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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 12, 14 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 in view of Ma et al. (US 2006/0155851) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 claims a system delivering image data, comprising:
a surveillance camera (Claim 1, col 8, line 56); and
a client device that establishes a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of the image data generated by the surveillance camera (Claim 1, col 8, lines 57 - 60);
wherein the surveillance camera includes:
a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) layer implementing SIP for establishing a control session of the communications channel, wherein the SIP layer automatically answers a call from the client device based on the client device being authenticated and the control session controls the one or more streams of the image data sent by the surveillance camera to the client device in response to the call (claim 1, col 8, line 63 – col 9, line 3).
U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 does not explicitly claim:
receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera.
Ma, however, teaches a system delivering image data:
receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the SIP control messages to include control messages configured to control one or more settable parameters of the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Turning to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the client device controls the one or more streams of image data via the control session (claim 2, col 9, lines 8 – 10).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the control session authenticates the client device (claim 3, col 9, lines 11 – 12).
Turning to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the image data of the one or more streams of image data are stored within the surveillance camera (claim 4, col 9, lines 13 – 15).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the surveillance camera includes another layer utilizes a communication protocol for establishing a data channel for the communications channel for sending the one or more streams of image data to the client device (claim 1, col 9, lines 4 – 7).
Turning to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the data channel is a half-duplex channel (claim 1, col 9, lines 4 – 7).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the another layer is a Real-Time Protocol (RTP) layer utilizes RTP for sending the one or more streams of the image data to the client device (claim 1, col 9, lines 4 – 7).
Turning to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 claims a method for receiving image data from a surveillance camera, the method comprising:
establishing, with the surveillance camera, a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of the image data generated by the surveillance camera from a client device (claim 5, col 9, lines 18 – 20);
establishing, via a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) layer of the surveillance camera, a control session of the communications channel in response to a call automatically answered by the SIP layer, wherein the control session controls the one or more streams of the image data received from the surveillance camera (claim 5, col 9, lines 21 – 29); and
receiving the one or more streams of the image data originating from the surveillance camera over the communications channel using the SIP layer (claim 5, col 9, lines 30 – 34).
U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 does not explicitly claim:
wherein the surveillance camera receives SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data.
Ma, however, teaches a method for receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
wherein the surveillance camera receives SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the SIP control messages to include control messages configured to control one or more settable parameters of the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
controlling the one or more streams of image data via the control session (claim 5, col 9, lines 21 – 29).
Turning to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
further comprising authenticating via the control session (claim 7, col 10, lines 1 – 2).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
transmitting, to the surveillance camera via the control session, a control message for configuring the one or more streams of image data (claim 8, col 10, lines 3 – 7).
Turning to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the image data of the one or more streams of image data are stored within the surveillance camera (claim 4, col 9, lines 13 – 15).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein receiving the one or more streams of image data comprises receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera (claim 1, col 9, lines 4 – 7).
Turning to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 claims a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
establishing, with a surveillance camera, a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of image data generated by the surveillance camera (claim 5, col 9, lines 18 – 20) ;
establishing, via a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) layer of the surveillance camera, a control session of the communications channel in response to a call automatically answered by the SIP layer, wherein the control session controls the one or more streams of image data received from the surveillance camera (claim 5, col 9, lines 21 – 29); and
receiving the one or more streams of the image data originating from the surveillance camera over the communications channel using the SIP layer (claim 5, col 9, lines 30 – 34).
U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 does not explicitly claim:
wherein control session controls the image data received from the surveillance camera by receiving SIP control messages that configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data.
Ma, however, teaches a non-transitory computer readable device:
wherein control session controls the image data received from the surveillance camera by receiving SIP control messages that configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the SIP control messages to include control messages configured to control one or more settable parameters of the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein the operations further comprise transmitting, to the surveillance camera via the control session, a control message for configuring the one or more streams of image data (claim 8, col 10, lines 3 – 7).
Turning to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 11, 601, 583 further claims:
wherein receiving the one or more streams of image data comprises receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera (claim 5, col 9, lines 31 – 35).
Claims 1 – 4, and 6 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4 and 6 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 in view of Ma et al. (US 2006/0155851) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 claims a system delivering image data, comprising:
a surveillance camera (Claim 1, col 8, line 60); and
a client device that establishes a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of the image data generated by the surveillance camera (Claim 1, col 8, lines 61 - 63);
wherein the surveillance camera includes:
a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) layer implementing SIP for establishing a control session of the communications channel, wherein the SIP layer automatically answers a call from the client device based on the client device being authenticated and the control session controls the one or more streams of the image data sent by the surveillance camera to the client device in response to the call (claim 1, col 8, line 65 – col 9, line 6).
U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 does not explicitly claim:
receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera.
