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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4, 6-7, 9-16 and 18-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 8 and 20 are newly objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Pedro et al. (US 2022/0083676) in view of Zeira et al. (US 2016/0105598) and further in view of Wong et al. (US 11,979,616).
Regarding claim 1, San Pedro teaches a system (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
first media-recording device (Figs. 1A-1B, plurality of cameras recording video
content) comprising:
non-transitory computer-readable media (paragraph 8) storing instructions; and
a first electronic processor (paragraph 8) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a request for access to first media from an electronic device (paragraph 39, user client device 108 requests access), the first media recorded by the first media-recording device (Figs. 1A-1B, plurality of cameras recording video content), the first media including a portion identified as being associated with an alarm event, the alarm event classified into an event category (paragraphs 37-41, teaches watchlist of events of interest that is triggered by an event detected in the video streams captured by the plurality of cameras. These events are alarm events since they are detected based on a set of rules. Further the events are classified according to their detection as explained in paragraphs 86-95), the request for access including an authorization certificate, the authorization certificate including a role of a user (paragraphs 29, 31, 39, 44 and 69-70 teaches wherein an authorized user uses a specific certificate in the form of a keys to access a specific media/video related to the events of interest. An authorized user possesses the key to access certain media/file that correlates to the role of the user, i.e. “authorized user”, “approved/permitted” user, etc.), and
in response to determining the authorization certificate is valid and the role of the user is authorized to access the event category:
provide the electronic device access to the portion of the first media (Fig. 5, 6 and paragraphs 70-78 gives access to the media/video of the event of interest), and
However, while San Pedro teaches the ability for a user to login with credentials to access a first media/video file, fails to explicitly teach, however, Zeira teaches in paragraphs 107-108 teaches wherein a network device generates a signature/“token” that gives authorization to a requesting device access. In paragraphs 176, the network device itself includes the network video camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Zeira into the system of San Pedro such that San Pedro’s allowance of access can also be directly generated by the camera devices themselves. Such an incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing the number of devices necessary if the camera device itself is IP/IoT network device reducing costs by reducing the number of devices necessary for a camera based system.
However, while the proposed combination of San Pedro and Zeira teaches the ability for a user to login with credentials to access a first media/video file and a first camera network device to generate a token and send it to the requesting device, fails to explicitly teach, however, Duncan teaches the limitations allowing a system to: transmit the token to the electronic device (Figs. 12-13 and 18, the camera streaming service generates an access token and transmits it to the monitoring device 1016), wherein the electronic device is configured to transmit the token to a second media-recording device, wherein the second media-recording device is configured to provide the electronic device access to a portion of second media but not to a remainder of the second media based on the metadata included in the token, the second media recorded by the second media-recording device (Wong et al. teaches in Figs. 10-12 of a “second media recording device” in the form of cameras 104 that operates in conjunction with a camera streaming service 1042 and monitoring service 1040 to manage token based access to video data from cameras at a monitored location. Video data from the second/third/additional cameras are stored on the image data store 1004. Therefore, the interpretation for “second media-recording device”, using broadest reasonable interpretation can be the Surveillance Center Environment (626) or the combined unified functional system of the camera and its associated camera streaming service together. This interpretation is consistent with how the prior art treats such systems. For example, US8736701 (VideoIQ/Avigilon) explicitly discloses a single-unit network camera containing within its housing: a video analytics engine, a mass storage unit, a streaming and archiving control unit, and an access control management unit – all classified under CPC H04N5/772 (recording apparatus and television camera placed in the same enclosure). Secondly, Figs. 1-2 and supporting disclosure teaches “three video feed windows 112” display video from cameras corresponding to the selected event window 106, i.e. the portion of each camera’s recorded media associated with the specific detect event – while recorded media outside that event time window is not made accessible to the monitoring device. Col. 22-24 and Fig. 13 teaches that the monitoring application 632 uses the received token to be able to establish a connection and retrieve desired specific video time periods from the cameras, via the camera streaming service 1042; i.e., the electronic device transmits the token to the second media-recording device to initiate the peer to peer connection. The system’s event portal architecture, combined with “specific time window” parameter embedded in the token, establishes that the monitoring device 1016 receives access to a portion of the cameras’ recorded media (event time range) and not the remainder. Further, the two interpretations given above with respect to the “second media-recording device” also records the media related to the event.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Wong into the proposed combination of San Pedro and Zeira such that the token generated by the first media-recording device in Zeria (and San Pedro) can be utilized to access other content related to the first event because said incorporation allows for the benefit of enhancing the system by allowing for verifying whether actual security concerns were detected (col. 3, lines 31-43).
Regarding claim 2, San Pedro teaches the claimed wherein the electronic processor is configured to execute the instructions to deny the electronic device access to the portion of the first media in response to determining that the role of the user is not authorized to access the event category (paragraphs 29, 31, 39, 44 and 69-70 teaches wherein an authorized user uses a specific certificate in the form of a keys to access a specific media/video related to the events of interest. An authorized user possesses the key to access certain media/file that correlates to the role of the user, i.e. “authorized user”, “approved/permitted” user, etc. Therefore, a requesting user does not have access to the same content as that of the authorized/approved/permitted user).
Regarding claim 4, Wong teaches the claimed further comprising a second electronic processor associated with the second media-recording device (Figs. 10-13, a system utilizing processors in col. 18, lines 45+ and col. 21, lines 35-39), the second electronic processor configured to: receive the token from the electronic device (Col. 22-24 and Fig. 13 teaches that the monitoring application 632 uses the received token to be able to establish a connection and retrieve desired specific video time periods from the cameras, via the camera streaming service 1042; i.e., the electronic device transmits the token to the second media-recording device to initiate the peer to peer connection),
process the second media and the metadata included in the token to identify the portion of the second media (Wong et al. teaches in Figs. 10-12 of a “second media recording device” in the form of cameras 104 that operates in conjunction with a camera streaming service 1042 and monitoring service 1040 to manage token based access to video data from cameras at a monitored location. Figs. 1-2 and supporting disclosure teaches “three video feed windows 112” display video from cameras corresponding to the selected event window 106, i.e. the portion of each camera’s recorded media associated with the specific detect event – while recorded media outside that event time window is not made accessible to the monitoring device. Therefore, the second media-recording device processes the video to only include certain portions for review); and
provide the portion of the second media to the electronic device (Figs. 1-2 and supporting disclosure teaches “three video feed windows 112” display video from cameras corresponding to the selected event window 106, i.e. the portion of each camera’s recorded media associated with the specific detect event – while recorded media outside that event time window is not made accessible to the monitoring device. Therefore, the second media-recording device processes the video to only include certain portions for review).
Regarding claim 7, San Pedro and Wong teaches wherein: the metadata includes data identifying an object of interest in the portion of the first media (San Pedro: paragraph 37, 66 and 85); and
wherein the second electronic processor is configured to process the second media and the metadata included in the token to identify the portion of the second media by identifying the portion of the second media including the object of interest (Wong et al. teaches in Figs. 10-12 of a “second media recording device” in the form of cameras 104 that operates in conjunction with a camera streaming service 1042 and monitoring service 1040 to manage token based access to video data from cameras at a monitored location. Figs. 1-2 and supporting disclosure teaches “three video feed windows 112” display video from cameras corresponding to the selected event window 106, i.e. the portion of each camera’s recorded media associated with the specific detect event – while recorded media outside that event time window is not made accessible to the monitoring device. Therefore, the second media-recording device processes the video to only include certain portions for review). San Pedro’s object of interest is usable in Wong to allow the other portions to also include location of the objects of interest. The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, San Pedro teaches the claimed wherein the electronic device is a mobile device (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 10, San Pedro teaches the claimed wherein the token is signed with a private key assigned to the first media-recording device (paragraphs 31, 69 and 99).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 1 and 4 above, wherein the steps of transmitting and receiving are executed on the device/terminal of the requesting user.
Regarding claim 13, San Pedro teaches the claimed wherein the token is signed with a private key of the first media recording device (paragraphs 31, 69 and 99).
Regarding claim 16, San Pedro teaches the claimed wherein transmitting the request for access includes transmitting the request for access over at least one selected from a group consisting of an Internet, a local area network, and a dedicated network between the electronic device and the first media- recording device (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 33-35, over network 102).
Claims 19 is rejected over the same reasons as discussed above in claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Pedro et al. (US 2022/0083676) in view of Zeira et al. (US 2016/0105598) and further in view of Duncan (US 2017/0142322) and further in view of Meandzija et al. (US 7,266,685).
Regarding claim 11, San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan teaches using certificates/tokens for accessing media/video based on validity but fails to explicitly teach it being related to a time period of validity, however, Meandzija teaches the claimed wherein the authorization certificate includes a validity period and wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine whether the authorization certificate is valid by determining whether the validity period has expired (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Meandzija into the proposed combination of San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the system by placing limits on credentials used in accessing restricted shared content.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Pedro et al. (US 2022/0083676) in view of Zeira et al. (US 2016/0105598) and further in view of Duncan (US 2017/0142322) and further in view of Volini et al. (US 2017/0111350).
Regarding claim 6, San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan fails to teach, however, Volini teaches the claimed wherein:
the metadata includes a time associated with the alarm event (paragraph 103); and
the second electronic processor is configured to process the second media and the metadata included in the token to identify the portion of the second media by identifying the portion of the second media associated with a time range set based on the time associated with the alarm event (paragraph 103 teaches a time period of availability after a particular date and time (as identified as an input)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Volini into the proposed combination of San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the security of the system by placing a limit on the time period for processing an event based alarm.
Claim 18 is rejected over the same reasons as discussed above in claim 6.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Pedro et al. (US 2022/0083676) in view of Zeira et al. (US 2016/0105598) and further in view of Duncan (US 2017/0142322) and further in view of Casu et al. (US 2015/0181432).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan fails to teach, however, Casu teaches wherein transmitting the request for accessing includes scanning a code associated with the first media-recording device, wherein scanning the code associated with the first media- recording device includes scanning a quick response code with a camera included in the electronic device (paragraph 12 and Fig. 2, steps 130-138 wherein a QR is associated with a recording device and when scanned by a camera on a mobile device, allows the user to access to the DVR.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Casu into the proposed combination of San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan because said incorporation allows for the benefit of increasing operational efficiency by making it easier for the user to access content on a specific recording device (paragraphs 3-5 and 43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 17 fails to teach the limitations of “wherein: the metadata includes a location of the first media-recording device; and the second electronic processor is configured to provide the portion of the second media to the electronic device in response to determining that a location of the second media-recording device is within a distance threshold from the location of the first media-recording device” as recited in claim 5 and “wherein: the metadata includes a location of the first media-recording device; and receiving the second portion of the second media includes receiving the second portion of the second media from the second media-recording device in response to a location of the second media-recording device being within a distance threshold from the location of the first media- recording device” as recited in claim 17. While the cited prior arts of San Pedro, Zeira and Duncan teaches a manner in which second media/video are made accessible to the requesting user based on a token being generated, fails to teach the above underlined limitations above. The closest prior art as discussed above, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above combination of the discussed features/limitations obvious and additionally, applicant’s arguments have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
Claims 8 and 20 fails to teach the limitations of “wherein the token is a first token and wherein the second media- recording device is further configured to: generate a second token including data from the first token and metadata associated with the portion of the second media; and provide the second token to the electronic device”. While the cited prior arts of San Pedro, Zeira and Wood teaches a manner in which second media/video are made accessible to the requesting user based on a token being generated, fails to teach the above underlined limitations above. Wood, while teaching the generation of a token used for an initial event timeline based access, does not require generating a second token which includes details/metadata of the second media just accessed and includes the contents of the entire first token and for transmitting this newly generated second token back to the electronic device. The closest prior art as discussed above, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above combination of the discussed features/limitations obvious and additionally, applicant’s arguments have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481