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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-18 and 20-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6-9, 11-17, 20-23 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin et al. (US 2016/0232764) in view of Plagemann et al. (US 9,317,721).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Galvin teaches a system for indicating a recording status of a camera, comprising:
one or more memory devices having program code stored thereon, one or more processors, operatively coupled to the one or more memory devices, for running the program code (paragraphs 20-28 teaches software on a storage device that is used by the system to implement its functionality), individually or in combination, to:
determine a current recording status of the camera (at least paragraph 206 teaches determining the recording status of a camera. paragraphs 77, 103, 187, 205, 209 and 227-228 teaches detecting recording status based on event based detection/triggers); and
provide, in a vicinity of the camera responsive to the current recording status of the camera, a human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera (paragraphs 77, 103, 187, 205, 209 and 227-228 teaches wherein an alert is sent to a client station that is locally connected to the network switch. The alert is generated based on the event detection and is provided for a human to recognize such alerts on the client device).
While Galvin teaches a system that is able to monitor the camera status and a recording status of a plurality of network connected cameras, fails to explicitly teach, but Plagemann teaches the limitations to “generate an output configured to enhance awareness of the human-perceptible recording status indication” (See Figs. 3, 4A-4C, 7 and supporting disclosure teaches wherein a device status indicator is maintained during operation so that people/humans are able to perceive its recording status via the “privacy indicator” and “power on/off” indicators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Plagemann into the system of Galvin because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by being able to discern its operating status.
Computer program product comprising one or more non-transitory computer readable media claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 14, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein at least some of the one or more memory devices and the one or more processors are comprised in the camera (at least paragraphs 24, 103 and 107 teaches wherein the camera includes the ability to implement IP communication and video analytics. Paragraph 24 teaches software loaded for camera operations).
Regarding claim 15, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein at least some of the one or more memory devices and the one or more processors are comprised in a computer processing system configured to control at least the camera (at least paragraphs 24, 103 and 107 teaches wherein the camera includes the ability to implement IP communication and video analytics. Paragraph 24 teaches software loaded for camera operations. Further, paragraphs 20-28 teaches software on a storage device that is used by the system to implement its functionality).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided uses existing hardware on the camera to provide the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera (at least paragraphs 24, 103 and 107 teaches wherein the camera includes the ability to implement IP communication and video analytics and send alerts accordingly).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Galvin teaches the claimed further comprising one or more separate devices from the camera configured to provide the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera (Figs. 10-11 and paragraph 206, NVR 2602 is provides recording status and event based alerts to the display/IP client).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided on a computer device of a human when the human in within a proximity region of the camera (paragraphs 77, 103, 187, 205-206, 209 and 227-228 and Figs. 10-11, NVR 2602 provides recording status and event based alerts to the display/IP client for a client monitoring the display. The client and the IP client device 2 meets the claimed computer device of a human, when the alert is generated).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided responsive to a user input (paragraph 219 wherein user input for a system’s alerts/triggers are used to generate the alert when the camera system is running).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided automatically responsive to a detection of an event (paragraphs 77, 103, 187, 205-206, 209 and 227-228 and Figs. 10-11, NVR 2602 provides recording status and event based alerts (automatic) to the display/IP client for a client monitoring the display.).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided automatically responsive to a detection of at least one of motion by a motion detector, sound by a microphone, weight by a weight sensor, and temperature rise by a thermometer (paragraphs 77, 103, 187, 205-206, 209 and 227-228 and Figs. 10-11, NVR 2602 provides recording status and event based alerts (automatic) to the display/IP client for a client monitoring the display. Events include motion detection (paragraph 8) and paragraph 187 teaches audio events, which meets the alternatively claimed list of detections).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the camera has a type selected from the group consisting of (examiner notes Markush group requiring only one to be taught) a closed circuit television camera, a body-worn camera, a fixed camera, a stationary camera, and a doorbell camera (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 22-24 shows stationary and fixed camera examples).
Regarding claim 25, Galvin teaches the claimed wherein the one or more processors, further run the program code, individually or in combination (examiner notes the alternative language presented, the term “individually” allows for the interpretation that while two steps of “detect …” and “evaluate …” are listed, if one of the two is performed, the term “individually” appears to be met by the prior art), to:
detect an occurrence of a trigger event and initiate recording by the camera along with providing the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera (paragraphs 187 and 219 teaches event based recording); and
evaluate a captured image of a human against a set of identification quality criteria to provide a confidence level indication from among a plurality of different confidence levels for the captured image of the human in identifying the human (see above).
Regarding claim 25, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the vicinity of the camera comprises an area within a threshold distance from the camera (Figs. 4A-4C and 7, and col. 5, lines 31-45 shows a vicinity within a particular distance in front of the camera).
Regarding claim 25, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the vicinity of the camera is based on a field of view of the camera (Figs. 4A-4C and 7, and col. 5, lines 31-45 shows a vicinity within a particular distance in front of the camera).
Regarding claim 25, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the output configured to enhance awareness of the human-perceptible recording status indication comprises flashing the human-perceptible recording status indication on a display (col. 7, lines 22-50).
Regarding claim 25, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the output configured to enhance awareness of the human-perceptible recording status indication comprises sounding an alarm before and after the human-perceptible recording status indication (col. 7, lines 22-50 also teaches an audible sound to alert of the recording status).
Claims 4, 10, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin et al. (US 2016/0232764) in view of Plagemann et al. (US 9,317,721) and further in view of Vallone et al. (US 7,847,820).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Galvin and Plagemann teaches the claimed as discussed in claims 1 and 13 above, however fails to teach, but Vallone teaches wherein the system is at least partially comprised in the camera and further comprises an output port of the camera driven by an on- board relay that selectively activates or deactivates one or more separate devices from the camera (Col. 2, lines 21-33 and Col. 15, lines 5-29 teaches toggling on at least another device separate from the camera, such as sounding an alarm, sending a video alert to a security guard station or to a personal smartphone, powering up other cameras, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Vallone into the proposed combination of Galvin and Plagemann because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the chances of alerting a user regarding the assessed situation (col. 15, lines 5-29).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Galvin teaches the claimed as discussed in claims 1 and 13 above, however fails to teach, but Vallone teaches wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided responsive to outputs from a plurality of sensors (Vallone teaches in col. 10, lines 44-51 wherein a plurality of sensors are used to associate it with event detection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Vallone into the proposed combination of Galvin and Plagemann because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of making event detection more robust.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights