DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 03/13/26, for application number 18/616,715 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended, and Claims 5-7, 12, and 13 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, and 15 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, US 2018/0054347 A1, in view of Kumar et al., US 2014/0365987 A1, and further in view of Hittel, US 2019/0331741 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Kojima discloses a surveillance camera system [system of Fig. 2, comprising router 100 and camera 300], comprising:
a power sourcing equipment corresponding to a midspan having one or more of integrated input/output (I/O) and audio port functionality [router 100 with interfaces 117a, 117b, and 117c, Fig. 1], the power sourcing equipment including processing circuitry,
one or more data ports [117a, 117b, 117c],
one or more of an I/O port and an audio port [117a, 117b, 117c; the PoE-enabled devices applicable to each of the embodiments described above include not only the PoE-compatible camera but also all PoE-compatible devices such as PoE-enabled IP phones, Fig. 1; par 75], and
a Power over Ethernet (PoE) port [PoE-enabled camera 300 is connected via LAN cable 200, Fig. 2; par 30], and
a power supply connecting the power sourcing equipment to a power source, wherein power from the power supply is split at the power supply into a first predetermined amount of power and a second predetermined amount of power, wherein the first predetermined amount of power is an internal supply voltage [a predetermined voltage (DC) is supplied to the power supply unit 115 via an AC adapter 150 from an external power source (AC). Further, the power supply unit 115 supplies a predetermined voltage necessary for operation of the various circuits provided in the router 100 and a predetermined voltage necessary for the PoE-power (i.e. splitting the power), Fig. 1; par 29];
a camera connected to the power sourcing equipment by the PoE port, wherein the camera is powered only by the second predetermined amount of power, wherein a PoE negotiation determines an amount of power used, the second predetermined amount of power being available for PoE [camera 300 receives power via LAN 200 from router 100, which supplies predetermined voltages necessary for operations of various circuits; main control unit 101 controls the power control unit 111 b and controls the power supply to the PoE-enabled camera 300 (i.e. PoE negotiation), Fig. 1, 2; par 29, 30]; and
a computer connected to the power sourcing equipment by one of the data ports, wherein the computer is configured to receive data from and transmit data to the camera via the power sourcing equipment [the wired communication control unit 111 a is connected to the main control unit 101 via the communication line D1. A predetermined voltage is supplied to the power supply control unit 111 b via a voltage line P1. The voltage of the voltage line P1 is used to supply to the PoE-enabled camera 300, Fig. 1, 2; par 30].
However, Kojima does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more of the I/O and audio port are powered only by the first predetermined amount of power; and a PoE negotiation to determine an amount of power used from only a second amount of power.
In the analogous art of power management, Kumar teaches wherein the one or more of the I/O and audio port are powered only by the first predetermined amount of power [the core interface circuits of the I/O circuit 12 are accordingly powered solely from the lower first power supply voltage, par 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima and Kumar before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the I/O power scheme as taught by Kumar into the system as disclosed by Kojima, to allow for support of operation at various voltages [Kumar, par 3, 8].
However, the combination of Kojima and Kumar does not explicitly teach a PoE negotiation to determine an amount of power used from only a second amount of power.
Hittel teaches a PoE negotiation to determine an amount of power used from only a second amount of power [the first PoE test circuitry 128 is electrically coupled to pins 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the communication port 108 via the first diode bridge 126. The first PoE test circuitry 128 also is electrically coupled to the microprocessor 114, which provides control signals to the first PoE test circuitry 128 that cause the first PoE test circuitry 128 to perform various aspects of a power negotiation process, Fig. 3, par 31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the PoE negotiation from only one amount of power, as taught by Hittel, into the system as disclosed by Kojima and Kumar, to allow devices to independently negotiate the appropriate amount of power necessary for operation [Hittel, par 5].
Regarding Claim 11, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. Kojima further discloses one or more speakers and/or a digital or analog audio source connected to the power sourcing equipment by the audio port [117a, 117b, 117c; the PoE-enabled devices applicable to each of the embodiments described above include not only the PoE-compatible camera but also all PoE-compatible devices such as PoE-enabled IP phones, Fig. 1; par 75].
Regarding Claim 15, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. Kojima further discloses wherein the power source is an AC power [AC adapter 150 receiving external power source (AC), Fig. 1; par 29].
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, and further in view of Fay et al., US 2015/0288857 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a camera mounting bracket.
In the analogous art of camera mounting, Fay teaches a camera mounting bracket [mount 102, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Fay before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the mount as taught by Fay into the system as disclosed by Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, to allow for automatic positioning and orienting of the camera [Fay, par 6].
