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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-18 and 20-26 and 31-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection based on a construction of a new basis using Galvin and Plagemann, and additionally, due to the new prior art (further in view of Otsuka) cited for independent claims 1, 12 and 13 as well.
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 26 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 17, 111-112 and 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, 111, 103, 187, 205, 209 and 227-228 teaches detecting recording status based on event-based detection/triggers. Paragraph 111 teaches “motion events trigger video recording by default”; 112: scheduler 18 functions to “initiate media recording based on interactions with event manager 15”; 187: “In event-based scheduling, the recording starts when a selected event triggers.” The network video recorder that initiates recording of a camera’s stream necessarily determines whether that camera is being recorded.); and
While Galvin teaches a system that is able to monitor the camera status and a recording status of a plurality of network connected cameras, does not explicitly disclose providing a recording status indication in a vicinity of the camera, or generating the attention-directing output.
However, Plagemann teaches a camera connected to a computing device having a display (Plagemann paragraph 49: “The camera may be connected to the device, by for example, USB or one or more wireless protocols such as Bluetooth”; Paragraph 21: teaches: the computing device includes “a user display 22, such as a display screen”; Paragraph 20 teaches “a laptop that contains a web camera”), and further teaches:
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 (paragraph 36: “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera as shown in Figs. 4A-4C, or it may be a stand-alone device. It may also be executed in software such as a system tray notification”; Paragraph 45: “if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computer device to which a camera is connected that the camera is now allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/.or transmit the camera’s data”; Paragraph 36 further teaches “Fig. 4C shows the privacy indicator 440 in a red color, which may signal that the user is being recorded”; Paragraph 20: “the indicator changes state when “a sensor such as a camera has begun to transmit or store data”). The system tray notice presented on the display of the computing device to which the camera is connected, or of the laptop that contains the camera, is a human-perceptible recording status indication in a vicinity of the camera; the camera mounted LED 440 is a further such indication;) and
“generate, in addition to the human-perceptible recording status indication, an attention-directing output configured to direct an attention of a human to the human-perceptible recording status indication, wherein the attention-directing output comprises at least one of a sound configured to precede and follow the human-perceptible recording status indication, and a flashing of a visual message on a display device that presents human-perceptible recording status indication” (Paragraph 45: “In some configurations, multiple privacy indicators may be used. For example, a light on a camera may change from green to red when a user’s privacy is no longer private. The user may also receive a system tray notice indicating the non-private state. For example, if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computing device to which a camera is connected that the camera is no allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/or transmits the camera’s data” (Paragraph 36: “a privacy indicator may be made to blink in different patterns to show different privacy states. For example, a continuous illumination of an LED privacy indicator may indicate that a sensor is in a private state while a blinking LED indicate that the sensor is in a non-private state”).
Plagemann thus teaches that the recording (non-private) state is signaled by blinking, and that the recording status indication may be a system tray notice presented on a display. Plagemann does not expressly state that the system tray notice itself is flashed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Plagemann’s blinking technique to Plagemann’s display notice, so that, in addition to presenting the notice, the notice is flashed on the display. Plagemann expressly teaches that its privacy indicator may be implemented in software (paragraph 36), that multiple indicators may be used together (paragraph 45), and that blinking is the manner in which the non-private (recording) state is signaled (paragraph 36). This incorporation/application is that of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictive results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP 2143 (I)(D). Flashing the displayed notice directs the user’s attention to the recording status, consistent with Plagemann’s stated purpose “to alert the user that the user’s camera 800 may be recording or transmitting camera data” (paragraph 56) and to address that “it may be difficult for a user to determine when the system is … actively communicating or storing information” (paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event-triggered camera recording system of Galvin to provide the recording status indicators of Plagemann. Plagemann explains that persons near a camera cannot readily tell when data is being stored or transmitted (paragraphs 1-2) and that a status indicator signals “that the user is being recorded” (paragraph 36). Providing Plagemann’s indicators for Galvin’s cameras, which record upon trigger events (Galvin paragraph 187), would predictably inform people near the cameras when recording is taking place. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
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, Plagemann 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 (¶ 45: “In some configurations, multiple privacy indicators may be used. For example, a light on a camera may change from green to red when a user’s privacy is no longer private. The user may also receive a system tray notice indicating the non-private state.¶ 36 also teaches a camera with an on/off indicator 410, and privacy indicators 430 … the privacy indicator 430 may be a light such as a LED”).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Galvin and Plagemann 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 (Galvin: Figs. 10-11 and paragraph 206, NVR 2602 is provides recording status and event based alerts to the display/IP client. Plagemann: paragraph 36: “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera as shown in Figs. 4A-4C, or it may be a stand-alone device. It may also be executed in software such as a system tray notification”; Paragraph 45: “if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computer device to which a camera is connected that the camera is now allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/.or transmit the camera’s data”; Paragraph 36 further teaches “Fig. 4C shows the privacy indicator 440 in a red color, which may signal that the user is being recorded”; Paragraph 20: “the indicator changes state when “a sensor such as a camera has begun to transmit or store data”). The system tray notice presented on the display of the computing device to which the camera is connected, or of the laptop that contains the camera, is a human-perceptible recording status indication in a vicinity of the camera; the camera mounted LED 440 is a further such indication;).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Plagemann 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 (Paragraph 45: “In some configurations, multiple privacy indicators may be used. For example, a light on a camera may change from green to red when a user’s privacy is no longer private. The user may also receive a system tray notice indicating the non-private state. For example, if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computing device to which a camera is connected that the camera is no allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/or transmits the camera’s data” (Paragraph 36: “a privacy indicator may be made to blink in different patterns to show different privacy states. For example, a continuous illumination of an LED privacy indicator may indicate that a sensor is in a private state while a blinking LED indicate that the sensor is in a non-private state”).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided responsive to a user input (paragraphs 20, 29, 31 and Fig. 3 teaches in response to a user input, the recording status indicator is provided).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided automatically responsive to a detection of an event (paragraph 36: “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera as shown in Figs. 4A-4C, or it may be a stand-alone device. It may also be executed in software such as a system tray notification”; Paragraph 45: “if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computer device to which a camera is connected that the camera is now allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/.or transmit the camera’s data”; Paragraph 36 further teaches “Fig. 4C shows the privacy indicator 440 in a red color, which may signal that the user is being recorded”; Paragraph 20: “the indicator changes state when “a sensor such as a camera has begun to transmit or store data”). The system tray notice presented on the display of the computing device to which the camera is connected, or of the laptop that contains the camera, is a human-perceptible recording status indication in a vicinity of the camera; the camera mounted LED 440 is a further such indication).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Plagemann 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 (paragraph 20, 39, 40 and 52 teaches various sensors meeting “at least one” of the motion detection sensor options).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Galvin and Plagemann 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 (Galvin: Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 22-24 shows stationary and fixed camera examples. Plagemann: ¶ 20 and ¶ 36 also teaches a camera such a fixed camera or stationary camera, thus meeting the alternative options).
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Plagemann, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Coffin et al. (US 5,991,429, hereinafter “Coffin”).
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 (Galvin in paragraphs 187 and 219 teaches event based recording); and Plagemann teaches doing so along with providing the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera (Plagemann ¶0020, indicator changed to non-private when the camera “has begun to transmit or store data”; ¶¶0036, 0045). The motivation to combine is as stated for claim 13.
However, Galvin in view of Plagemann does not explicitly teach evaluating a captured image of a human against identification quality criteria to provide a confidence level indication. Plagemann contemplates a camera in “a security system that employs face recognition technology” (¶0027) but does not teach a confidence level indication.
