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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2024 and 05/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ortiz et al. (US 2018/0354649 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ortiz teaches a security camera (figure 1 to 3; par. 0059) comprising:
a housing (Figs. 1-5) for housing:
a video camera for capturing one or more video streams (figure 3; para. 0059; camera 130);
one or more power ports, at least one of the one or more power ports for receiving power to power the video camera (para. 0057; power can be provided to the housing via power lines);
one or more data ports, at least one of the one or more data ports for transmitting one or more of the video streams captured by the video camera onto a network (paras. 0021, 0022; the data from the 360 degree camera can be transmitted);
a drone landing pad supported by the housing (paras. 0007-0008), the drone landing pad including:
a drone power port operatively coupled to the security camera for receiving power from the security camera, the drone power port configured to operatively connect to a power port of a drone to recharge a power source of the drone using power from the security camera when the drone lands on the drone landing pad of the security camera (para. 0063; "In order to facilitate charging of drones, an electromagnetic charging area 503 can be integrated with the retractable platform 104 and can provide electromagnetic recharging to batteries associated with drones"); and
a drone data port operatively coupled to the security camera, the drone data port configured to operatively connect to a data port of the drone when the drone lands on the drone landing pad and is configured to transfer drone data from the drone to the security camera (para. 0063; "Communications with a drone 110 for maintenance and mission updates or data downloading while in storage within the housing").
Regarding claim 2, Ortiz teaches wherein the drone data comprises one or more video streams captured by a camera of the drone (para. 0057; drones to provide aerial surveillance).
Regarding claim 9, Ortiz further discloses wherein the drone data received by the security camera via the drone data port is stored in a memory of the security camera (Figs. 3 and 6; “the computer 121 (which includes at least a memory, a controller, peripherals and data-processing components such as one or more microprocessors, etc.) may store and process instructions based on machine-learning instructions. Such machine-learning instructions may direct the operations of the drone 110 and/or the drone delivery system 200 along with the operations of, for example, components such as the camera 130, the housing 101, and so on.”, Para. [0060]), and is subsequently transmitted to the network via one or more data ports of the security camera upon request from the network (Figs. 3 and 6; “The communications components 122 can also facilitate wireless communications with a drone 110 located near the housing 101, and enable the opening of doors 102/103 and deployment of the retractable platform 104 from the housing 101 in order to facilitate receipt of the drone 110. It should also be appreciated that the communications components 122 can facilitate communication over wireless and wired data communications networks to access, or to be accessed by, remote system (e.g., remote servers and operators).”, Para. [0056]; “Communications with a drone 110 for maintenance and mission updates or data downloading while in storage within the housing 101 can be via short range wireless means (e.g., Bluetooth, WI-FI) and can also be with a remote server via secured wireless data network communications (e.g., cellular, 5G) provided by the system 100 and available wireless data communications infrastructure.”, Para. [0063]; note, wireless networks as disclosed inherently send and receive requests in order for the devices to communicate with one another).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (US 2018/0354649 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ortiz is silent on wherein the drone data from the drone and the one or more video streams captured by the video camera are transmitted to the network through a common data port of the security camera.
However, Ortiz discloses structure and the capability of transmitting data from both sources (figure 3; para. 0059; camera 130; drone 110; both shown sharing a common line with Security components 123)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Ortiz wherein the drone data from the drone and the one or more video streams captured by the video camera are transmitted to the network through a common data port of the security camera, with a reasonable expectation for success, since the structure of Ortiz is capable of transmitting data from both video sources and therefore if the security levels of the drone data is the same as the security level of tile housing camera data, there would be no good technical reason not to use the same network port to transmit these data.
Regarding claim 6, Ortiz is silent on wherein the drone data from the drone and the one or more video streams captured by the video camera are transmitted to the network through different data ports of the security camera.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wherein the drone data from the drone and the one or more video streams captured by the video camera are transmitted to the network through different data ports of the security camera, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure, such as a common port, in various elements, such as separate ports, involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (US 2018/0354649 A1) in view of Filipovic et al. (US 11,831,392).
Regarding claim 4, Ortiz discloses wherein the common data port comprises a common power port of the security camera (para. 0057 discloses that the housing can be mounted on a pole and that power lines associated with the pole can provide the power to the housing).
Ortiz is silent on the use of Power Over Ethernet (POE).
However, in an analogous drone communications device art, Filipovic discloses Power Over Ethernet (“FIG. 16C shows a system 1700 of poles 1601 each connected to a fiber optic or other high speed network 1617 (e.g., Ethernet, coaxial, backhaul, Internet) which is connected to a node 1615 which is connected to a base station 1620. Node 1615 may be a communication data center functioning as an Internet Service Provider Network 1617 or can be a backhaul communication line or a combination power/backhaul communication line (e.g., Ethernet over Power). The HBS's 702 are in wireless communication 1619 and 1621 with the HBS's located in the buildings 1614. The HBS's may communicate through links 1619 and 1621 in a plurality of wireless standards as previously discussed (e.g., mm-wave, microwave, approximately 60 GHz). Links 1619 and 1621 are capable of carrying data intense communications such as movies, etc. FIGS. 16D and 16E disclose landings locations for the UAV 1606 in more detail. Building 1614 may be a large commercial location or a small residential dwelling. It has landing pads in the front side (1614a) and back side (1614b) of the building. The back side of the building 1614b will possibly provide more security for valuable deliveries. Each of the landings pads 1604 could provide beacon signals through a communication module to the UAVs 1606 to direct them where to land. The landing pads 1604 are further configured to wirelessly send messages to the owner/occupant of the building that the package was delivered by the UAV 1606. FIG. 16E shows an alternative embodiment in which the building 1614 has the landing pad 1604 mounted several floors above the street. The landing pads 1604 may be designed to electronically provide payment for goods upon delivery by the UAV 1606. The landing pads 1604 can used to receive samples that can be tried by the prospective customer and then returned if not satisfied.”, col. 11, line 60, to col. 12, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Ortiz further including Power Over Ethernet (POE), as taught by Filipovic, with a reasonable expectation for success, to reduce the amount of cables and routing required for power and data transmission, thereby providing cost savings.
Regarding claim 5, Ortiz further discloses wherein the power used to power the security camera and the power delivered to the drone via the drone power port of the drone landing pad are provided by a common power port (para. 0057 discloses that the housing can be mounted on a pole and that power lines associated with the pole can provide the power to the housing).
Further, Filipovic discloses wherein the common power port comprises the common Power Over Ethernet (POE) port of the security camera (see above).
Regarding claim 7, Ortiz is silent on wherein the different data ports comprise different ports of the security camera.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera oof Ortiz the wherein the different data ports comprise different ports of the security camera, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure, such as a common port, in various elements, such as separate ports, involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Ortiz is silent on the use of Power Over Ethernet (POE).
However, in an analogous drone communications device art, Filipovic discloses Power Over Ethernet (“FIG. 16C shows a system 1700 of poles 1601 each connected to a fiber optic or other high speed network 1617 (e.g., Ethernet, coaxial, backhaul, Internet) which is connected to a node 1615 which is connected to a base station 1620. Node 1615 may be a communication data center functioning as an Internet Service Provider Network 1617 or can be a backhaul communication line or a combination power/backhaul communication line (e.g., Ethernet over Power). The HBS's 702 are in wireless communication 1619 and 1621 with the HBS's located in the buildings 1614. The HBS's may communicate through links 1619 and 1621 in a plurality of wireless standards as previously discussed (e.g., mm-wave, microwave, approximately 60 GHz). Links 1619 and 1621 are capable of carrying data intense communications such as movies, etc. FIGS. 16D and 16E disclose landings locations for the UAV 1606 in more detail. Building 1614 may be a large commercial location or a small residential dwelling. It has landing pads in the front side (1614a) and back side (1614b) of the building. The back side of the building 1614b will possibly provide more security for valuable deliveries. Each of the landings pads 1604 could provide beacon signals through a communication module to the UAVs 1606 to direct them where to land. The landing pads 1604 are further configured to wirelessly send messages to the owner/occupant of the building that the package was delivered by the UAV 1606. FIG. 16E shows an alternative embodiment in which the building 1614 has the landing pad 1604 mounted several floors above the street. The landing pads 1604 may be designed to electronically provide payment for goods upon delivery by the UAV 1606. The landing pads 1604 can used to receive samples that can be tried by the prospective customer and then returned if not satisfied.”, col. 11, line 60, to col. 12, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Ortiz further including Power Over Ethernet (POE), as taught by Filipovic, with a reasonable expectation for success, to reduce the amount of cables and routing required for power and data transmission, thereby providing cost savings.
Regarding claim 8, Ortiz is silent on wherein the power used to power the security camera and the power delivered to the drone via the drone power port of the drone landing pad are provided by different power ports of the security camera.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Ortiz wherein the power used to power the security camera and the power delivered to the drone via the drone power port of the drone landing pad are provided by different power ports of the security camera, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure, such as a common port, in various elements, such as separate ports, involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Further, Filipovic discloses wherein the different power ports comprise the different Power Over Ethernet (POE) ports of the security camera (see above).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 13, Filipovic further discloses wherein the drone landing pad includes one or more alignment features to help guide the drone when landing on the drone landing pad of the security camera; wherein the one or more alignment features include one or more visual alignment features that a camera of the done uses to align the drone with the drone landing pad (“The drone 1606 can use many techniques to land on the landing pad 1604. FIG. 16J shows a laser beam 1610 (e.g., infrared laser) which guides the UAV 1606 to the landing pad 1604. When using laser guided landing, the landing navigation can be done by a reflective surface (e.g., reflective tape) 1626 on the landing pad 1604. The laser may be pulsed or modulated (modulated laser gives better accuracy and range). The drone 1606 can carry a laser transceiver 1628 on a rotating turret 1630 so that it can scan the area for the landing pads. After the laser signal is transmitted it reflects back to the drone 1606 from the reflective surface 1626 and the distance is automatically calculated by processors in the drone 1606. Alternatively, the location of the landing pad 1604 may be a previously mapped and programmed GPS location in the drones 1606 memory. The drone 1606 can have cameras that can be used to scan the area and compare to the map data base such as Google® street view, Bing® data base, Mapquest®, or similar image database. This information is compared to the landing maps and the destination requests that are stored in the cloud or the drone memory. This allows the drone to decide whether to land or not. Also, as previously discussed, the UAV 1606 may use short range communication with the landing pad 1604 in which the landing pad has the built in wireless transceiver 1612 that allows it to communicate with the drone 1606 and the drone's headquarters.”, Col. 12, line 50 to Col. 13, line 8); wherein the one or more alignment features include one or more magnets (“As discussed above, the landing pad 1604 can contain a charging mechanism 1616 to recharge a UAV 1606. In alternative embodiments, the landing pads 1604 may be equipped with magnets, clamps or some other type of mounting device (shown as 1620 in FIG. 16E) for attaching the landing pads to the side of the building 1614. Also, the landing pad 1604 may include magnets (or other mechanical devices such as clamps) 1618 on the landing pad 1616 to keep a UAV 1606 in a charging position or from dipping over or being blown off the landing pad 1604 by the wind.”, Col. 12, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Ortiz wherein the drone landing pad includes one or more alignment features to help guide the drone when landing on the drone landing pad of the security camera; wherein the one or more alignment features include one or more visual alignment features that a camera of the done uses to align the drone with the drone landing pad; wherein the one or more alignment features include one or more magnets, as taught by Filipovic, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the drone lands safely on the landing pad. Further, to help place the UAV in the charging position and prevent being blown off the landing pad by wind, as discussed by Filipovi above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (US 2018/0354649 A1) in view of James et al. (US 2021/0371127 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ortiz is silent on wherein the drone data is streamed directly from the drone to the network through the drone data port and one or more data ports of the security camera (note, Ortiz appears to have the structure capable of doing so in Fig. 3).
However, in an analogous drone communications art, James discloses wherein the drone data is streamed directly from the drone to the network through the drone data port and one or more data ports of the security camera (note, Ortiz is relied upon for teaching video transmission; James discloses that a drone streaming its data through a base station is known: “The drone base 5 may be further equipped with its own weather station for monitoring and autonomously reacting to weather conditions. The drone base 5 may be further adapted to stream data from its drones to remote locations using one or more various communications protocols. The drone base 5 may be further adapted to update drone onboard software as needed with new algorithms using various communications protocols. The drone base 5 may be further adapted to update drone onboard mission parameters as needed with new algorithms using various communications protocols.”, Para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Ortiz wherein the drone data is streamed directly from the drone to the network through the drone data port and one or more data ports of the security camera, as taught by James, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the drone can autonomously react to changing conditions or update mission parameters as discussed by James, Para. [0091].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647