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 .
Response to Arguments
Arguments submitted on 04/27/2026 have been entered.
Applicant argues: “The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Claims 1-8 and 17-28 have been cancelled.” Examiner notes that Applicant has elected to cancel the claims rather than traverse the rejection of the claims.
Applicant argues: “Each of new Claims 29-48 recite a combination of features that is disclosed in neither Yakupov nor Davey, regardless of whether these references are considered individually or together.” Examiner notes that the newly amended language is rejected for reasons stated below.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner has not pointed to any portion of either reference that discloses the different displays provided via a monitor or a customer interface, as recited in independent Claims 29, 40, and 44.” Examiner notes that Claims 29, 40, and 44 were not presented for examination in the prior Office Action. Examiner notes that the new claims are rejected for reasons stated below.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claims 29-48 recite “a monitor interface implemented by a first computing device, … an image capture device … a customer interface implemented by a second computing device” a generic term (device) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Specification supports the first computing device as “e. g., desktop computers” and the second computing device as “e. g. , a desktop computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or the like” in Specification, Paragraph 52. The image capture device is supported as “a camera” in Paragraph 28.
The claims are thus limited to the supported embodiments cited above
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 inventio n 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200117905 to Yakupov in view of US 7366359 to Davey (“Davey”).
Regarding Claim 29: “A method comprising:
communicating, to a customer interface implemented by a computing device, an image, the image displayable on the customer interface; (“computer is configured to interface with [receive from] one or more cameras over the network, wherein the one or more cameras provide the one or more video streams,” where video streams comprise displayable images . Yakupov, Paragraph 12.)
modifying the image based on input received from the customer interface to define a portion of the image that is obscured in the image displayed via a monitor interface, the portion being visible in the image displayed via the customer interface; and (See an example overlay of a selected zone on the captured image in Yakupov, Fig. 7A. For example, “the system can be configured to analyze a feed and identify areas for inclusion zones 218 and exclusion zones” Yakupov, Paragraphs 92, 19. “The system can be configured to allow the user to draw a zone for inclusion or exclusion using the dashboard display” in Yakupov, Paragraph 91 and similarly, “The operator (or specially designed software) defines a region to be obscured” Davey, Column 3, lines 23-26.)
communicating, to the monitor interface, a modified image in which a remainder of the image excluding the portion is visible to a monitoring agent via the monitor interface. (As a basic example, Yakupov Figs. 5E and 7A provides examples of images displayed on a monitor with inclusion zones that are visible. See Yakupov, Paragraphs 90-91. Cumulatively, the image can be sent to be monitored by other computers: “Computers 101, 102 and 104-106 can also include at least one other application that is configured to receive and/or send content between another computer.” Yakupov, Paragraph 113. “ a watchdog service 115 or other customer service can interface with the client device 104 [customer interface device], … In at least one of the various embodiments, dashboard display 133 can be presented on a client computer 102, 103 accessed over network.” See Yakupov, Paragraph 94, 96. See treatment of sending and receiving specific content below.)
As noted above, Yakupov describes that networked computers can send and receive content from other networked computers. Yakupov does not provide an explicit example where the content an image modified with a selection of a privacy region is communicated between one computer and another.
Davey teaches this functionality in the context of obtaining and modifying images for further processing or viewing: “corrected views being sent to the operator and the corrected view is the context in which a privacy region (or other processing region) is preferably defined,” Davey, Column 3, lines 45-50.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Yakupov to transmit a modified image as claimed above and as taught in Davey, in order to mask off regions that should not be viewed in subsequent processing or viewing. See Davey, Column 1, lines 19-35 and Yakupov, Paragraphs 90, 92.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 30: “The method of Claim 29, further comprising receiving, from the monitor interface, data that specifies a monitor zone, wherein the data that specifies the monitor zone is subsequently communicated to the customer interface with the image.” (This claim language is not clear. Prior art teaches an interface that can specify a zone “for example, by using a mouse to select a shape that covers pixels of the image” Davey, Column 3 lines 25-26. In another embodiment, prior art is also “configured to receive and/or send content between another computer.” Yakupov, Paragraph 113. Thus, prior art has the interfaces to both specify a zone and to communicate or interface with another media device. See statement of motivation in Claim 29.”
Regarding Claim 31: “The method of Claim 30, wherein receiving the data that specifies the monitor zone comprises:
communicating information about the monitor zone over a private network within a monitoring center; and (“Complete privacy-the system can be configured such that users' video streams need never leave their local network. … In an embodiment, local devices are able to operate autonomously and make decisions locally, without sending private information to the cloud for processing.” Yakupov, Paragraphs 60, 67, 22. See treatment of communication in Claim 1.)
communicating the information about the monitor zone over a public network connected to the private network.” (“Computers can optionally communicate directly with another computer. A network interface can include circuitry for coupling to one or more networks, and is constructed for use with one or more communication protocols and technologies including, but not limited to, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, HSDPA, LTE, … Also, network 110 can include the Internet in addition to local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), direct connections, such as through a universal serial bus (USB) port, other forms of computer-readable media, or any combination thereof.” which include both local/private and public networks. See Yakupov, Paragraphs 118-119.)
Regarding Claim 32: “The method of Claim 31, wherein communicating the modified image to the monitor interface comprises communicating the modified image over the public network.” (See using public networks in the reasons for rejection of Claim 31, and also note that “Network 110 is configured to couple computers with other computers and/or computing devices, including, Server Computer 105, and Video Server Computer 102c, administrative computer 106, client computer 104, computer 101, and client computers/cameras 102a-102b” which includes computers on local or wide area networks. Yakupov, Paragraph 119.)
Regarding Claim 33: “The method of Claim 29, wherein the input received from the customer interface specifies a description of the portion of the image.” (See an example overlay of a selected zone on the captured image in Yakupov, Fig. 7A. For example, “the system can be configured to analyze a feed and identify areas for inclusion zones 218 and exclusion zones” Yakupov, Paragraphs 92, 19. See similarly, “The operator (or specially designed software) defines a region to be obscured” Davey, Column 3, lines 23-26. Both provide graphical descriptions of the portion of the image.)
Regarding Claim 34: “The method of Claim 29, wherein the input received from the customer interface specifies that the portion of the image has an irregular polygonal shape.” (“The system can be configured to allow the user to draw a zone for inclusion or exclusion using the dashboard display” which would ordinarily be drawn as an irregular polygon considering the extreme difficulty for a user to draw a regular polygon. Yakupov, Paragraph 91. Materially, “this privacy region 302 can be of any shape and can be defined in a number of ways, such as by simple click-and-drag with a mouse, or other ways including but not limited to pixel selection of any defined region of any shape” Davey, Column 3, lines 62-67 and statement of motivation in Claim 29.)
Regarding Claim 35: “The method of Claim 29, wherein the input received from the customer interface includes a request that the portion of the image be stored as a customer zone.” (Davey calls it “a privacy region ( or other defined region … where the private region is selected, defined, and/or stored” in Column 2, line 4 and in Column 6, lines 9-10. See statement of motivation in Claim 1. Note that this region performs the same privacy function as the claimed zone, and prior art does not need to use the same name for such a region. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).)
Regarding Claim 36: “The method of Claim 29, wherein:
the portion of the image is a filter zone; and (Davey calls it “a privacy region ( or other defined region … where the private region is selected, defined, and/or stored” in Column 2, line 4 and in Column 6, lines 9-10. See statement of motivation in Claim 1. Note that this region performs the same privacy function as the claimed zone, and prior art does not need to use the same name for such a region. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).)
the method further comprises communicating, to an image capture device used to acquire the image, data that defines the filter zone.” (In one embodiment, a “computer is configured to interface with one or more cameras over the network, wherein the one or more cameras provide the one or more video streams, video streams that define images having the content of the filter zone. See Yakupov, Paragraph 12. Speaking broadly, “Computers, including cameras, can include computers that typically connect using a wired or wireless communications medium such as personal computers,” Yakupov, Paragraph 111. Such “Computers 101, 102 and 104-106 can also include at least one other application that is configured to receive and/or send content between another computer.” Yakupov, Paragraph 113. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 37: “The method of Claim 36, further comprising redacting, by the image capture device, image data from an acquired image, the image data falling within the filter zone.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, redacting pixels comprises “overwriting them with a default color or pattern.” See Specification, Paragraph 116. Prior art teaches: “The region is obscured, such as by replacing each pixel of the defined region with blanket pixels of the same color and intensity.” Davey Column 3, lines 20-22. See statement of motivation in Claim 29.)
Regarding Claim 38: “The method of Claim 29, further comprising:
rendering a first representation of the remainder of the image on a first instance of the monitor interface that is implemented by a first computing device; and (For example, rendering the region can be the process where “The region is obscured, such as by replacing each pixel of the defined region with blanket pixels of the same color and intensity.” Davey Column 3, lines 20-22. See statement of motivation in Claim 29.)
rendering a second representation of the remainder of the image on a second instance of the monitor interface that is implemented by a second computing device.” (For example, rendering the region can be the process where “The region is obscured, such as by replacing each pixel of the defined region with blanket pixels of the same color and intensity.” Davey Column 3, lines 20-22. Duplication of this process on an additional computer is obvious because the second result is expected to be substantively similar to the first. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). “In another example embodiment it is advantageous to obscure private regions when sent to one viewer, but not to another.” Davey, Column 6, lines 32-34. See statement of motivation in Claim 29.)
Regarding Claim 39: “The method of Claim 38, wherein the first computing device and the second computing device are coupled with a private network.” (“Computers can optionally communicate directly with another computer. A network interface can include circuitry for coupling to one or more networks, and is constructed for use with one or more communication protocols and technologies including, but not limited to, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, HSDPA, LTE, … Also, network 110 can include the Internet in addition to local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), direct connections, such as through a universal serial bus (USB) port, other forms of computer-readable media, or any combination thereof.” which include both local/private and public networks. See Yakupov, Paragraphs 118-119.)
Claim 40: “A system” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 29 and because prior art teaches:
at least one memory; (“One skilled in the art will also recognize that the programs and data can be received by and stored in the system in alternative ways. For example, a computer-readable storage medium (CRSM) reader” Yakupov, Paragraph 109.)
at least one network interface; and (“Network 110 is configured to couple computers with other computers and/or computing devices" Yakupov, Paragraphs 118-119.)
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and the at least one network interface, the at least one processor configured to: ...” (" The embodiments disclosed herein can be practiced using programmable digital computers. A computer or computer device includes at least one processor” Yakupov, Paragraph 107.)
Regarding Claim 41: “The system of Claim 40, further comprising:
a private network connected to the at least one network interface; and (“Computers can optionally communicate directly with another computer. A network interface can include circuitry for coupling to one or more networks, and is constructed for use with one or more communication protocols and technologies including, but not limited to, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, HSDPA, LTE, … Also, network 110 can include the Internet in addition to local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), direct connections, such as through a universal serial bus (USB) port, other forms of computer-readable media, or any combination thereof.” which include both local/private and public networks. See Yakupov, Paragraphs 118-119.)
an image capture device configured to acquire the image, wherein the at least one network interface is communicably coupled with the image capture device (“computer is configured to interface with [receive from] one or more cameras over the network, wherein the one or more cameras provide the one or more video streams,” where video streams are sequences of first, second, and so on images of the field of view of each camera. Yakupov, Paragraph 12.)
via the private network and at least one public network.” (“Computers can optionally communicate directly with another computer. A network interface can include circuitry for coupling to one or more networks, and is constructed for use with one or more communication protocols and technologies including, but not limited to, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, HSDPA, LTE, … Also, network 110 can include the Internet in addition to local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), direct connections, such as through a universal serial bus (USB) port, other forms of computer-readable media, or any combination thereof.” which include both local/private and public networks. See Yakupov, Paragraphs 118-119.)
Regarding Claim 42: “The system of Claim 40, further comprising
an image capture device configured to acquire the image, (“computer is configured to interface with [receive from] one or more cameras over the network, wherein the one or more cameras provide the one or more video streams,” where video streams are sequences of first, second, and so on images of the field of view of each camera. Yakupov, Paragraph 12.)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to communicate, to the image capture device, data that defines the portion of the image.” (In one embodiment, a “computer is configured to interface with one or more cameras over the network, wherein the one or more cameras provide the one or more video streams, video streams that define images having the content of the filter zone. See Yakupov, Paragraph 12. Speaking broadly, “Computers, including cameras, can include computers that typically connect using a wired or wireless communications medium such as personal computers,” Yakupov, Paragraph 111. Such “Computers 101, 102 and 104-106 can also include at least one other application that is configured to receive and/or send content between another computer.” Yakupov, Paragraph 113. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 43: “The system of Claim 40, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive input, provided via the customer interface, requesting that the portion of the image be stored in the at least one memory as a customer zone.” (Davey calls it “a privacy region ( or other defined region … where the private region is selected, defined, and/or stored” in Column 2, line 4 and in Column 6, lines 9-10. The privacy region can be defined “for example, by using a mouse to select a shape that covers pixels of the image” Davey, Column 3, lines 25-26. See statement of motivation in Claim 29. Note that this region performs the same privacy function as the claimed zone, and prior art does not need to use the same name for such a region. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).)
Claim 44: “A method” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 29 and 37, and because prior art teaches:
“obtaining, by a first computing device, image data from an image capture device; (“computer is configured to interface with [receive from] one or more cameras over the network, wherein the one or more cameras provide the one or more video streams,” where video streams are sequences of first, second, and so on images of the field of view of each camera. Yakupov, Paragraph 12.)
identifying, based on zone data, a portion of the image;” (See an example overlay of a selected zone on the captured image in Yakupov, Fig. 7A. For example, “the system can be configured to analyze a feed and identify areas for inclusion zones 218 and exclusion zones” Yakupov, Paragraphs 92, 19. This information can be entered remotely by a user or generated automatically by the system and communicated over a network as noted above.)
Claim 45 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 30 in view of the Claim 44 rejection.
Claim 46 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 35 in view of the Claim 44 rejection.
Claim 47 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 36 in view of the Claim 44 rejection.
Claim 48 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 38 in view of the Claim 44 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9864372 to Chen (“Chen”) relevant for teaching a combination of computers over a network to perform image processing.
US 20140288976 to Thomas (“Thomas”) relevant for teaching using internal sensors to detect tamper or damage.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights