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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“receiving, by at least one computing device” in claim 1, line 2.
“obtaining, by the at least one computing device” in claim 1, line 4.
“transmitting, by the at least one computing device” in claim 1, line 7.
“encoding, by the at least one computing device” in claim 1, line 9.
“determining, by the at least one computing device” in claim 1, line 12.
“generating, by the at least one computing device” in claim 2, line 2.
“transmitting from the at least one computing device” in claim 2, line 3.
“determining, by the at least one computing device” in claim 2, line 5.
“transmitting, from the at least one computing device” in claim 3, line 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-10, the claim limitations noted in the Claim Interpretation above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. “Device” is a non-structural term, and the Specification does not clearly link any structure to the claimed “computing device” or any structure as a part of such a “computing device” intended to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, claims 1-3 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-10 are rejected as depending from claims 1 and 2, respectively, and under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabb (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0186293).
Regarding claim 1, Rabb disclosed a method, comprising: receiving, by at least one computing device (security service, ¶[0032]; computing device, ¶[0084]), an alarm signal associated with an alarm event at a location (receiving an alarm signal of alarm event at a monitored site, i.e., location, ¶[0032]); in response to receiving the alarm signal, obtaining, by the at least one computing device, media generated at least in part by a device at the location, the media comprising at least one of an image or a video (capturing, i.e., obtaining, video/live data streams, i.e., media, from cameras at the monitored site based on the alarm event, ¶[0066]); transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a message to a client device associated with an emergency responder (forwarding a notification, i.e., message, to a sharer, i.e., emergency responder, ¶[0053]), the message comprising a link to an emergency responder portal (notification including a pointer/URL, i.e., link, ¶[0053]; URL pointing to an access portal, i.e., emergency responder portal, ¶[0039]); encoding, by the at least one computing device, at least one user interface for the emergency responder portal for rendering on the client device (displaying, i.e., encoding/rendering, a user-interface for the access portal, ¶[0062]), the at least one user interface comprising a rendering of the media and contact information associated with the location (user-interface including camera video streams, ¶[0062]); determining, by the at least one computing device, that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link (requiring, i.e., determining, ID information of an authorized sharer, i.e., emergency responder, to permit or revoke access to information located at the URL, i.e., link, ¶[0040], [0042], [0043], [0059]); and after determining that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link (positively confirming a sharer’s ID information, ¶[0043]), granting the client device access to the at least one user interface for the emergency responder portal (sharer accessing portal to view captured video, ¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Rabb disclosed the method wherein the link is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time (allowing an approved sharer to view captured video for a limited amount of time, ¶[0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Rabb disclosed the method wherein the at least one user interface further comprises a media player for the emergency responder to interact with the media (viewing, i.e., interacting with, video via camera service app, i.e., media player, ¶[0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Rabb disclosed the method wherein the at least one user interface comprises a region that indicates that an authorized user of the location has accessed the media (portal not displaying captured video if an approved sharer, i.e., authorized user, has already accessed the access portal/video, i.e., media, ¶[0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Rabb disclosed a system, comprising: at least one processor (processor, ¶[0084]); at least one computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions (computer readable storage medium storing applications, ¶[0085]) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive an alarm signal associated with an alarm event at a location (receiving an alarm signal of alarm event at a monitored site, i.e., location, ¶[0032]); in response to receiving the alarm signal, obtain media generated at least in part by a device at the location, the media comprising at least one of an image or a video (capturing, i.e., obtaining, video/live data streams, i.e., media, from cameras at the monitored site based on the alarm event, ¶[0066]); transmit a message to a client device associated with an emergency responder (forwarding a notification, i.e., message, to a sharer, i.e., emergency responder, ¶[0053]), the message comprising a link to an emergency responder portal (notification including a pointer/URL, i.e., link, ¶[0053]; URL pointing to an access portal, i.e., emergency responder portal, ¶[0039]); encode at least one user interface for the emergency responder portal for rendering on the client device (displaying, i.e., encoding/rendering, a user-interface for the access portal, ¶[0062]), the at least one user interface comprising a rendering of the media and contact information associated with the location (user-interface including camera video streams, ¶[0062]); determine that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link (requiring, i.e., determining, ID information of an authorized sharer, i.e., emergency responder, to permit or revoke access to information located at the URL, i.e., link, ¶[0040], [0042], [0043], [0059]); and after determining that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link (positively confirming a sharer’s ID information, ¶[0043]), grant the client device access to the at least one user interface for the emergency responder portal (sharer accessing portal to view captured video, ¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Rabb disclosed the system wherein the link is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time (allowing an approved sharer to view captured video for a limited amount of time, ¶[0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Rabb disclosed the system wherein the at least one user interface further comprises a media player for the emergency responder to interact with the media (viewing, i.e., interacting with, video via camera service app, i.e., media player, ¶[0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Rabb disclosed the system wherein the at least one user interface further comprises a region that indicates that an authorized user of the location has accessed the media (portal not displaying captured video if an approved sharer, i.e., authorized user, has already accessed the access portal/video, i.e., media, ¶[0057]).
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 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabb (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0186293) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Herget et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0167382), hereinafter Herget.
Regarding claim 2, Rabb disclosed the method as detailed above. Rabb did not disclose the method further comprising: generating, by the at least one computing device, a code for the emergency responder; transmitting, from the at least one computing device, the code to the client device associated with the emergency responder; and determining, by the at least one computing device, that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link based at least in part on the code. Herget disclosed:
generating, by the at least one computing device, a code for the emergency responder (server, i.e., computing device, transmitting authentication code, i.e., code, to a user, i.e., emergency responder, ¶[0028], inherently requiring generation of such a code); transmitting, from the at least one computing device, the code to the client device associated with the emergency responder (server, i.e., computing device, transmitting authentication code, i.e., code, to a user, i.e., emergency responder, ¶[0028]); and determining, by the at least one computing device, that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link based at least in part on the code (verifying, i.e., determining, whether the authentication code inputted by the user matches the authenticated code transmitted to the user’s terminal, ¶[0029]; authenticating the user accessing the portal, ¶[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Rabb to include generating, by the at least one computing device, a code for the emergency responder, transmitting, from the at least one computing device, the code to the client device associated with the emergency responder, and determining, by the at least one computing device, that the emergency responder is permitted access to the emergency responder portal via the link based at least in part on the code as claimed, because doing so would have provided a secure method of authenticating a user/terminal triggered by user request (¶[0012]).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Rabb and Herget disclosed the method further comprising transmitting, from the at least one computing device, the code to the client device associated with the emergency responder in an additional message that is separate from the message comprising the link to the portal (transmitting authentication code to user terminal by means of a first message, i.e., additional message, Herget, ¶[0028]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabb (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0186293) and Herget (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0167382) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Dowlatkhah (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2011/0055909).
Regarding claim 4, Rabb and Herget disclosed the method as detailed above. Rabb and Herget disclosed the method wherein the code is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time. Dowlatkhah disclosed a portal authentication server generating temporary codes with an expiration timer (¶[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Rabb and Herget wherein the code is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time as claimed, because doing so would have provided an additional level of protection against theft of confidential information related to user access of portals using devices (Dowlatkhah, ¶[0002]).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabb (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0186293) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Morris et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0258360), hereinafter Morris.
Regarding claim 7, Rabb disclosed the method as detailed above. Rabb did not disclose the method wherein the at least one user interface further comprises a geographical map associated with the location.
Morris disclosed a user interface including a digital map of a geographical location, i.e., geographical map associated with the location, monitored by security cameras (¶[0051]-[0054], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Rabb wherein the at least one user interface further comprises a geographical map associated with the location as claimed, because doing so would have provided a user a more holistic/global view of a building being surveilled/monitored (Morris, ¶[0002]).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, Rabb disclosed the method as detailed above. Rabb did not disclose the method wherein the at least one user interface further comprises at least one region that comprises alarm history data for the location.
Morris disclosed a user interface including an alarm/alert history (¶[0061], Fig. 6).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Rabb disclosed the method as detailed above. Rabb did not disclose the method wherein the at least one user interface further comprises a region that comprises operator history data for the alarm event.
Morris disclosed a user interface including a history with information indicating, e.g., notifications being sent to maintenance/safety personnel, i.e., operator history (¶[0061], Fig. 6).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441