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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding to claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahar et al. (US Pat. No. 10,630,943 hereinafter referred as Mahar).
Regarding claim 1, Mahar discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of security cameras that are networked together, each camera having related thereto (see figure 1, cameras (105); see col. 4 lines 9-25 one or more security cameras; see col. 5 lines 25-39 receive data stream from and/or send signals to at least one of the security cameras via the network):
a hardware platform comprising a visual alerts module and an audible alerts module that operate in accordance with events at or near at least one of the networked security cameras (see col. 10 lines 11-30, visual alert and audible alert; also col. 10 line47-col. 11 line 10); and
a software platform comprising software modules that support the visual alerts module and the audible alerts module of the hardware platform (see col. 12 lines 48-67 software/firmware performing various functions),
wherein a combination of the cameras, the hardware platform and the software platform cooperate to provide improved user awareness with respect to surveillance, communications and safety when compared to a system that lacks the combination (see abstract; col. 8 lines 20-49; the prior art is capable of performing the intended use).
Regarding claim 2, Mahar discloses each camera operates in an active manner according to event-driven or schedule-driven signaling, rather than based upon simple motion detection (see col. 10 lines 11-46).
Regarding claim 3, Mahar discloses the visual alerts module provides the improved user awareness via light emitting diodes (LEDs) configured in bands or strips that indicate different information or visual cues according to different color or light operation effects (see col. 8 lines 20-49; col. 10 lines 11-30 and col. 17 lines 11-26).
Regarding claim 4, Mahar discloses the different information or visual cues are not from operation status lights, infrared LEDs for image capture, nor floodlights for the security camera (see col. 8 lines 33-49; col. 10 lines 11-30; col. 16 line 43-col. 17 line 34).
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahar et al. (US Pat. No. 10,630,943) in view of Eswara et al. (US Pat. No. 11, 765,501).
Regarding claim 5, although Mahar discloses the limitation of claim 1, Mahar fails to specifically disclose employing artificial intelligence (AI) video processing and video analytics that support edge computing techniques to achieve the improved user awareness.
In the same field of endeavor Eswara discloses the hardware platform and the software platform employ at least one among artificial intelligence (AI) video processing and video analytics that support edge computing techniques to achieve the improved user awareness (see figure 3, col. 5 lines 9-23; col. 10 line 66-col. 11 line 50; col. 15 lines 31-63; col. 17 lines 25-40 and also col. 10 lines 20-33).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Eswara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahar by employing artificial intelligence as claimed in order to train the system to pick abnormal sounds or noises.
Regarding claim 6, Mahar discloses the audible alerts module does not include its own speakers, with an existing public announcement (PA) system being employed instead (see col. 16 lines 43-56).
Regarding claim 7, Mahar discloses the audible alerts module supports 2-way voice functions that allow certain user interactions related to the events at least one security camera (see col. 11 line 52-col. 12 line 15 and lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 8, Mahar discloses the bands or strips of LEDs of a particular camera are configured to allow perception from underneath that particular camera (see col. 5 lines 61-col. 6 line 11; col. 10 lines 11-30; and col. 12 lines 33-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 March 25, 2026