Ma, however, teaches a system delivering image data:
receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the SIP control messages to include control messages configured to control one or more settable parameters of the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Turning to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the client device controls the one or more streams of image data via the control session (claim 2, col 9, lines 7 – 9).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the control session authenticates the client device (claim 3, col 9, lines 10 – 11).
Turning to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the control session is terminated in response to a SIP request (claim 4, col 9, lines 12 – 13).
Turning to claim 6, U.S. Patent U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the image data of the one or more streams of image data are stored within the surveillance camera (claim 6, col 9, lines 18 – 20).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the surveillance camera includes another layer utilizes a communication protocol for establishing a data channel for the communications channel for sending the one or more streams of image data to the client device (claim 7, col 9, lines 21 – 25).
Turning to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the data channel is a half-duplex channel (claim 8, col 9, lines 26 – 27).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the another layer is a Real-Time Protocol (RTP) layer utilizes RTP for sending the one or more streams of the image data to the client device (claim 9, col 9, lines 28 – 31).
Turning to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 claims a method for receiving image data from a surveillance camera, the method comprising:
establishing, with the surveillance camera, a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of the image data generated by the surveillance camera from a client device (claim 10, col 9, lines 35 – 37);
establishing, via a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) layer of the surveillance camera, a control session of the communications channel in response to a call automatically answered by the SIP layer, wherein the control session controls the one or more streams of the image data received from the surveillance camera (claim 10, col 9, lines 38 – 44); and
receiving the one or more streams of the image data originating from the surveillance camera over the communications channel using the SIP layer (claim 10, col 9, lines 45 – 47).
U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 does not explicitly claim:
wherein the surveillance camera receives SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data.
Ma, however, teaches a method for receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
wherein the surveillance camera receives SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the SIP control messages to include control messages configured to control one or more settable parameters of the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
controlling the one or more streams of image data via the control session (claim 11, col 9, lines 48 – 50).
Turning to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
further comprising authenticating via the control session (claim 12, col 10, lines 1 – 2).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
further comprising transmitting a SIP request to terminate the control session (claim 13, col 10, lines 3 – 4)
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
transmitting, to the surveillance camera via the control session, a control message for configuring the one or more streams of image data (claim 14, col 10, lines 5 – 8).
Turning to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the image data of the one or more streams of image data are stored within the surveillance camera (claim 15, col 10, lines 9 – 10).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein receiving the one or more streams of image data comprises receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera (claim 16, col 10, lines 11 – 15).
Turning to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 claims a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
establishing, with a surveillance camera, a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of image data generated by the surveillance camera (claim 17, col 10, lines 21 – 24) ;
establishing, via a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) layer of the surveillance camera, a control session of the communications channel in response to a call automatically answered by the SIP layer, wherein the control session controls the one or more streams of image data received from the surveillance camera (claim 17, col 10, lines 25 – 31); and
receiving the one or more streams of the image data originating from the surveillance camera over the communications channel using the SIP layer (claim 17, col 10, lines 32 – 34).
U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 does not explicitly claim:
wherein control session controls the image data received from the surveillance camera by receiving SIP control messages that configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data.
Ma, however, teaches a non-transitory computer readable device:
wherein control session controls the image data received from the surveillance camera by receiving SIP control messages that configure at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the SIP control messages to include control messages configured to control one or more settable parameters of the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a SIP request to terminate the control session (claim 18, col 10, lines 35 – 37).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein the operations further comprise transmitting, to the surveillance camera via the control session, a control message for configuring the one or more streams of image data (claim 19, col 10, lines 39 – 43).
Turning to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 and Ma claim all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. U.S. Patent No. 12, 206, 984 further claims:
wherein receiving the one or more streams of image data comprises receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera (claim 20, col 10, lines 44 – 48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “authenticating via the control session.” It is unclear what device is being authenticated in the control session such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, examiner interprets “authenticating via the control session” to mean “authenticating a receiving device via the control session, the receiving device establishing the control session with the surveillance camera”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 and 6 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0181612) (hereinafter Lee), as cited by applicant, in view of Wang et al. (US 2008/0063169) (hereinafter Wang) in view of Ma et al. (US 2006/0155851) (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a system delivering image data, a method for receiving comprising:
a surveillance camera (e.g. Fig. 1, elements 10 and 12, and par. 13: depicting and describing a surveillance camera); and
a client device that establishes a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of image data generated by the surveillance camera (e.g. par. 14: describing that the system includes a client device for receiving and controlling one or more streams of image data generated by the surveillance camera using an internet protocol, wherein the internet protocol is the equivalent of the communications channel);
wherein the surveillance camera includes: a protocol layer implementing the protocol for establishing a control session of the communications channel, wherein the control session controls the one or more streams of image data sent by the surveillance camera to the client device in response to the call. (e.g. pars. 14 – 15: describing that the surveillance camera includes a control session, the control session answering calls from the client device using the internet protocol to communicated with each other, image data being transmitted in response to the initiation of communication).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein the protocol layer is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the SIP layer automatically answering a call from the client based on the client device being authenticated, and
wherein the control session controls the image data sent by the surveillance camera in response to receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera.
Wang, however, teaches a system and method for receiving image data:
wherein the internet protocol is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the SIP layer automatically answering a call from the client based on the client device being authenticated (e.g. Figs. 2 and 6, and pars. 3, 32 – 34, and 58 – 60: depicting and describing a remote surveillance system including a security camera [see, e.g. par. 25: describing that the device is a security camera, wherein a security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera] and a user device, the security camera and the user device communicating over internet protocol using SIP [see, e.g. par. 1: describing that the devices communicate using SIP; par. 32: describing that the system establishes a SIP session], the SIP session automatically answering a call from the user device based on the user device being a trusted device, the trusted device being an authenticated device [see, e.g. par. 3: describing that trusted devices are authenticated devices, the authentication occurring in the protocol message header]).
Ma, however, teaches a system and method for receiving image data:
wherein the control session controls the image data sent by the surveillance camera in response to receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order for the internet protocol to be a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the SIP layer automatically answering a call from the client based on the client device being authenticated, and by adding the teachings of Ma in order to control image data received from the surveillance camera by receiving SIP control messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented), and because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Turning to claim 2, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the client device controls the one or more streams of image data via the control session (e.g. par. 15: describing that the client device controls the one or more streams of image data).
Regarding claim 3, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein the control session authenticates the client device.
Wang, however, teaches a system for receiving image data:
wherein the control session authenticates the client device (e.g. Fig. 2 and 32 – 34: depicting and describing that the SIP session determines whether a calling device is a trusted device, wherein determining whether the calling device is a trusted device is the equivalent of authenticating the device [see, e.g. par. 3: describing that the identity of trusted devices are authenticated], wherein the SIP session is the equivalent of the control session).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order for the control session to authenticate the client device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented).
Turning to claim 4, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein the control session is terminated in response to a SIP request.
Wang, however, teaches a system for receiving image data:
wherein the control session is terminated in response to a SIP request (e.g. par. 37 and 40: describing that the SIP session is terminated in response to a BYE request, wherein the SIP session is the equivalent of the control session and wherein the BYE request is the equivalent of a termination SIP request).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order for the control session to be terminated in response to a SIP request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented).
Turning to claims 6 and 15, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the image data of the one or more streams of image data are stored within the surveillance camera (e.g. Fig. 1, element 24, and pars. 17 – 19: depicting and describing that the image data is stored on the surveillance camera).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the surveillance camera includes another layer utilizes a communication protocol for establishing a data channel for the communications channel for sending the one or more streams of image data to the client device (e.g. pars. 14 and 15: describing that devices controls the image data, reasonably suggesting that the communications data comprises a data channel to receive the one or more streams of the image data).
Turning to claim 8, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data channel is a half-duplex channel.
Wang, however, teaches a system for receiving image data:
wherein the data channel is a half-duplex channel (e.g. par. 42: describing that the communications channel is a half-duplex channel, wherein the communications channel is the equivalent of the data channel; Fig. 6 and pars. 58 – 60: depicting and describing that the SIP channel is used to transmit image data).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order for the data channel to be a half-duplex channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the another layer is a Real-Time Protocol (RTP) layer utilizes RTP for sending the one or more streams of the image data to the client device (e.g. par. 14: describing that the image data may be transmitted in real time or non-real time, reasonably suggesting the use of Real-Time transfer protocol).
Turning to claims 10 and 17, Lee teaches a method for receiving image data from a surveillance camera, and a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions thereon, that when executed by at least one computer device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising the method, the method comprising:
establishing, with the surveillance camera, a communications channel for receiving one or more streams of image data generated by the surveillance camera (e.g. pars. 14 – 15: describing that the client device establishes a communication channel with the surveillance camera, client device receiving image data via the communication channel);
establishing, via a protocol layer of the surveillance camera, a control session of the communications channel, wherein the control session controls the one or more streams of image data received from the surveillance camera (e.g. pars. 14 – 15: describing that communication channel includes a control session, the control session answering calls from the client device using an internet protocol, image data being transmitted in response to the initiation of communication); and
receiving the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera over the communications channel using the protocol (e.g. pars. 14 – 15: describing that the client device retrieves image data from the surveillance camera over the communications channel, the communications channel using a protocol).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein the protocol is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the SIP layer automatically answering a call from the client based on the client device being authenticated,
wherein the control session controls the image data sent by the surveillance camera in response to receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera
Wang, however, teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium for receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
wherein the protocol is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the SIP layer automatically answering a call from the client based on the client device being authenticated (e.g. Figs. 2 and 6, and pars. 3, 32 – 34, and 58 – 60: depicting and describing a remote surveillance system including a security camera [see, e.g. par. 25: describing that the device is a security camera, wherein a security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera] and a user device, the security camera and the user device communicating over internet protocol using SIP [see, e.g. par. 1: describing that the devices communicate using SIP; par. 32: describing that the system establishes a SIP session], the SIP session automatically answering a call from the user device based on the user device being a trusted device, the trusted device being an authenticated device [see, e.g. par. 3: describing that trusted devices are authenticated devices, the authentication occurring in the protocol message header]).
