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 with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not directly apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
As to applicant arguments with respect to combining the teachings of Choe with the teachings of Yeturu, Yeturu is only relied on for features claimed in claims 3, 6, 13 and 16.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Yeturu is relied on for providing a manual option for designating an event which is unrelated to applicant arguments as to why Yeturu may teach away from Choe. With respect to claims 6 and 16, Yeturu is relied on for specifying an email or SMS protocol for providing the notification which is unrelated to applicant arguments as to why Yeturu may teach away from Choe. Both of Choe and Yeturu are directed to surveillance networks and therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the abovementioned features of Yeturu with Choe for the reasons as provided in the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 3, 6, 13 and 16 below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-12 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200225790 A9 to Choe et al. (hereinafter “Choe”) in view of US 20180184239 A1 to Bestor et al. (“Bestor”).
Consider claim 1, Choe discloses a video management system (VMS) comprising:
a recording server configured for receiving and storing a plurality of data streams and respective metadata streams, each data stream being supplied by, or associated with, respective ones of a plurality of streaming devices (par. [0061] and fig. 3: “In step 301, video images are received, along with video image descriptive data, including time information and/or location information [. . .] The server system may be in communication with the one or more video cameras that capture video images, and may receive the video images transmitted from the video cameras”; par. [0064]: the video images, and video image descriptive data are all received at and stored at a server).
Choe fails to explicitly disclose wherein one or more streaming devices of the plurality of streaming devices is a geographically dynamic video camera.
In analogous art, Bestor discloses wherein one or more streaming devices of the plurality of streaming devices is a geographically dynamic video camera (Par. [0069]: “In the case of mobile audio, video, and/or RF identifier recording devices, the audio and/or video streams or RF identifiers received at step 304 may be accompanied by location information indicating a geographic location at which the audio and/or video stream or RF identifiers was produced”).
Choe in view of Bestor further discloses:
a processing unit configured to receive data via a data communication interface (Choe: par. [0061] and fig. 1: “The server system may be in communication with the one or more video cameras that capture video images), and further configured to:
responsive to a trigger event, select the geographically dynamic camera, where the selected geographically dynamic camera is associated with the trigger event (Choe: par. [0066]: “In step 303, detected events are associated with video images and time and/or location information; par. [0062]-[0063]: time and location information associated with the video camera; Note, therefore the detected event triggers the association of the time/location information with the video. Also, Bestror: Par. [0092]: “once the out-of-boundary condition is detected at step 306, the electronic computing device may retrieve one or more second audio and/or video streams … located inside of the second criminal organization geofence or having a field-of-view inside of the second criminal organization geofence”),
obtain position data associated with the selected geographically dynamic camera (Choe: par. [0063]: location information associated with the video camera. Also, Bestor: Par. [0069]: “In the case of mobile audio, video, and/or RF identifier recording devices, the audio and/or video streams or RF identifiers received at step 304 may be accompanied by location information indicating a geographic location at which the audio and/or video stream or RF identifiers was produced”), and
determine a textual position description based on the position data of the selected geographically dynamic camera at a time associated with the trigger event, wherein the textual position description describes at least one of a geographical position of the selected geographical dynamic camera and a geographical position of the trigger event in a natural human language form with a common language syntax (Choe: par. [0067]-[0068] and fig. 3: “In step 304, a natural language description of the events is generated, based on a stored association. For example, based on the “appears” event, a sentence such as, “Person A appears at location 1 at time X,” can be generated.” Also Bestor: Par. [0069]: mobile recording devices; and Par. [0100]: “Outputting the notification at the electronic computing device and/or the target computing device(s) may include the respective computing device generating and displaying, via a display device coupled to the respective computing device, a notification window with alphanumerical notification text or graphic art in an electronic user interface of the computing device alerting a user thereof (perhaps a patrol officer or a dispatcher) to the electronically detected out-of-boundary condition. The displayed notification window may further include textual and/or graphical descriptions of the additional information noted above. For example, the displayed notification may graphically display the criminal organization geofence associated with the first criminal organization and a location (perhaps including orientation information) associated with the audio, video, and/or RF identifier recording device”).
and wherein the VMS is further configured to provide the textual position description to one or more target user devices (Choe: par. [0069]-[0070], fig. 4A-4B: “FIGS. 4A and 4B are exemplary reports generated based on video [. . .] FIG. 4B shows an exemplary report displayed in a browser”. Also Bestor: Par [0100]),
wherein, updating the textual position description when the geographically dynamic video camera moves (Choe: par. [0067]-[0068] and fig. 3: “In step 304, a natural language description of the events is generated, based on a stored association. For example, based on the “appears” event, a sentence such as, “Person A appears at location 1 at time X,” can be generated.”; Also Bestor: Par. [0069]: mobile recording devices; Par. [0071]: “the electronic computing device may periodically or on-demand discover the availability of such one or more audio, video, and/or RF identifier recording devices via a local direct-mode wireless broadcast of a discovery packet (which may include a request for location and/or field-of-view information as well) and subsequent receipt of a response from nearby available one or more audio, video, and/or RF identifier recording devices indicating their availability and location or field-of-view”; and Bestor: Par: [0100]: “The displayed notification window may further include textual and/or graphical descriptions of the additional information noted above. For example … location”. Note, therefore the location information of Bestor can be updated either when the recording devices are static or moving).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Choe in view of the above teachings of Bestor to include movable cameras in the surveillance network for recognizable benefits such as being able to easily redeploy cameras to an area of interest and/or in response to updating the boundaries of a geofenced area (Bestor: Par: [0132]).
Consider claim 2, Choe discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to search the plurality of data streams and respective metadata streams in accordance with one or more search criteria to identify at least one of a target object, a target activity and/or a target incident, and wherein the trigger event is a search result (par. [0065] and fig. 3: “Based on the information received in step 301, events are automatically detected (step 302)”, Note, therefore a search criteria is implicit; par. [0066]: “In step 303, detected events are associated with video images and time and/or location information, Note, therefore the detected event triggers the association of the time/location information with the video; also par. [0079]: “video sequences received from a plurality of video cameras can be easily searched for based on their geographical information and/or universal time information by using semantic search algorithms”).
Consider claim 7, Choe discloses wherein the VMS further comprises a text-to-speech (TTS) converter, which is configured to receive the textual position description and provide a voice message corresponding to the text of the textual position description, and wherein the VMS further comprises means for transmission of the textual position description using an audio protocol (par. [0074] and fig. 5: “In one embodiment, in step 505, a video file including embedded text and/or voice is created [. . .] embedded text that reflects the textual description of particular events, inserted in the video sequence based on the associated time [. . .] The voice, if included, may be created using a text-to-speech system. In step 506, the video file can be played back with the embedded text and/or voice. For example, a browser or other application capable of playing back AVS files can be used for playing back the video file.”).
Consider claim 8, Choe discloses wherein the textual position description is further based on the trigger event (par. [0067]-[0068] and fig. 3: “In step 304, a natural language description of the events is generated, based on a stored association. For example, based on the “appears” event, a sentence such as, “Person A appears at location 1 at time X,” can be generated”).
Consider claim 9, Choe discloses wherein the determined textual position description is based on GIS data of an area associated with the position of selected streaming device (par. [0063]: “The location information may be determined in various ways. For example, it may be determined based on a pre-stored location of a video camera that captures the video images, based on a GPS location or GIS-determined location of the video camera”).
Consider claim 10, Choe in view of Bestor discloses a video surveillance system comprising:
a plurality of streaming devices in a surveillance area and configured to generate respective data streams, wherein the plurality of streaming devices comprise the geographically dynamic camera (Choe: par. [0061] and fig. 3: “In step 301, video images are received, along with video image descriptive data, including time information and/or location information [. . .] The server system may be in communication with the one or more video cameras that capture video images, and may receive the video images transmitted from the video cameras; Bestor: Par. [0069] mobile recording devices; Par. [0023]: mobile recording devices in communication with a central controller); and
a video management system (VMS) according to claim 1 (as examined regarding clam 1).
The motivation to combine references is the same as regarding claim 1.
Consider claims 11-12 and 17, the method is rejected based on the same rationale as the system of claims 1-2 and 7, respectively.
Consider claim 18, Choe in view of Bestor discloses a video management system (VMS) comprising a processing unit comprising microprocessor executable program instructions configured to carry out one or more of method steps of claim 11 (as examined regarding claim 11 or claim 1; also, Choe: par. [0047]: “microprocessors, memory chips, other circuitry, and image processing software [. . .] the video cameras include hardware and software for performing analysis on collected data”; Choe: par. [0048]: “The server system may include one or more server computers that may singly or collectively perform one of more of the methods disclosed herein”).
The motivation to combine references is the same as regarding claim 1.
Claims 3, 6, 13 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe in view of Bestor, further in view of US 10313638 B1 to Yeturu et al. (“Yeturu”).
Consider claim 3, modified Choe discloses the video management system (VMS) according to claim 1, and Choe discloses wherein the VMS further comprises a user interface (UI) client configured to receive a user request (Choe: par. [0083], fig. 9: search interface), but modified Choe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the trigger event is the user request.
In analogous art, Yeturu discloses a user interface (UI) client configured to receive a user request, and wherein the trigger event is the user request (col. 9 ln. 47 - col. 10 ln. 19 and fig. 4: “In some embodiments, a surveillance event may be manually indicated by a user [. . .] At 426, an alert is generated corresponding to a surveillance event. Non-limiting examples of an alert include alerts by telephone, email, text message, or through an alert application. An alert may be provided to multiple recipients”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of modified Choe in view of the above teachings of Yeturu to provide a user option for designating a trigger event to improve ease of use and/or because, for example, it may be difficult to computer analysis to determine the state of a surveillance event.
Consider claim 6, modified Choe discloses the video management system (VMS) according to claim 1, and Choe discloses wherein the VMS further comprises a transmission means for transmission
Modified Choe fails to explicitly disclose transmission using an email and/or SMS protocol, and wherein the textual position description is transmitted as email and/or SMS.
In analogous art, Yeturu discloses wherein the textual position description is transmitted as email and/or SMS (col. 10 ln. 8-11: “At 426, an alert is generated corresponding to a surveillance event. Non-limiting examples of an alert include alerts by telephone, email, text message, or through an alert application. An alert may be provided to multiple recipients”; col. 21 ln. 50-55: an alert may include a textual description of a surveillance event).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of modified Choe further in view of the above teachings of Yeturu to use email/SMS in order to receive and manage surveillance alerts using a mobile device (Yeturu, col. 19 ln. 50-61).
Consider claims 13 and 16, the method is rejected based on the same rationale as the system of claims 3 and 6, respectively.
Claims 4 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe in view of Bestor, further in view of US 20180122223 A1 to Simon.
Consider claim 4, modified Choe discloses wherein the VMS further comprises an event server configured to receive an event notification information received in connection with the events to formulate textual descriptions of the events”).
Modified Choe does not explicitly disclose receiving the event notification from a monitoring service.
In analogous art of video surveillance, Simon discloses receiving the event notification from a monitoring service (par. [0013]: “The event server 10 is configured to receive an alarm from a monitoring service 1 of an event at a property 2 being monitored. In an example, the event server 10 pairs information about the alarm with video from the property 2 being monitored [. . .] The event server 10 pushes the alarm and video the end-user device 70”).
It would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of modified Choe further in view of the above teachings of Simon because the substitution of one known element (notification from event detection service) for another (notification from internal event detection) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Consider claim 14, the method is rejected based on the same rationale as the system of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe in view of Bestor, further in view of US 20200394892 A1 to Zhao.
Consider claim 5, modified Choe discloses the video management system (VMS) according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to autonomously monitor the data streams and respective metadata streams, and to [detect]
In analogous art of video surveillance, Zhao discloses predicting a security instance (par. [0091]: “The user feedbacks may also be used to optimize a threshold score. In machine learning environment, the accumulated user feedbacks may be used for training purposes to improve accuracy on predicting whether the event is a real security threat or not. Based on this prediction capability, the system may dynamically and automatically determine whether to send a security alert to users, without being explicitly programmed.”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of modified Choe further in view of the above teachings of Zhao to provide meaningful alerts when an abnormal event occurs (Zhao, par. [0024]).
Consider claim 15, the method is rejected based on the same rationale as the system of claim 5.
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 STEPHEN R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at (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.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484