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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed 03/12/2026. Claims 1-12, 14-17, and 19-22 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amini et al. (U.S. 2019/0288911 A1) in view of Oya et al. (U.S. 2005/0046699 A1).
Claim 1, Amini teaches:
A computer-implemented method for recommending changes in relation to video security camera deployment within a security system (Amini, Paragraphs [0029-0030]), the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, at an at least one electronic computing device (Amini, Fig. 6), a plurality of operational parameters of at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraphs [0112] and [0130], Parameter settings may be used to reconfigure the one or more electronic devices. An example of operational parameter includes the bitrate of the camera 110a.) that is deployed in a definable geographical area (Amini, Paragraph [0042], The electronic devices, e.g. cameras 110a, may be installed at various locations of a building, for example. The building, and the area surrounding the building, is thus a definable geographical area.);
determining, at the at least one electronic computing device, at least one sub-area of interest that is inside the geographical area, to be assessed for video security performance based on a plurality of received object search inputs that correspond to a plurality of video frames captured by the at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraphs [0096-0106], The identified objects, including both known and unknown persons, are search inputs, which cause the system to monitor a specific video corresponding to a specific electronic device located at a specific location, i.e. a sub-area. Based on the type of object detected, e.g. an unknown person, parameters may be adjusted, e.g. increasing video quality (see Amini, Paragraph [0107]).);
obtaining, at the at least one electronic computing device, video analytics data associated with the at least one video security camera operating under the operational parameters, the video analytics data identifying a respective at least one object of interest is recognized based on the object search inputs (Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0111], Based on the plurality of objects detected, the system is capable of identifying whether the object is a person or an inanimate object, e.g. a cloud, and whether or not the person is identified or unknown.);
determining, at the at least one electronic computing device, a measure of performance of the at least one video security camera relative to the at least one sub-area of interest as a function (Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0111], The performance of the electronic devices are based on their respective operating parameters.); and
when the measure of performance by the at least one video security camera relative to the at least one sub-area of interest is lower than a performance threshold, providing a recommendation message (Amini, Paragraphs [0112-0118] and [0123-0125], An example message is when the system determines that the overall effectiveness of the video surveillance would improve by improving video quality, i.e. the video quality is below a threshold, and then generating the message to the base station 105 or the camera 110a to make the parameter adjustment. Because the intention of the message is to make a parameter adjustment to improve the overall effectiveness of the video surveillance, the message is functionally equivalent to a recommendation message.), indicating at least one of:
a recommended change in spatial position of the at least one video security camera;
a recommended upgrade in at least one of the operational parameters of the at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraphs [0075-0088], The example parameters that may be adjusted to the camera 110a include, for example, a bitrate increase. The Examiner notes that the phrase “at least one of” is interpreted to include either a recommended change, a recommended upgrade, or a recommended deployment to be consistent with the Applicant’s specification. In Paragraphs [0053-0055], the Applicant’s specification defines three examples, i.e. changing the spatial position, upgrading an operational parameter, and a new security camera (upgrade), however, these examples are listed as independent example recommendations and not recommendations that are issued simultaneously. For example, it would not make sense to one of ordinary skill in the art to upgrade a parameter of an existing camera if the camera was to be replaced with a new one.); and
a recommended deployment of at least one new video security camera, wherein the new video security camera will:
have an upgraded operational parameter; and
replace the at least one video security camera.
Amini does not explicitly teach:
At least one confidence level, a function of the at least one confidence level;
providing a visual recommendation message or an audio recommendation message delivered by a screen or a speaker respectively.
As per the limitation of at least one confidence level, the system determines one or more parameter settings that will most result in content that most closely matches some set of one or more criteria (see Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0110]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the identified objects to have a high confidence level, because the system determines the one or more parameter settings that would generate the highest quality data for performing the image recognition step(s).
Oya teaches:
Providing a visual message or an audio message delivered by a screen or a speaker respectively (Oya, Paragraph [0125], A change log graph may be displayed along with images accumulated at the time of change.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Amini by integrating the teaching of Oya.
The motivation would be to more easily visualize changes in the photographed image(s) (see Oya, Paragraph [0125]).
Claim 3, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the visual or audio recommendation message indicates at least the recommended upgrade in the at least one of the operational parameters of the at least one video security camera (Oya, Paragraph [0125], In the combination of Amini in view of Oya, the change log would include parameter data (see Amini, Paragraphs [0075-0088]).).