Ma, however, teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium for receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
wherein the control session controls the image data sent by the surveillance camera in response to receiving SIP control messages from the client device, the SIP control messages configure one or more settable parameters of the one or more streams of the image data on the surveillance camera (e.g. par. 36: describing that the security camera receives SIP control messages from the mobile device, the control message configuring camera parameters of the one or more streams of image data of the security camera, wherein the security camera is the equivalent of the surveillance camera and the mobile device is the equivalent of the client device).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order for the internet protocol to be a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the SIP layer automatically answering a call from the client based on the client device being authenticated, and by adding the teachings of Ma in order for the control session to control the image data sent by the surveillance camera in response to receiving SIP control messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented), and because the modification allows home surveillance to be integrated with web technology (Ma, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to integrate web technology with home security systems).
Turning to claim 11, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations claim 10, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
controlling the one or more streams of image data via the control session (e.g. par. 15: describing that the client device controls the one or more streams of image data).
Regarding claim 12, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Lee does not explicitly teach:
authenticating via the control session.
Wang, however, teaches a method of receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
authenticating via the control session (e.g. Fig. 2 and 32 – 34: depicting and describing that the SIP session determines whether a calling device is a trusted device, wherein determining whether the calling device is a trusted device is the equivalent of authenticating the device [see, e.g. par. 3: describing that the identity of trusted devices are authenticated], wherein the SIP session is the equivalent of the control session).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order to authenticate via the control session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented).
Turning to claims 13 and 18, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claims 10 and 17, respectively, as discussed above. Lee does not explicitly teach:
transmitting a SIP request to terminate the control session.
Wang, however, teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium for receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
transmitting a SIP request to terminate the control session (e.g. par. 37 and 40: describing that the SIP session is terminated in response to a BYE request, wherein the SIP session is the equivalent of the control session and wherein the BYE request is the equivalent of a termination SIP request).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order to transmit a SIP request to terminate the control session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claims 10 and 17, respectively, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
transmitting, to the surveillance camera via the control session, a control message for configuring the one or more streams of image data (e.g. pars. 14 - 15: describing that the client device controls the retrieval and format of image data using the IP protocol session, wherein controlling the retrieval of the image data is the equivalent of receiving the one or more streams of image data and wherein the IP protocol session is the equivalent of the control session).
Turning to claims 16 and 20, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 17, respectively, as discussed above. Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein receiving the one or more streams of image data comprises receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera.
Wang, however, teaches a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium for receiving image data from a surveillance camera:
wherein receiving the one or more streams of image data comprises receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera (e.g. par. 58; describing that the user device receives audio data and image data from a security camera monitoring a residence, wherein the communications channel is a half-duplex data channel [see, e.g. par. 42: describing that the channel is a half-duplex channel]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Wang in order for receiving the one or more streams of image data to comprise receiving, via a half-duplex data channel of the communications channel, the one or more streams of image data originating from the surveillance camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows advanced features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented (Wang, e.g. par. 3: describing that automatically answering authenticated devices allows features requiring third party call controls such as remote monitoring to be easily implemented).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0181612) (hereinafter Lee), as cited by applicant, in view of Wang et al. (US 2008/0063169) (hereinafter Wang) in view of Ma et al. (US 2006/0155851) (hereinafter Ma) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (KR 10-2013-0109361) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, Wang, and Ma teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the client device configures receiving of the one or more streams of image data via a control message transmitted via the control session (e.g. pars. 14 - 15: describing that the client device controls the retrieval and format of image data using the IP protocol session, wherein controlling the retrieval of the image data is the equivalent of receiving the one or more streams of image data and wherein the IP protocol session is the equivalent of the control session).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein the control message causes the surveillance camera to adjust at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data, including a resolution of the image data.
Lim, however, teaches a system delivering image data:
wherein the control message causes the surveillance camera to adjust at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data, including a resolution of the image data (e.g. English Abstract: describing that the control message cause the surveillance camera to adjust a resolution of image data being sent to a terminal).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lee by adding the teachings of Lim in order for the control message to cause the surveillance camera to adjust at least one settable parameter of the one or more streams of the image data, including a resolution of the image data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces a load of a terminal CPU (Lim, e.g. English Abstract: describing a desire to reduce a load of a terminal CPU).
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 SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights