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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending per amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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 claim 1 (i.e., Anderson teachings relied upon in rejecting independent claims) and claim 2 (Examiner no longer relies on Anderson rejection. As a result, Applicants’ claim 2 argument with respect to Anderson’s deficiencies (and the resultant reliance on official notice) are moot.)
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, in “receiving, from a network device…and adding receiving, from the video camera…” limitation, “adding” appears intended to have been deleted from limitation (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
For claim 14, the last limitation recites “automatically associating a surveillance security policy…with the identified person currently shown on”. Limitation concludes with an incomplete phrase. Examiner cannot discern what, if any, additional text Applicant intended to recite.
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.
Claims 1- 5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nixon (USP 10594987), in view of Adam (USP 12417632).
For Claim 15, Nixon discloses:
A video surveillance system, on a data communication network, for automatically associating a surveillance security policy with a user on video based on Wi-Fi data, the video surveillance system comprising:
a processor (Fig 19, processor 1910);
a network interface communicatively coupled to the processor and to a data communication network (col 17, ll 59-64); and
a memory (Fig 19, part 1912), communicatively coupled to the processor and storing:
a video module to monitor an area on video that overlaps a radio range of an access point on the data communication network (col. 11, ll 49-54: “…leveraging the functionality of A/V recording and communication devices, such as A/V recording and communication doorbells, to record video data of people and to receive data from wireless devices associated with and in proximity to the recorded people.”);
a presence detector to fail to identify a person currently within the area and shown on video (col 10, ll 63- col 11, ll 12: Upon positive association of person or wireless device associated with them, an alert is generated/created; col 11, ll 32-45 and 54-65: Video camera does not capture enough detail to identify an individual. However, signals emitted by wireless devices are captured and analyzed for identifying information),
wherein the presence detector receives, from a network device, an identification of the person using the Wi-Fi parameters in parallel for a device associated with the person in the video, including a group identification assigned to the person (col 12, ll 32-38: A/V recording and communication device receive video recording and wireless signals; col 12, ll 50-57: “The signals emitted by the wireless device 118 may include information that can be used to identify the wireless device 118 and/or its owner….the recording of video data of, for example, the person 114 and the contemporaneous receipt of the signal(s) including identifying information for the wireless device 118 provide at least a correlation of the wireless device 118 with the person 114.”; col 40, ll 55-60: wireless signals include Bluetooth, wifi, zigbee, MAC address, SSID, manufacturer-specific information);
receiving, from the video camera, one or more images of the person to storage for future identifications (col. 11, ll 49-54: “…leveraging the functionality of A/V recording and communication devices, such as A/V recording and communication doorbells, to record video data of people.”; col. 4, ll: 44-50: a computing device stores video data (of objects/people) and identifying information for a wireless device in a memory; col 4, ll 53-64: System utilizes video object data and wireless device identifying information to create correlations);
a surveillance security policy module to automatically associate a surveillance security policy of the identified group with the identified person (col 11, ll 7-23: detection of suspicious person/persons causes home security alarm to arm).
Nixon fails to explicitly disclose;
“a machine learning module to build a machine learning recognition model from a history of images associating the identified person”.
However, in a related field, Adam discloses methods for a machine learning trained classifier to compare proprieties of obtained image of a person of interest to one or more video frames in which the person of interest is identified (col 3, ll 57-col 4, ll 4). Moreover, Adam discloses detecting whether a person of interest is within distance threshold of another person. If so, in accordance with a policy, a list of identified & unidentified people is generated and transmitted (col. 18, ll 1-3, 24-26, 41-42, 53-54, 60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant claims to have introduced Adam’s teachings alongside Nixon. The motivation would have been to allow for individual and/or group tracking of persons in order to enhance enforcement of public safety/health compliance with rules (col 7, ll 17-31).
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on a substantially similar basis.
For claim 2, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1.
While Nixon discloses sending alerts to specific persons/organizations regarding tracked POI as derived by observed wireless signals, Nixon-Adam combination fails to explicitly disclose “further comprising adjusting the surveillance security policy of the identified group of the identified person currently shown on video”. However, Examiner takes official notice that techniques for adjusting a surveillance security policy (including modifying type of notification and parties to whom messaged is delivered) would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill apprised of the prior art and well-known notification practices before instant claimed invention was filed. The motivation would have been to adjust security notifications and posture responsive to observed events and persons in keeping with design goals of administrator.
For claim 3, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1.
While Nixon discloses sending alerts to specific persons/organizations regarding tracked POI (person of interest), the combination fails to explicitly disclose “further comprising adjusting the surveillance security policy of the identified person”. However, Examiner takes official notice that techniques for adjusting a surveillance security policy (including modifying type of notification and parties to whom messaged is delivered) would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill apprised of the prior art and well-known notification practices before instant claimed invention was filed. The motivation would have been to adjust security notifications and posture responsive to observed events and persons in keeping with design goals of administrator.
For claim 4, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising taking a security action based on the identified person and a violation of the surveillance security policy associated with the identified person currently shown on the video (Nixon, col 11, ll 7-23: detection of suspicious person/persons causes home security alarm to arm).
For claim 5, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the security action comprises one or more of adjusting Wi-Fi access, raising a flag, notifying security personnel, and warning the identified person through Wi-Fi (Nixon, col 13, ll 48-58: User provided with alert regarding person suspected of or associated with a crime or other activity of interest being recorded.).
For claim 10, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein, at a subsequent time, the person is identified by artificial intelligence using the machine learning model (Adam, col 3, ll 57-col 4, ll 4).
For claim 11, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the person is identified using facial recognition (Nixon, col 10, ll 52-62: facial recognition).
For claim 12, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the Wi-Fi parameters comprise one or more of MAC address, host information, device identification, and manufacturer (Nixon, col 40, ll 55-60: wireless signals include Bluetooth, wifi, zigbee, MAC address, SSID, manufacturer-specific information).
For claim 13, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the Wi-Fi parameters comprise one or more of signal strength, access point identifier, SSID and username and/or groups (Nixon, col 40, ll 55-60: wireless signals include Bluetooth, wifi, zigbee, MAC address, SSID, manufacturer-specific information).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nixon (USP 10594987), in view of Adam (USP 12417632), in view of Anderson (AU 2010328470-B2).
For claim 6, Nixon-Adam discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose: “wherein physical coordinates are associated with a plurality of access points on the data communication network and wherein physical coordinates are associated with a plurality of video cameras, for identifying the person in the video”.
However, in a related field Anderson discloses a videometric server determines if match between subject’s position and wireless device within geographic vicinity within camera field of view. Additionally, this implementation is a network-based wireless location system (par. 0082: & 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant claims to have introduced Anderson’s teachings alongside Nixon-Adam. The motivation would have been to provide granular tracking of a subject associated with a mobile device (Anderson, par. 0013).
For claim 7, Nixon-Adam-Anderson discloses:
The method of claim 1, comparing location coordinates associated with the device of the person in the video against location coordinates associated with the video camera (Anderson, Fig 6 & par. 0028: Parallax used to estimate range and motion of a subject; Anderson par. 0056: Field-of-view geographic boundaries defined for cameras; Anderson par. 0082: Videometric server determines if match between subject’s position and wireless device withing geographic vicinity within camera field of view).
For claim 8, Nixon-Adam-Anderson discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the person is detected by multiple video cameras including the video camera, and wherein location coordinates of the person are derived by triangulating location coordinates associated with the multiple video cameras (Anderson, par. 0116, velocity of mobile device calculated based on image capture devices with overlapping fields of view.; Anderson, Fig 6 & par. 0028: Parallax used to estimate range and motion of a subject).
For claim 9, Nixon-Adam-Anderson discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the device of the person is detected by multiple access points, and wherein location coordinates of the person are derived by triangulating location coordinates associated with the multiple access points (Anderson, par. 0070: Velocity (heading and speed) determined through wireless location technologies that use frequency difference of arrival and doppler shift.; Anderson, par. 0078: Directional antennas disclosed).
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 CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443