleman in order to control accesses to cameras, thus enforcing a proper use of the camera according to owners.
Regarding claim 2, Coleman also discloses the display terminal is a mobile display terminal (Fig. 2; [0047] – the display terminal 38 is a mobile display device, e.g. a cell phone, a personal digital assistant).
Regarding claim 4, Coleman discloses a method of operation for a private video surveillance security server, the method comprising: receiving, from an emergency service agency (ESA) server ([0050] – Examiner interprets the user device of an agent at the security firm as an emergency service agency server), an authentication credential for the ESA server ([0054] – PIN number), location indicia for a current vicinity of a display terminal, and a request for enabled a video stream from a plurality of cameras, each camera being a private camera corresponding to a camera location within a specified range surrounding said of the location indicia (Fig. 2; [0051] – receiving a request from the display terminal 38 to a region, municipality, and/or specific location to display one of the video feeds provided by the cameras within the region, municipality, and/or specific location, thus the request includes at least identifiers of region, municipality, and/or specific location, which serves as location indicia); instantiating an application programming interface (API) operable between an initiation time and a termination time ([0051]; [0054] – instantiating a API to interface with the display terminal within a session); transmitting a video stream from at least one camera within the range of the location indicia the display terminal through the API ([0038] – delivering the video stream to the display terminal).
However, Coleman does not disclose storing an access policy for each camera of a plurality of cameras, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera if an emergency service provider is within a vicinity of the camera and starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time, wherein the termination time is based on the initiation time and the fixed amount of time; and transmitting a video stream from at least one private camera until the termination time.
Trenciansky discloses storing an access policy for each camera of a plurality of cameras, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time, wherein the termination time is based on the initiation time and the fixed amount of time ([0049] – storing an access policy that always enables access to a camera by a certain group of users while restricting access to the camera by other groups of users to only certain defined time window, thus starting at the starting of the window and for a fixed amount of time equal to the time window, and terminated at the time the time window is reached); and transmitting a video stream from at least one private camera until the termination time (Fig. 8; [0067] – when the policy is enforced, accessing, e.g. any video stream transmitted, from the camera is limited to a termination time that is when the time window is reached).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Trenciansky to into the method taught by Coleman in order to control accesses to cameras, thus enforcing a proper use of the camera according to owners.
Regarding claim 5, Coleman also discloses the display terminal is a mobile display terminal (Fig. 2; [0047] – the display terminal 38 is a mobile display device, e.g. a cell phone, a personal digital assistant), the method further comprising: ending the transmission of the video stream as the location indicia of the display terminal changes ([0051] – the user selects another camera thus the location indicia of the display terminal changes, to view another video feed, which implies ending the transmission of the previously selected video stream).
Regarding claim 6, Coleman also discloses determining criteria for content distribution for the video stream ([0039] – determining whether to encrypt/encode the video stream); and transforming the video stream according to one or more settings ([0039] – encrypting/encoding the video stream according to a setting which specifies whether the video stream should be encrypted or encoded).
Regarding claim 9, Coleman in view of Trenciansky also the content distribution criteria comprises at least one of an emergency services agency, a neighbor, community management, a facility manager, a location of mobile display within a vicinity of the camera, and an owner of a camera in view of a privately owned private surveillance camera or an owner of an adjoining property based on the location indicia of each video camera (Coleman: [0039] – at least an owner of a camera in view of a privately owned private surveillance camera in view of Trenciansky teaching the camera is a privately owned private surveillance camera).
Regarding claim 12, Coleman discloses a method for operation of a video security surveillance server, the method comprising: storing, in a memory, a map of locations for a plurality of cameras, each camera having a view of a location of the plurality of locations ([0051]; Fig. 2 – storing a directory of cameras, which is a map of cameras because it shows where a given camera is located, each camera having a view of a corresponding location, e.g. location 1A, location 1B, or location 2A, etc.); receiving a request for access to one or more video streams (Fig. 2; [0051] – receiving a request from a wireless display terminal 38 to a region, municipality, and/or specific location to display one of the video feeds provided by the cameras within the region, municipality, and/or specific location, thus the request includes at least identifiers of region, municipality, and/or specific location, which serves as location indicia): in response to receiving the request: instantiating, into at least one virtual machine ([0042]-[0043]; [0054] – instantiating a virtual machine by running a corresponding software from memory – Examiner interprets any piece of software that is running as a virtual machine because it abstracts the computer in performing tasks), a video server application coupling the mobile terminal to the memory storing the map of locations ([0042]-[0043]; [0054]; Fig. 2 – initiating an application on the system coupling the virtual machine to the directory of cameras to provide a video stream from the cameras to the display terminal the directory cameras to the user for selection as described at least in [0051]); and instantiating an application programming interface (API) operable between an initiation time and a termination time for communication with the mobile terminal ([0051]; [0054] – instantiating a API to interface with the display terminal within a session); determining a set of cameras within the vicinity of the mobile terminal ([0051] – the user can use the mobile device to select a region within the vicinity of the mobile device to view the video feeds from the cameras within the region as desired); and transmitting, to the mobile terminal, a video stream of the one or more video streams from the set of cameras ([0038] – delivering the video stream to the display terminal).
Coleman does not disclose storing, in the memory, an access policy for each camera, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera if an emergency service provider is within a vicinity of the camera and starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time; receiving a request from a mobile terminal, the request including location indicia for the mobile terminal and a request for access to one or more video streams within a vicinity of the location indicia; determining a set of cameras within the vicinity of the mobile terminal; determining the access policy for each camera of the set of cameras within the vicinity of the mobile terminal; and transmitting the video stream from the selected camera until the termination time.
Trenciansky discloses storing, in the memory, an access policy for each camera, wherein a first access policy always enables access to a camera or a second access policy enables conditional access to the camera if an emergency service provider is within a vicinity of the camera and starting at an initiation time and for a fixed amount of time ([0049] – storing an access policy that always enables access to a camera by a certain group of users while restricting access to the camera by other groups of users to only certain defined time window, thus starting at the starting of the window and for a fixed amount of time equal to the time window, and terminated at the time the time window is reached - further the access policy that restricts access to the camera by other groups of users to only certain defined time window regardless of whether there is an emergency service provider being within a vicinity of the camera, thus including the case “if an emergency service provider is within a vicinity of the camera”); receiving a request from a mobile terminal, the request including location indicia for the mobile terminal and a request for access to one or more video streams within a vicinity of the location indicia ([0067] – a request to access a video camera including location of the user with respect to the cameras to determine access priority as further described at least in [0065]); determining a set of cameras within the vicinity of the mobile terminal ([0067] – determining for an on-site camera of the set of cameras, the cameras are private cameras within an enterprise or a facility, the private on-site camera is accessible based on the location of the user); determining the access policy for each camera of the set of cameras within the vicinity of the mobile terminal ([0049] – determining a corresponding access policy for each camera); and transmitting the video stream from the selected camera until the termination time (Fig. 8; [0067] – when the policy is enforced, accessing, e.g. any video stream transmitted, from the camera is limited to a termination time that is when the time window is reached).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Trenciansky to into the method taught by Coleman in order to control accesses to cameras, thus enforcing a proper use of the camera according to owners.
Regarding claim 13, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 1 above. Trenciansky also discloses the plurality of cameras are controlled by privately owned security surveillance servers ([0045]-[0049] – the set of cameras is controlled by an enterprise management system server, which is a privately owned by the enterprise or the facility); and, transmitting the video stream from the privately owned security surveillance server to an emergency service agency the display terminal (Fig. 8; [0067]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Trenciansky into the method has been discussed in claim 12 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman and Trenciansky as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Lu (US 2021/0203832 A1 – hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claim 3, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 1 above. Trenciansky also discloses the set of cameras is controlled by a privately owned security surveillance server ([0045]-[0049] – the set of cameras is controlled by an enterprise management system server, which is a privately owned by the enterprise or the facility); storing a set of access permissions for ([0049] – storing a set of access permissions such as always permitted, or only for a time window for various groups of users); and, transmitting the video stream from the privately owned security surveillance server to an emergency service agency the display terminal (Fig. 8; [0067]).
