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 .
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, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus, US 2016/0173805 A1, in view of Harel, US 2010/0245582 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Claus discloses: a method comprising:
receiving, first information associated with a first time interval for transmission of video segments (Table 1 shows a list of channel quality indicator parameters, received by a transceiver attached to a vehicle camera which have ranges that are basis for determining whether to adjust these parameters. The ranges for each parameter correspond to quality of service levels that are acceptable or unacceptable. As disclosed in [0037], one of these parameters is a constant frame transmission interval 404, which is determined by a frame rate of the video.);
sending, based on the first time interval for transmission (The system controls the frame rate, which in turn controls the constant frame transmission interval, as disclosed in [0019], last four lines.), a first plurality of video segments (Frames are transmitted at a given frame rate pending QoS feedback that indicates an increase or decrease is warranted, disclosed in [0027].);
receiving, by the device, second information associated with a second time interval for transmission of video segments, wherein the first time interval for transmission and the second time interval for transmission are different (As disclosed in [0038], frame rate is preferentially adjusted at controller 228 in figure 2, and transmitter 204 relays the frame change to camera 208. This new frame is subsequently transmitted to receiver 212.); and
sending, based on the second time interval for transmission, a second plurality of video segments (Claus discloses in [0029], last 6 lines, adjusting the frame rate based on QoS feedback, and continuing to send video based on the new frame rate, which in turn affects the constant frame transmission interval.).
Harel discloses in an analogous art a remote surveillance application that manages bandwidth by adjusting compression ratio (See [0091].) Harel discloses: a device associated with a premises (See [0179]: “The multiple surveillance devices 810A-N may be installed on a mobile or fixed unit that is indoors or outdoors. For example, surveillance device 81 0A is installed in or with a police car 804. The other surveillance devices 810B and 81 ON may be installed in other mobile units (e.g., cars, motorcycles, bicycles, helicopters, etc.) or in/on nearby infrastructures (e.g., in a building, underground, on a bridge, etc.).)”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Harel, of monitoring a premises with the camera monitoring system disclosed in Claus. Doing so would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Claus and in Harel, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. This combination, specifically Harel, further discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving information associated with a time duration associated with a presentation time of a video, wherein each video segment of the first plurality of video segments and each video segment of the second plurality of video segments have a duration equal to the time duration (See [0005].).
Device claims 6 and 10 correspond to method claims 1 and 4, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for method claims 1 and 4, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 6, upon which claim 7 depends. This combination, specifically Harel, further discloses: the device of claim 6, wherein the instructions further cause the device to capture live video of at least a portion of a premises (See [0194], The host server 924, upon the occurrence of the triggering event, receives, in real time or near real time, data including a live recording of an environment surrounding the mobile.).
System claims 11 correspond to method claims 1 and 3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claims 1 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 13 depends. This combination, specifically Claus, further discloses: the system of claim 11, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
determine available network bandwidth;
determine the first information associated with the first time interval for transmission of video segments based on the available network bandwidth;
determine the available network bandwidth has changed; and
determine the second information associated with the second time interval for transmission of video segments based on the changed available network bandwidth (See [0024]: Adjusting the QoS parameters enables the transmitter 204 to reduce or increase the bandwidth transmission requirements for the video stream to accommodate the constraints of the communication channel between the transmitter 204 and receiver 212 for different channel quality levels.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 16 depends. This combination, specifically Claus, further discloses: the system of claim 11, wherein each video segment has a time duration associated with a presentation time of the video (See figure 4, the constant frame transmission interval is a duration associated with a presentation time.).
System claim 17 corresponds to method claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above with respect to method claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 19 depends. This combination, specifically Harel, further discloses: the system of claim 11, wherein the computing device is further configured
to receive, from a source, a request for the video; and
cause transmission of the video to the source (See [0253] in Harel, disclosing, “The video recording can be sent as a file upon receipt of a request by a user via the host server or another user device to download the recording as file.”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 20 depends. This combination, specifically Harel, further discloses: the system of claim 19, wherein the source is different from the video capture device and the computing device (See [0259] in Harel.).
Claims 2-3, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus, in view of Harel, in view of Smith, US 2016/0105644 A1
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. This combination does not disclose: the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving control information associated with an event, and
causing capture of video of at least a portion of the premises based on the event.
However, in an analogous art, Smith discloses a video imaging system for premise surveillance having a camera that has a trigger event mode, which begins capturing video responsive to a triggering event, as disclosed in [0104]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to use an event as a trigger to being capturing surveillance data, as disclosed in Smith, in alternative to event-based transmission of video disclosed in Claus, in order save storage and conserve power at the camera. See Smith [0004].
Regarding claim 3, This combination of Claus, in view of Harel, in view of Smith discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends. This combination specifically Smith, further discloses: the method of claim 2, wherein the event comprises at least one of an alarm an intrusion detection, a motion detection, or a scheduled time (See [0104], which discloses: “A customized message can relate to any message to be conveyed to the person or animal triggering the event capture.” [0109] further discloses beginning capture responsive to a scheduled time.).
Device claims 8 and 9 correspond, respectively, to method claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for method claims 2 and 3, respectively
System claims 12 and 15 correspond to method claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, This combination of Claus, in view of Harel, in view of Smith discloses the limitations of claim 12, upon which claim 14 depends. This combination, specifically Claus, further discloses: the system of claim 12, wherein the computing device is further configured to cause storage of an event marker indicative of a time of the event (See [0045], If the memory 232 includes a record of the vehicle location and optionally time in the time/location records data 236,).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus, in view of Harel, in view of Galvin, US 2015/0103179 A1.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Claus in view of Harel discloses the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 18 depends. This combination, specifically Harel, further discloses: the system of claim 11, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
cause storage of the video (See step 1204 in figure 12, “Store the video recording in a storage unit at the first resolution.”); and
This combination does not disclose:
cause generation of a manifest identifying the video and a storage location of the video ().
However, in an analogous art directed to an apparatus for network video recording and management, Galvin discloses in [0104] that a media recorder 10 responds to search queries for video segments from an internet protocol client station. Galvin further discloses that these search queries are performed on an index of recorded video files stored on a SATA drive.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a searchable index of the stored video files disclosed in Harel, as suggested by Galvin, in order to improve video segment retrievability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose, or make obvious: the method of claim 1, wherein the sending the first plurality of video segments and the sending the second plurality of video segments are further based on a time duration of each video segment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights