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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 17, 21-25 are limited to: “A system comprising at least one computing device located in a data center environment, the at least one computing device configured to: …” with 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.
As noted below, a computing device does not necessarily mean a desktop computer, and can embody a camera, a network device, or other computing devices. The limitation purports to invoke invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, (and as noted for Claim 1, the personal computing device is a term defined in the Specification Paragraph 52), however since this is the only structural limitation in the system claims, the claims do not recite a “combination of elements” and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure.
Examiner suggests claiming a combination of elements such as in Claims 18-20 or changing the “computing device” to a term that does not purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), such as a “desktop computer” described in Specification, Paragraph 52.
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 1-8, 28 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 17-28 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 1: “A method comprising:
receiving, from a monitor interface implemented by a first computing device, (“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. For example: “computer, such as a Server Computer 105, Watchdog Server Computer 115, Administrative Computer 106 or the like, … to enable the end-user to manage one or more online activities, including in one non-limiting example,” where an end-user application computer can perform processing different from a client application computer. See Yakupov, Paragraph 114. See treatment of receiving and communicating between networked computers below.)
input specifying a zone to obscure a portion of a field of view of an image capture device; (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.)
receiving, from the image capture device, an image acquired by the image capture device of the field of view; and (“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.)
communicating, to a customer interface implemented by a second computing device distinct from the first computing device, (“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. “In an embodiment, 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 receiving and communicating between networked computers below.)
the image with the portion being [obscured] by the zone.” (“The system can be configured to ignore objects outside the zone, and only perform frame analysis and object detection inside the bounding box 219.” Yakupov, Paragraph 91.)
Yakupov does not explicitly designate the networked computing devices to exclusive functions such as the claimed “receiving, from … a first computing device … communicating, to … a second computing device,” it appears that each networked computer is capable of performing some or all of the claimed functions.
However, Yakupov teaches that any computer can be placed on the network, process the camera images, and send or receive the imaged or the processed information over the network to any other computer that can implement a subset of the required functions using any number of user-implemented conditions: “For example, computers 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 can be configured to operate as a web server, a media and video streaming server, … or the like,” Yakupov, Paragraph 110. “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. For example, “Computers can further be configured to include a client application that enables an end-user to log into an end-user account that can be managed by another computer, such as a Server Computer 105, Watchdog Server Computer 115, Administrative Computer 106 or the like, … to enable the end-user to manage one or more online activities, including in one non-limiting example,” where an end-user application computer can perform processing different from a client application computer. See Yakupov, Paragraph 114.
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 designate networked computers and smart cameras to perform specific functions in the manner claimed above, in order to distributed the computing load over a number of networked computers. Yakupov, Paragraph 111.
Yakupov does not explicitly describe exclusion zones in the image as portion of the image “being obscured by the zone.”
Davey teaches examples of this in the context of video security systems: “allowing an operator or other means to select a region for processing (preferably for privacy obfuscation, but potentially for other processing … and displaying the image or video with the privacy regions obscured … the privacy region is merged with the rest of the image or video” where a privacy region B’ is an obscured representation of the selected region in image A*’. Davey, Column 2, lines 6-16, Column 5, lines 21-41 and Figs. 7-8.
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 perform image zone exclusion by overlaying a representation image portion over the real image portion, as taught in Davey, in order to mask off regions that should not be viewed in subsequent processes. 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 2: “The method of Claim 1 , wherein: receiving input specifying the zone comprises
communicating information about the 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 zone over a public network connected to the private network; and … communicating the image with the portion being obscured by the zone comprises communicating the information about the zone over the public network to the second computing device.” (For example, “use a public cloud service for storage and processing … without sending private information to the cloud for processing.” Yakupov, Paragraphs 2, 67. See treatment of communication and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of Claim 2, wherein the information about the zone specifies a description of the zone.” (For example, a zone can be described as “an inclusion zone and an exclusion zone” Yakupov, Paragraph 19.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of Claim 2, wherein the information about the zone specifies that the zone 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.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of Claim 2, further comprising receiving input, via the customer interface, requesting that the zone 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 6: “The method of Claim 2,
wherein the zone is a filter 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).)
and the method further comprises communicating the information about the zone to the image capture device.” (In this case, the image capture device is implied to be a computer that is capable of receiving such digital data and capable of capturing an image. Prior art teaches such an embodiment: “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 7: “The method of Claim 6, further comprising redacting, by the image capture device, image data from an acquired image, the image data falling within the 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 1.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of Claim 1, wherein
the first computing device is coupled to a private network of a monitoring center, the monitor interface is a first instance of the monitor interface, (Prior art teaches that there can be multiple computers on the private network with each computer capable of receiving information and processing information according to the claimed embodiments. “In some embodiments, computers 101, 102-106 can include virtually any portable personal computer 104, 106 or camera 102 capable of connecting to another computing device and receiving information … Moreover, computers 101, 102 and 104-106 can access various computing applications … 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, Paragraphs 111, 113.)
and the method further comprises: rendering a first representation of the zone on the first instance of the monitor interface; and … rendering a second representation of the zone on a second instance of the monitor interface implemented by a third computing device coupled with the private network.” (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 reasons for rejection of Claim 7 and statement of motivation in Claim 1. 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).
Cumulatively, note that prior art teaches that multiple computers can duplicate such a function by receiving the information and performing the rendering: “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. … Moreover, computers 101, 102 and 104-106 can access various computing applications,” Yakupov, Paragraphs 111, 113. Thus, the function of receiving a zone and rendering the zone for display can be duplicated using any number of computers.)
Claim 17, “A system comprising at least one computing device located in a data center environment, the at least one computing device configured to:” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and because prior art teaches: “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” Yakupov, Paragraph 119.)
Claim 18 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 17 rejection, and because prior art teaches:
“a private network connected to the at least one computing device; 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.)
the image capture device” (“computer is configured to interface with [receive from] one or more cameras over the network, Yakupov, Paragraph 12.)
Regarding Claim 19: “The system of Claim 1 7, further comprising:
a private network connected to the at least one computing device; 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.)
the first computing device, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to communicate with the first computing device 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 20: “The system of Claim 17, further comprising a private network connected to the at least one computing device, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to communicate with the second computing device via the private network and at least one public network.” (See reasons for rejection of Claim 19, 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 first second and any other computing devices on any one of the networks. Yakupov, Paragraph 119.)
Claim 21 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 22 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 23 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 24 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 25 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 5 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 26 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 7 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 27 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 8 in view of the Claim 17 rejection, and because prior art teaches:
“a private network connected to the at least one computing device; (“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.)
the first computing device, … a third computing device that is coupled with the private network” (“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 first second and any other computing devices on any one of the private and public networks. Yakupov, Paragraphs 118-119.)
Claim 28, “One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing sequences of instructions executable by one or more processors, the sequences of instructions comprising instructions to:” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and because prior art teaches: “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.)
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.
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