However, Coffin teaches evaluate a captured image of a human against a set of
identification quality criteria (Coffin, Fig. 4, step 45: “The system determines whether the information gathered from the image scan is acceptable for processing. If the image is found to be invalid at step 45, the operator returns the system to capture another image at step 40”; Fig. 5, step 58; capture criteria including subject at “a predetermined distance” and face “centered,” Fig. 4, steps 38–39 [col 4, lines 32-55]) to provide a confidence level indication from along a plurality of different confidence levels for the captured image of the human in identifying the human (Coffin, Fig. 8, step 110: “the system provides an evaluation by ‘goodness of fit’, or likelihood that the person scanned is the person indicated … This result can be expressed as a number value or a percentage”; “The system can be programmed to sound an alarm or yield an indicator only when the percentage of likelihood is above a certain threshold” [col 10, lines 1-14]). A likelihood expressed as a number value or percentage is an indication selected from along a plurality of different confidence levels in identifying the human.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Coffin’s image evaluation and likelihood indication into the system of Galvin in view of Plagemann. Galvin records persons for security purposes, including at door contacts and card key readers (Galvin ¶0108), and Plagemann contemplates face-recognition security cameras (Plagemann ¶0027). Coffin teaches that evaluating captured face images and reporting the likelihood of identification allows a surveillance system operator to determine whether a recorded person can be identified (Coffin, surveillance mode, Fig. 8 and col 10, lines 1-14). The combination uses a known technique for its established function with expected predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Plagemann, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sai (US 5,583,405, hereinafter “Sai”).
Regarding claims 31-32, Galvin in view of Plagemann teaches the system in accordance with claim 13. Galvin further discloses wherein the one or more processors further run the program code, individually or in combination, to perform sensor fusion of outputs from a plurality of sensors to detect a trigger that causes recording (Galvin ¶0187: recording triggered by events “selected from the group of motion events, contact events, audio events and a combination thereof”; ¶0108: contact inputs include magnetic closures (such as door contacts) … card key reader authorization”). Selecting a combination of motion, contact and audio events as the recording trigger combines the outputs of a plurality of sensors to detect the trigger. With Plagemann’s indicator changed upon the start of recording (Plagemann ¶¶0020, 0036), the combination teaches the trigger causing the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera to be provided. Because Galvin’s contact events include door contacts (¶0108), the combination further teaches providing the indication at a moment a human opens a doorway.
Galvin in view of Plagemann does not explicitly teach that the timing is responsive to an expected trajectory of the human that intersects the doorway.
However, Sai teaches a plurality of sensors used to determine an expected trajectory of a person that intersects a doorway and to time an action to the person’s arrival at the doorway (Sai: “object sensors 10a and 10b, such as ultrasonic sensors, disposed on opposite sides of the door 2,” Fig. 1; “moving speed and direction computing means computes the speed and direction of movement of the person on the basis of changes in position of the person in the monitoring area”; “When it is judged from the computed direction of movement that the person is moving toward the door, door enabling area selecting means selects …”; “Open-door command means provides an open-door signal … so that the door is fully opened upon the predicted arrival of the person at the door” [abstract and col 5 lines 18-27]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galvin in view of Plagemann to time the recording status indication using Sai’s prediction of a person’s movement toward the door. Sai teaches that computing a person’s speed and direction toward a door allows an action to be completed “upon the predicted arrival of the person at the door.” Applying that known technique to the recording status indication of Galvin in view of Plagemann would predictably ensure that the indication is presented at the moment the person reaches and opens the doorway, when the person is positioned to perceive it, which serves Plagemann’s goal of informing persons when they are being recorded (Plagemann ¶¶0001, 0036). MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Plagemann and Coffin, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Axis Communications AB, “Perfect Pixel Count: Meeting Your Operational Requirements” (Feb. 2014) (hereinafter “Axis”).
Regarding claim 33, Galvin in view of Plagemann and Coffin teaches the system in accordance with claim 25, including a confidence level indication from along a plurality of different confidence levels (Coffin, Fig. 8, step 110) provided to a system operator (Coffin, surveillance mode, Fig. 8 and col 10, lines 1-14).
Plagemann further teaches a plurality of different color light emitting diodes (LEDs) that indicate different states, the LEDs not being limited to the camera body (Plagemann ¶0036: “Color may be used to indicate different privacy states”; “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera … or it may be a stand-alone device”; ¶0038: “A privacy indicator light may be set to green … or the privacy indicator may be set to red”; Fig. 4A: on/off indicator 410 and privacy indicator 430; ¶0045: “multiple privacy indicators may be used”). Galvin further teaches presenting color-coded status to the system operator (Galvin ¶0194: “A green status icon means the service is functioning properly. A red status icon means the service is not functioning properly”).
Galvin in view of Plagemann and Coffin does not explicitly teach implementing the plurality of different confidence levels, wherein a first color LED indicates an identification of the human is unlikely from the captured image of the human, a second color LED indicates a possibility of identifying the human from the captured image of the human, and a third color LED indicates that the human can be identified from the captured image of the human.
However, Axis teaches three defined levels of how well a captured image of a person supports identification, each tied to an image quality (pixel density) criterion (Axis, Fig. 3 [p.4-5]): “Detection: Enable to determine with a high degree of certainty whether or not a person is present” (approximately 4 pixels per face), corresponding to identification of the human being unlikely; “Recognition: A high degree of certainty whether or not an individual shown is the same as someone seen before” (approximately 20 pixels per face), corresponding to a possibility of identifying the human; and “Identification: Detail should be sufficient to enable the identity of an individual to be established beyond reasonable doubt” (40–80 pixels per face), corresponding to the human being able to be identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group the confidence levels of Galvin in view of Plagemann and Coffin into Axis’s three identification levels, using Axis’s pixel-density thresholds as the identification quality criteria, and to present each level to the system operator with a different color LED, as Plagemann teaches different color LED indicators for different states and Galvin teaches color-coded status for the operator. Axis supplies a recognized framework for expressing whether video of a person is sufficient to establish identity “beyond reasonable doubt,” i.e., the evidentiary value of the recording, which is of direct interest to the operator of Galvin’s security recording system. Plagemann teaches colored LEDs, whether on the camera or as a stand-alone device, as a known way of presenting distinct states. Providing a third color LED for a third state is a predictable extension of that color-coded indicator to the number of states to be shown. MPEP §§ 2143(I)(A), 2144.04(VI)(B).
SECOND GROUNDS of REJECTION:
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 26 are also 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 Otsuka et al. (US 2013/0100346 A1, hereinafter “Otsuka”).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Galvin in view of Plagemann teaches each limitation of claim 13 as set forth above, including a recording status indication presented as a visual message on a display (Plagemann ¶0036, ¶0045) and the flashing of that message. Plagemann further contemplates that a recording status indicator may take the form of “an audible sound” (Plagemann ¶0036).
Galvin in view of Plagemann does not explicitly teach that the attention-directing output comprises a sound configured to precede and follow the human-perceptible recording status indication.
However, Otsuka teaches accompanying a displayed text message (telop) with an audio alert that draws a viewer’s attention to the displayed message, the audio alert being provided before or after the display (Otsuka ¶0005: “the telop may be accompanied by an audio alert such as a belltone, chime tone, beep tone, or melody to draw the viewers’ attention to the telop. The audio alert may come before, during, or after the telop display”; ¶0151: “Audio alerts are audio signals … to draw attention to a telop … The audio alert may occur before, during, or after the telop display”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, with the recording status message displayed in Galvin in view of Plagemann, an audio alert that both precedes and follows the displayed message. Otsuka teaches that an audio alert before the display and an audio alert after the display each serve the same purpose of drawing the viewer’s attention to the displayed message (¶¶0005, 0151). Using both of these known timings together yields the predictable result of alerting the human when the message appears and again afterward, for a human who did not notice the first alert. MPEP §§ 2143(I)(A),
(E); 2144.04(VI)(B). The combination is further suggested by Plagemann, which already contemplates an audible sound as a recording status indicator (¶0036) and seeks to alert the user that the camera may be recording (¶0056).
Otsuka is analogous art. Although Otsuka is directed to broadcast video processing, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, namely drawing a human’s attention to a displayed indication (as in the instant application’s spec in ¶0026, describing “sounding an alarm before and after the human-perceptible recording status indication … specifically directing the attention of the user”), and Otsuka addresses that same problem (Otsuka ¶0005). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I). Otsuka’s disclosure of alternative timings does not criticize, discredit or discourage providing the alert at more than one of those timings and therefore does not teach away. MPEP §§ 2123(II), 2141.02(VI).
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, Plagemann 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 (¶ 45: “In some configurations, multiple privacy indicators may be used. For example, a light on a camera may change from green to red when a user’s privacy is no longer private. The user may also receive a system tray notice indicating the non-private state. ¶36 also teaches a camera with an on/off indicator 410, and privacy indicators 430 … the privacy indicator 430 may be a light such as a LED”).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Galvin and Plagemann 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 (Galvin: Figs. 10-11 and paragraph 206, NVR 2602 is provides recording status and event based alerts to the display/IP client. Plagemann: paragraph 36: “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera as shown in Figs. 4A-4C, or it may be a stand-alone device. It may also be executed in software such as a system tray notification”; Paragraph 45: “if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computer device to which a camera is connected that the camera is now allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/.or transmit the camera’s data”; Paragraph 36 further teaches “Fig. 4C shows the privacy indicator 440 in a red color, which may signal that the user is being recorded”; Paragraph 20: “the indicator changes state when “a sensor such as a camera has begun to transmit or store data”). The system tray notice presented on the display of the computing device to which the camera is connected, or of the laptop that contains the camera, is a human-perceptible recording status indication in a vicinity of the camera; the camera mounted LED 440 is a further such indication;).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Plagemann 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 (Paragraph 45: “In some configurations, multiple privacy indicators may be used. For example, a light on a camera may change from green to red when a user’s privacy is no longer private. The user may also receive a system tray notice indicating the non-private state. For example, if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computing device to which a camera is connected that the camera is no allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/or transmits the camera’s data” (Paragraph 36: “a privacy indicator may be made to blink in different patterns to show different privacy states. For example, a continuous illumination of an LED privacy indicator may indicate that a sensor is in a private state while a blinking LED indicate that the sensor is in a non-private state”).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided responsive to a user input (paragraphs 20, 29, 31 and Fig. 3 teaches in response to a user input, the recording status indicator is provided).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Plagemann teaches the claimed wherein the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera is provided automatically responsive to a detection of an event (paragraph 36: “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera as shown in Figs. 4A-4C, or it may be a stand-alone device. It may also be executed in software such as a system tray notification”; Paragraph 45: “if video chat software is activated, a notice may appear on a computer device to which a camera is connected that the camera is now allowing access to its data by an application that stores and/.or transmit the camera’s data”; Paragraph 36 further teaches “Fig. 4C shows the privacy indicator 440 in a red color, which may signal that the user is being recorded”; Paragraph 20: “the indicator changes state when “a sensor such as a camera has begun to transmit or store data”). The system tray notice presented on the display of the computing device to which the camera is connected, or of the laptop that contains the camera, is a human-perceptible recording status indication in a vicinity of the camera; the camera mounted LED 440 is a further such indication).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Plagemann 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 (paragraph 20, 39, 40 and 52 teaches various sensors meeting “at least one” of the motion detection sensor options).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Galvin and Plagemann 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 (Galvin: Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 22-24 shows stationary and fixed camera examples. Plagemann: ¶ 20 and ¶ 36 also teaches a camera such a fixed camera or stationary camera, thus meeting the alternative options).
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) further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2013/0100346 A1, hereinafter “Otsuka”) and further in view of Vallone et al. (US 7,847,820).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Galvin, Plagemann and Otsuka 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, Plagemann and Otsuka 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, Plagemann and Otsuka because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of making event detection more robust.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Plagemann and further in view of Otsuka, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Coffin et al. (US 5,991,429, hereinafter “Coffin”).
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 (Galvin in paragraphs 187 and 219 teaches event based recording); and Plagemann teaches doing so along with providing the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera (Plagemann ¶0020, indicator changed to non-private when the camera “has begun to transmit or store data”; ¶¶0036, 0045). The motivation to combine is as stated for claim 13.
However, Galvin in view of Plagemann does not explicitly teach evaluating a captured image of a human against identification quality criteria to provide a confidence level indication. Plagemann contemplates a camera in “a security system that employs face recognition technology” (¶0027) but does not teach a confidence level indication.
However, Coffin teaches evaluate a captured image of a human against a set of
identification quality criteria (Coffin, Fig. 4, step 45: “The system determines whether the information gathered from the image scan is acceptable for processing. If the image is found to be invalid at step 45, the operator returns the system to capture another image at step 40”; Fig. 5, step 58; capture criteria including subject at “a predetermined distance” and face “centered,” Fig. 4, steps 38–39 [col 4, lines 32-55]) to provide a confidence level indication from along a plurality of different confidence levels for the captured image of the human in identifying the human (Coffin, Fig. 8, step 110: “the system provides an evaluation by ‘goodness of fit’, or likelihood that the person scanned is the person indicated … This result can be expressed as a number value or a percentage”; “The system can be programmed to sound an alarm or yield an indicator only when the percentage of likelihood is above a certain threshold” [col 10, lines 1-14]). A likelihood expressed as a number value or percentage is an indication selected from along a plurality of different confidence levels in identifying the human.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Coffin’s image evaluation and likelihood indication into the system of Galvin in view of Plagemann and Otsuka. Galvin records persons for security purposes, including at door contacts and card key readers (Galvin ¶0108), and Plagemann contemplates face-recognition security cameras (Plagemann ¶0027). Coffin teaches that evaluating captured face images and reporting the likelihood of identification allows a surveillance system operator to determine whether a recorded person can be identified (Coffin, surveillance mode, Fig. 8 and col 10, lines 1-14). The combination uses a known technique for its established function with expected predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Plagemann and Otsuka, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sai (US 5,583,405, hereinafter “Sai”).
Regarding claims 31-32, Galvin in view of Plagemann and Otsuka teaches the system in accordance with claim 13. Galvin further discloses wherein the one or more processors further run the program code, individually or in combination, to perform sensor fusion of outputs from a plurality of sensors to detect a trigger that causes recording (Galvin ¶0187: recording triggered by events “selected from the group of motion events, contact events, audio events and a combination thereof”; ¶0108: contact inputs include magnetic closures (such as door contacts) … card key reader authorization”). Selecting a combination of motion, contact and audio events as the recording trigger combines the outputs of a plurality of sensors to detect the trigger. With Plagemann’s indicator changed upon the start of recording (Plagemann ¶¶0020, 0036), the combination teaches the trigger causing the human-perceptible recording status indication for the camera to be provided. Because Galvin’s contact events include door contacts (¶0108), the combination further teaches providing the indication at a moment a human opens a doorway.
Galvin in view of Plagemann and Otsuka does not explicitly teach that the timing is responsive to an expected trajectory of the human that intersects the doorway.
However, Sai teaches a plurality of sensors used to determine an expected trajectory of a person that intersects a doorway and to time an action to the person’s arrival at the doorway (Sai: “object sensors 10a and 10b, such as ultrasonic sensors, disposed on opposite sides of the door 2,” Fig. 1; “moving speed and direction computing means computes the speed and direction of movement of the person on the basis of changes in position of the person in the monitoring area”; “When it is judged from the computed direction of movement that the person is moving toward the door, door enabling area selecting means selects …”; “Open-door command means provides an open-door signal … so that the door is fully opened upon the predicted arrival of the person at the door” [abstract and col 5 lines 18-27]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galvin in view of Plagemann and Otsuka to time the recording status indication using Sai’s prediction of a person’s movement toward the door. Sai teaches that computing a person’s speed and direction toward a door allows an action to be completed “upon the predicted arrival of the person at the door.” Applying that known technique to the recording status indication of Galvin in view of Plagemann would predictably ensure that the indication is presented at the moment the person reaches and opens the doorway, when the person is positioned to perceive it, which serves Plagemann’s goal of informing persons when they are being recorded (Plagemann ¶¶0001, 0036). MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Plagemann, Otsuka and Coffin, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Axis Communications AB, “Perfect Pixel Count: Meeting Your Operational Requirements” (Feb. 2014) (hereinafter “Axis”).
Regarding claim 33, Galvin in view of Plagemann, Otsuka and Coffin teaches the system in accordance with claim 25, including a confidence level indication from along a plurality of different confidence levels (Coffin, Fig. 8, step 110) provided to a system operator (Coffin, surveillance mode, Fig. 8 and col 10, lines 1-14).
Plagemann further teaches a plurality of different color light emitting diodes (LEDs) that indicate different states, the LEDs not being limited to the camera body (Plagemann ¶0036: “Color may be used to indicate different privacy states”; “A privacy indicator may be a component of a sensor, for example an LED on a camera … or it may be a stand-alone device”; ¶0038: “A privacy indicator light may be set to green … or the privacy indicator may be set to red”; Fig. 4A: on/off indicator 410 and privacy indicator 430; ¶0045: “multiple privacy indicators may be used”). Galvin further teaches presenting color-coded status to the system operator (Galvin ¶0194: “A green status icon means the service is functioning properly. A red status icon means the service is not functioning properly”).
Galvin in view of Plagemann, Otsuka and Coffin does not explicitly teach implementing the plurality of different confidence levels, wherein a first color LED indicates an identification of the human is unlikely from the captured image of the human, a second color LED indicates a possibility of identifying the human from the captured image of the human, and a third color LED indicates that the human can be identified from the captured image of the human.
However, Axis teaches three defined levels of how well a captured image of a person supports identification, each tied to an image quality (pixel density) criterion (Axis, Fig. 3 [p.4-5]): “Detection: Enable to determine with a high degree of certainty whether or not a person is present” (approximately 4 pixels per face), corresponding to identification of the human being unlikely; “Recognition: A high degree of certainty whether or not an individual shown is the same as someone seen before” (approximately 20 pixels per face), corresponding to a possibility of identifying the human; and “Identification: Detail should be sufficient to enable the identity of an individual to be established beyond reasonable doubt” (40–80 pixels per face), corresponding to the human being able to be identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group the confidence levels of Galvin in view of Plagemann, Otsuka and Coffin into Axis’s three identification levels, using Axis’s pixel-density thresholds as the identification quality criteria, and to present each level to the system operator with a different color LED, as Plagemann teaches different color LED indicators for different states and Galvin teaches color-coded status for the operator. Axis supplies a recognized framework for expressing whether video of a person is sufficient to establish identity “beyond reasonable doubt,” i.e., the evidentiary value of the recording, which is of direct interest to the operator of Galvin’s security recording system. Plagemann teaches colored LEDs, whether on the camera or as a stand-alone device, as a known way of presenting distinct states. Providing a third color LED for a third state is a predictable extension of that color-coded indicator to the number of states to be shown. MPEP §§ 2143(I)(A), 2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
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