Claim 12, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the obtaining the video analytics data is carried out over a defined period of time (Amini, Paragraphs [0086-0087], The system operates both during the day and during the night.), and the at least one object of interest is a plurality of objects of interest (Amini, Paragraphs [0096-0106], Examples of objects of interest include known and unknown people.).
Claim 14, Amini teaches:
A security system comprising:
at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraphs [0112] and [0130], Parameter settings may be used to reconfigure the one or more electronic devices. An example of operational parameter includes the bitrate of the camera 110a.) deployable in a definable geographical area (Amini, Paragraph [0042], The electronic devices, e.g. cameras 110a, may be installed at various locations of a building, for example. The building, and the area surrounding the building, is thus a definable geographical area.), the at least one video security camera including at least one image sensor configured to capture a plurality of video frames (Amini, Paragraphs [0112] and [0130]);
at least one electronic computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one video security camera (Amini, Fig. 6) and configured to:
obtain a plurality of operational parameters of the at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraphs [0112] and [0130], Parameter settings may be used to reconfigure the one or more electronic devices. An example of operational parameter includes the bitrate of the camera 110a.);
determine at least one sub-area of interest, inside the geographical area, to be assessed for video security performance based on a plurality of received object search inputs that correspond to the plurality of video frames (Amini, Paragraphs [0096-0106], The identified objects, including both known and unknown persons, are search inputs, which cause the system to monitor a specific video corresponding to a specific electronic device located at a specific location, i.e. a sub-area. Based on the type of object detected, e.g. an unknown person, parameters may be adjusted, e.g. increasing video quality (see Amini, Paragraph [0107]).);
obtain video analytics data associated with the at least one video security camera operating under the operational parameters, the video analytics data identifying at least a respective at least one object of interest is recognized based on the object search inputs (Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0111], Based on the plurality of objects detected, the system is capable of identifying whether the object is a person or an inanimate object, e.g. a cloud, and whether or not the person is identified or unknown.); and
determining a measure of performance of the at least one video security camera relative to the at least one sub-area of interest as a function (Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0111], The performance of the electronic devices are based on their respective operating parameters.); and
and wherein when the measure of performance by the at least one video security camera relative to the at least one sub-area of interest is lower than a performance threshold, configured to operate cooperatively with the at least one electronic computing device in providing a recommendation message (Amini, Paragraphs [0112-0118] and [0123-0125], An example message is when the system determines that the overall effectiveness of the video surveillance would improve by improving video quality, i.e. the video quality is below a threshold, and then generating the message to the base station 105 or the camera 110a to make the parameter adjustment. Because the intention of the message is to make a parameter adjustment to improve the overall effectiveness of the video surveillance, the message is functionally equivalent to a recommendation message.), indicating at least one of:
a recommended change in spatial position of the at least one video security camera;
a recommended upgrade in at least one of the operational parameters of the at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraphs [0075-0088], The example parameters that may be adjusted to the camera 110a include, for example, a bitrate increase. The Examiner notes that the phrase “at least one of” is interpreted to include either a recommended change, a recommended upgrade, or a recommended deployment to be consistent with the Applicant’s specification. In Paragraphs [0053-0055], the Applicant’s specification defines three examples, i.e. changing the spatial position, upgrading an operational parameter, and a new security camera (upgrade), however, these examples are listed as independent example recommendations and not recommendations that are issued simultaneously. For example, it would not make sense to one of ordinary skill in the art to upgrade a parameter of an existing camera if the camera was to be replaced with a new one.); and
a recommended deployment of at least one new video security camera, wherein the new video security camera will:
have an upgraded operational parameter; and
replace the at least one video security camera.
Amini does not explicitly teach:
At least one confidence level, a function of the at least one confidence level;
a screen or a speaker communicatively coupled to the at least one electronic computing device and providing a visual recommendation message or an audio recommendation message delivered by a screen or a speaker respectively.
As per the limitation of at least one confidence level, the system determines one or more parameter settings that will most result in content that most closely matches some set of one or more criteria (see Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0110]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the identified objects to have a high confidence level, because the system determines the one or more parameter settings that would generate the highest quality data for performing the image recognition step(s).
Oya teaches:
Providing a visual message or an audio message delivered by a screen or a speaker respectively (Oya, Paragraph [0125], A change log graph may be displayed along with images accumulated at the time of change.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Amini by integrating the teaching of Oya.
The motivation would be to more easily visualize changes in the photographed image(s) (see Oya, Paragraph [0125]).
Claim 15, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The security system as claimed in claim 14 wherein the at least one electronic computing device is included in one or both of a server and a client device forming part of the security system (Amini, Paragraph [0089], The analytics system may be implemented on a server system or one or more electronic devices.), and the client device includes the screen (Oya, Fig. 6, Paragraph [0101]).
Claim 16, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The security system as claimed in claim 15 wherein the client device includes a system design tool module configured to generate a graphical user interface within which the visual recommendation message is displayed (Amini, Fig. 5: 510, Paragraphs [0071] and [0074], The interface 510 may be accessed via a web browser or desktop/mobile application.).
Claim 17, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The security system as claimed in claim 16 wherein the graphical user interface is configured to allow a user to selectively view the at least one video security camera within a visual map of the geographical area (Amini, Fig. 5: 510, Paragraphs [0071], [0074], and [0120], The user may utilize interface 510 for receiving a video stream.).
Claim 19, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the measure of performance depends in part on an analytics-based count comparison carried out between counts from respective devices which are the at least one video security camera and another sensor device (Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0111], The step of “an analytics-based count comparison” is interpreted in light of the Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0048]. The step is interpreted as comparing a count of one device, i.e. at least one video security camera, with another sensor device, wherein a “count” is interpreted as each instance of a sensed object by each device. Thus, for example, the electronic device of Amini teaches a plurality of sensors, e.g. a motion sensor and an optical sensor (see Amini, Paragraph [0058]), wherein each sensor is capable of detecting the presence of objects. Thus, when an object is sensed by each of the plurality of sensors, the effective “count” of each sensor is at least 1, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the electronic device to determine that the “count” is 1 when it determines that an object is present.).
Claim 20, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The security system as claimed in claim 14 wherein the measure of performance depends in part on an analytics-based count comparison carried out between counts from respective devices which are the at least one video security camera and another sensor device (Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0111], The step of “an analytics-based count comparison” is interpreted in light of the Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0048]. The step is interpreted as comparing a count of one device, i.e. at least one video security camera, with another sensor device, wherein a “count” is interpreted as each instance of a sensed object by each device. Thus, for example, the electronic device of Amini teaches a plurality of sensors, e.g. a motion sensor and an optical sensor (see Amini, Paragraph [0058]), wherein each sensor is capable of detecting the presence of objects. Thus, when an object is sensed by each of the plurality of sensors, the effective “count” of each sensor is at least 1, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the electronic device to determine that the “count” is 1 when it determines that an object is present.).
Claims 2, 4-10, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amini et al. (U.S. 2019/0288911 A1) in view of Oya et al. (U.S. 2005/0046699 A1), in view of Beach et al. (U.S. 10,636,173 B1).
Claim 2, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1.
Amini in view of Oya does not specifically teach:
Wherein the visual or audio recommendation message indicates at least the recommended change in the spatial position of the at least one video security camera.
Beach teaches:
Wherein the visual or audio message indicates at least the recommended change in the spatial position of the at least one video security camera (Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46, The system stores an initial set of camera parameters 104 and then tracks the adjusted camera parameters 144 with attributes determined by neural networks.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Amini in view of Oya by integrating the teaching of adjusted camera parameters, as taught by Beach. Thus, in the combination of Amini in view of Oya, the adjusted camera parameters of Beach would be displayed in the change log of Oya.
The motivation would be ensure correct calibration of the camera parameters for tracking objects, e.g. people (see Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46).
Claim 4, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1.
Amini in view of Oya does not specifically teach:
Wherein the visual or audio recommendation message indicates at least the recommended deployment of the at least one new video security camera, with the upgraded operational parameter and which will replace the at least one video security camera.
Beach teaches:
Wherein the visual or audio message indicates at least the recommended deployment of the at least one new video security camera, with the upgraded operational parameter and which will replace the at least one video security camera (Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46, The system stores an initial set of camera parameters 104 and then tracks the adjusted camera parameters 144 with attributes determined by neural networks. The camera includes a camera that is being installed by an installer, i.e. a new camera (see Beach, Col. 9, Lines 29-46). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that a newly installed camera would be capable of replacing an existing camera or be installed as an additional camera, at the preference of the user and/or installer.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Amini in view of Oya by integrating the teaching of adjusted camera parameters, as taught by Beach. Thus, in the combination of Amini in view of Oya, the adjusted camera parameters of Beach would be displayed in the change log of Oya.
The motivation would be ensure correct calibration of the camera parameters for tracking objects, e.g. people (see Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46).
Claim 5, Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4 wherein at least one new video security camera is a Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) camera (Beach, Col. 14, Lines 18-23), and the upgraded operational parameter is increased camera pan range, increased camera tilt range or increased optical zoom (Beach, Col. 9, Lines 29-49, Parameters include tilt-up angle and zoom.).
Claim 6, Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4 wherein the upgraded operational parameter relates to an infrared or thermal radiation capability lacking in the at least one video security camera (Beach, Col. 15, Lines 27-32, The camera includes a night-vision camera or an infrared camera and may have dynamic settings based on time of day or location (see Beach, Col. 16, Lines 37-47).).
Claim 7, Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4 wherein the upgraded operational parameter relates to a higher mega-pixel imaging capability than possessed by the at least one video security camera (Amini, Paragraph [0076], One parameter includes output resolution.).
Claim 8, Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4 wherein the at least one video security camera is a single-head camera and the at least one new video security camera is a multi-head camera (Beach, Col. 13, Lines 42-55, The system utilizes a plurality of cameras that operate individually of each other, which collectively are functionally equivalent to a multi-head camera.).
Claim 9, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 further comprising: processing the video analytics data to determine that another sub-area of the at least one sub-area of interest, which is within a Field Of View (FOV) of the at least one video security camera, is being traversed by people contemporaneously exhibiting embarrassment (Amini, Paragraphs [0096-0106], The identified objects, including both known and unknown persons, are search inputs, which cause the system to monitor a specific video corresponding to a specific electronic device located at a specific location, i.e. a sub-area. As per the limitation of is being traversed by people contemporaneously exhibiting embarrassment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the persons being monitored by the camera(s) to exhibit emotions.).
Amini in view of Oya does not specifically teach:
Wherein the visual or audio recommendation message further indicates a recommendation to change the FOV of the at least one video security camera to exclude the another sub-area.
Beach teaches:
Wherein the visual or audio message further indicates a recommendation to change the FOV of the at least one video security camera to exclude the another sub-area (Beach, Col. 20, Lines 20-29, A dynamic exclusion area may be implemented where certain targets may be excluded from detection.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Amini in view of Oya by integrating the teaching of adjusted camera parameters, as taught by Beach. Thus, in the combination of Amini in view of Oya, the adjusted camera parameters of Beach would be displayed in the change log of Oya.
The motivation would be ensure correct calibration of the camera parameters for tracking objects, e.g. people (see Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46).
Claim 10, Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 9 wherein the visual or audio recommendation message further indicates a further recommendation to deploy a new radar-based security device configured to cover the another sub-area (Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a surveillance camera/system to include a radar-based surveillance device/camera. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 21, Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4 further comprising causing a system design tool to be operated both before and after a recommended deployment of the at least one new video security camera (Oya, Figs. 4-6, Paragraphs [0097-0104], The GUI of Figs. 4-6 of Oya presents changes to the user, and further enables the user to make changes, e.g. edit box 503 of Fig. 5. In the combination of Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to present the GUI at the time of implementing the new camera as well as after the camera is implemented, to better inform the user of the camera of operating parameters of each camera (see Beach, Col. 9, Lines 29-46).),
wherein performance evaluation input from a user is received via a graphical user interface of the system design tool both before and after the recommended deployment (Oya, Figs. 4-6, Paragraphs [0097-0104]).
Claim 22, Amini in view of Oya teaches:
The security system as claimed in claim 16.
Amini in view of Oya does not specifically teach:
Wherein:
the visual or audio recommendation message indicates at least the recommended deployment of the at least one new video security camera, with the upgraded operational parameter and which will replace the at least one video security camera, and
the graphical user interface is configured to receive performance evaluation input from a user both before and after the recommended deployment.
Beach teaches:
Wherein:
the visual or audio recommendation message indicates at least the recommended deployment of the at least one new video security camera, with the upgraded operational parameter and which will replace the at least one video security camera (Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46, The system stores an initial set of camera parameters 104 and then tracks the adjusted camera parameters 144 with attributes determined by neural networks. The camera includes a camera that is being installed by an installer, i.e. a new camera (see Beach, Col. 9, Lines 29-46). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that a newly installed camera would be capable of replacing an existing camera or be installed as an additional camera, at the preference of the user and/or installer.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Amini in view of Oya by integrating the teaching of adjusted camera parameters, as taught by Beach. Thus, in the combination of Amini in view of Oya, the adjusted camera parameters of Beach would be displayed in the change log of Oya.
The motivation would be ensure correct calibration of the camera parameters for tracking objects, e.g. people (see Beach, Col. 5, Lines 25-37 and Col. 8, Lines 60-67 through Col. 9, Lines 1-46).
Amini in view of Oya, in view of Beach further teaches:
The graphical user interface is configured to receive performance evaluation input from a user both before and after the recommended deployment (Oya, Figs. 4-6, Paragraphs [0097-0104], The GUI of Figs. 4-6 of Oya presents changes to the user, and further enables the user to make changes, e.g. edit box 503 of Fig. 5. In the combination of Amini in view of Oya in view of Beach, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to present the GUI at the time of implementing the new camera as well as after the camera is implemented, to better inform the user of the camera of operating parameters of each camera (see Beach, Col. 9, Lines 29-46).).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amini et al. (U.S. 2019/0288911 A1) in view of Oya et al. (U.S. 2005/0046699 A1), in view of Bataller et al. (EP 3343443 A1).
Claim 11, Amini in view of Oya further teaches:
The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 further comprising: wherein: the visual or audio recommendation message indicates at least the recommended deployment of the at least one new video security camera (Amini, Paragraph [0042], The camera may be an installed camera, i.e. new (see also, Amini, Paragraph [0137]).).
Amini in view of Oya does not specifically teach:
Processing the video analytics data to determine that at least one fire-related event occurred in another sub-area of the at least one sub-area of interest;
the at least one new video security camera is an explosion protected security camera.
Bataller teaches:
Processing the video analytics data to determine that at least one fire-related event occurred in another sub-area of the at least one sub-area of interest (Bataller, Paragraphs [0049-0050], The video analytics platform may generate real-time safety information including fire and/or smoke detection.);
the at least one new video security camera is an explosion protected security camera (Bataller, Paragraphs [0049-0050], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the cameras whose images are used for generating real-time safety information to be explosion protected. Such a modification would ensure that the system is capable of performing its intended function, and thus would yield predictable results. For example, a camera that is damaged during a fire due to an explosion would not be able to provide the requisite data to the video analytics platform.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify he system in Amini in view of Oya by integrating the teaching of a video analytics platform, as taught by Bataller.
The motivation would be to provide a camera system that is capable of self-calibration more accurately (see Bataller, Paragraph [0029])).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the cited references fail to teach at least one confidence level, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). Claim 1 recites “the video analytics data identifying at least one confidence level with which a respective at least one object of interest is recognized based on the object search inputs”. It appears that the Applicant intends for the claimed “confidence level” to also include instances wherein the video analytics data has a “low” confidence level, however, the claims do not inherently or explicitly define this aspect of the Applicant’s invention. Additionally, as argued by the Applicant on Pages 9-10, that object recognition also includes alternatives such as “if/then” rules and/or object motion tracking, because the Applicant’s claims do not define said confidence level to include or exclude said examples, the claims do not inherently or explicitly define the Applicant’s claimed invention away from the above interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “at least one confidence level”, in view of the prior art of record, includes the system identifying a type of object having a “high confidence” that an object is present and identifying the type of object, and modifying camera settings in order to best capture said object (see Amini, Paragraphs [0107-0110]). Additionally, the term “identifying” is interpreted as being equivalent to “indicating”, i.e. the video analytics data indicating at least one (high) confidence level.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “recommendation message”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Based on the Applicant’s argument on Pages 10-11 that the cited reference fails to teach a “recommendation message”, it appears that the Applicant has a different interpretation of a “recommendation message”, e.g. a recommendation message specifically presenting instructions to a user. The Applicant argues that a command message is not functionally equivalent to a recommendation message, and specifically argues that a command message represents “an authoritative, mandatory order to perform a specific action”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, however, that the claims inherently or explicitly define this aspect of the Applicant’s invention. It appears that the Applicant intends for the recommendation message to explicitly be displayed or played audibly for a user to “recommend” specific parameters for the user, which allows the user to ultimately determine whether or not to follow the “recommended” parameters. The claims as currently presented, however, only require the step of “providing a visual recommendation message or an audio recommendation message delivered by a screen or a speaker respectively”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686