However, Coleman and Trenciansky do not disclose determining the camera is a private camera.
Lu discloses determining a camera is a private camera (Fig. 3; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0021] – determining a camera as a private camera).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lu into the method taught by Coleman and Trenciansky in order to access the camera properly using the corresponding access permission.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman and Trenciansky as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Oya et al. (US 6,208,379 B1 – hereinafter Oya).
Regarding claim 7, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 6 above. However, Coleman and Trenciansky do not disclose transforming comprises one or more of pixel block coefficient editing for blurring of at least one object in curtilage and blurring of at least one object beyond a public way by control of virtual depth of focus/depth of field
Oya discloses transforming comprises one or more pixel block coefficient editing for blurring of at least one object in curtilage and blurring of at least one object beyond a public way by control of virtual depth of focus/depth of field (Figs. 34, 39-44).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Oya into the method taught by Coleman and Trenciansky to protect privacy of camera’s owners.
Regarding claim 11, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 6 above. However, Coleman and Trenciansky do not disclose transforming the video stream comprises masking out a set of unchanging pixel blocks for one or more of time of day, a day of a week, and a previous hour.
Oya discloses transforming a video stream comprises masking out a set of unchanging pixel blocks for one or more of time of day, a day of a week, and a previous hour (Figs. 34, 39-44 – the masking is performed on a foreground, e.g. the closest part of the display-not-permitted area shown in Figs. 36, 38-42, and a background, e.g. a farthest part of the display-not-permitted area shown in Figs. 36, 38-42, regardless unchanging or changing, with respect to at least time of day, e.g. the time of the day that the area is masked).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Oya into the method taught by Coleman and Trenciansky to protect privacy of camera’s owners.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman and Trenciansky as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Schuler et al. (US 2020/0042945 A1 – hereinafter Schuler)
Regarding claim 8, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 6 above. However, Coleman and Trenciansky do not disclose transmitting the video stream through the API storing a virtual machine image of API into a processor core at the initiation time and purging the virtual machine image at the termination time.
Schuler also discloses transmitting a video stream through an API storing a virtual machine image of API into a processor core at an initiation time and purging the virtual machine image at a termination time ([0048]-[0049] – storing at the initiation time when participation in the collaborative work session is accepted and purging at a termination time when a user leaves the collaborative work session).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Schuler into the method taught by Coleman and Trenciansky to free computing resources for other processing tasks.
Regarding claim 10, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 6 above. However, Coleman and Trenciansky do not disclose a plurality of video streams includes at least a first view of a public location and a second view of the public location from an angle in a range of 150 to 210 degrees rotated from the first view.
Schuler discloses a plurality of video streams includes at least a first view of a public location and a second view of said public location from an angle in a range of 150 to 210 degrees rotated from said first view (Figs. 6-7).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Schuler into the method taught by Coleman and Trenciansky to enhance the surveillance coverage area.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman and Trenciansky as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2019/0087662 A1 – hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 14, see the teachings of Coleman and Trenciansky as discussed in claim 12 above. Coleman and Trenciansky do not disclose determining a second location indicia for the mobile terminal; transmitting a plurality of video streams to present views of any selected location within a specified range surrounding said location indicia from different perspectives.
Zhao discloses determining a second location indicia for the mobile terminal ([0041] – determining an updated location of the mobile device); transmitting a plurality of video streams to present views of any selected location within a specified range surrounding said location indicia from different perspectives ([0041] – transmitting the video streams to present views of any selected location of a corresponding camera within the range surrounding said updated location indicia from different fields of view to cover the area of the user).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zhao into the method taught by Coleman and Trenciansky to improve the user's awareness of their surroundings and enhancing their safety while interacting with the mobile computing device (Zhao: [0054]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484