Regarding Claim 3, Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Fay disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 2. Fay further teaches wherein the power sourcing equipment is included in the camera mounting bracket [mount can include power source such as batteries, solar power, etc., par 6, ll. 6-10].
Regarding Claim 10, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach one or more speakers and/or a digital or analog audio source connected to the power sourcing equipment by the audio port.
In the analogous art of camera mounting, Fay teaches one or more speakers and/or a digital or analog audio source connected to the power sourcing equipment by the audio port [mount communications interface can be an audio-in port, par 6, ll. 17-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Fay before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the mount as taught by Fay into the system as disclosed by Kojima and Kumar, to incorporate input to the mount and allow for automatic positioning and orientation of the camera [Fay, par 2].
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, and further in view of Ametsitsi, US 2010/0031032 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the I/O port includes a plurality of I/O pins.
In the analogous art of communication network devices, Ametsitsi teaches wherein the I/O port includes a plurality of I/O pins [midspan has a plurality of ports coupled to corresponding cables 114 which are typically modular jacks such as an RJ-45 jack (RJ-45 jack consists of a plurality of I/O pins), par 3, ll. 10-16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Ametsitsi before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the plurality of I/O pins as taught by Ametsitsi into the system as disclosed by Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, to provide sufficient connectivity to network devices [Ametsitsi, par 1].
Regarding Claim 9, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a network switch connected to the power sourcing equipment by one of the data ports, wherein the computer is connected to the power sourcing equipment via the network switch .
In the analogous art of communication network devices, Ametsitsi teaches a network switch connected to the power sourcing equipment by one of the data ports, wherein the computer is connected to the power sourcing equipment via the network switch [midspan 116 connected to switch 122; network switch 122 receives data from devices 104-112 and forwards the data packet to the desired destination address, Fig. 1; par 4, ll. 1-7; par 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Ametsitsi before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the network switch connections as taught by Ametsitsi into the system as disclosed by Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, to provide sufficient connectivity to network devices [Ametsitsi, par 1].
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, and further in view of Shih et al., US 2017/0094170 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. However, while Hittel teaches a PoE negotiation to determine an amount of power to be used, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a power consumption of the camera based on the connection, and provide the calculated power consumption of the camera to the computer.
In the analogous art of providing power over a network, Shih teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a power consumption of the camera based on the connection, and provide the calculated power consumption of the camera to the computer [processing unit calculates maximum illumination power according to electric power received by the illumination device and practical operation power, and transmits the practical operation power and maximum illumination power to the camera and illumination unit respectively; The processing unit 20 is connected to the illumination unit 18 for detecting a practical operation power of the network camera 14, calculating a maximum illumination power according to power provided by the transmission device 12 and the practical operation power of the network camera 14 (i.e. calculation takes into account the power consumption of the camera as well), par 6, ll. 6-13; par 13, ll. 12-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Shih before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate power consumption calculation as taught by Shih, into the midspan as taught by Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel, to improve power efficiency by optimizing power usage [Shih, par 5].
Regarding Claim 14, Kojima, Kumar, and Hittel disclose the surveillance camera system of Claim 1. However, while Kojima discloses a second predetermined amount of power [camera 300 receives power via LAN 200 from router 100, which supplies predetermined voltages necessary for operations of various circuits, Fig. 1, 2; par 29] and Hittel teaches a PoE negotiation to determine an amount of power used from a second amount of power [the first PoE test circuitry 128 is electrically coupled to pins 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the communication port 108 via the first diode bridge 126. The first PoE test circuitry 128 also is electrically coupled to the microprocessor 114, which provides control signals to the first PoE test circuitry 128 that cause the first PoE test circuitry 128 to perform various aspects of a power negotiation process, Fig. 3, par 31], the combination of references does not explicitly teach a negotiation to determine the amount of power used based on a power consumption of the camera when the camera is connected to the midspan.
In the analogous art of providing power over a network, Shih further teaches a negotiation to determine the amount of power used based on a power consumption of the camera when the camera is connected to the midspan [the processing unit 20 could calculate the maximum illumination power according to the electrical power provided by the transmission device 12 and the practical operation power of the network camera 14 after detecting the practical operation power of the network camera 14 (e.g. the maximum operation power of the network camera 14) and the electrical power provided by the transmission device 12, (i.e., the operating power of the PoE camera up to the maximum amount may be determined, and determination of the power of the PoE camera is part of the PoE negotiation process), par 14, ll. 5-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kojima, Kumar, Hittel, and Shih before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate power negotiation as taught by Shih, into the system as taught by Kojima and Kumar, to improve power efficiency by optimizing power usage [Shih, par 5].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/13/26 have been considered but are moot due to the new rejection based on the references cited above, as well as the newly cited portions of the references previously presented.
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 PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights