DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image capturing unit, video encoding unit, (these units are sufficiently supported as they are commonly known in the art, algorithm described in paragraph 0039, 0074, 0074, 0085) in claims 13-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 9-10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9-10 recite a third buffer. It is noted that claim 9 depends from claim 2 which only has a first buffer. The Office suggests --a second buffer--.
Claim 20 recites a video surveillance system and includes the structural elements in the preamble.
20. A video surveillance system, comprising: ____________________________
______a camera device, and
______a network video recorder communicatively connected to the camera device, wherein the camera device comprises:
______an image capturing unit being configured to acquire an image of a monitored area;
______a video encoding unit being connected to the image capturing unit, and configured to perform encoding on the image captured by the image capturing unit; and
______a controller being connected to the video encoding unit, and configured to execute a computer program stored in a memory of the controller to:
control the video encoding unit to encode the image with a first resolution, a first frame rate and a first bitrate to obtain a first bitstream;
control the video encoding unit to perform parallel encoding on the image with a second resolution, a second frame rate and a second bitrate to obtain a second bitstream, wherein the second resolution is greater than the first resolution, the second frame rate is greater than or equal to the first frame rate, and the second bitrate is greater than the first bitrate; encapsulate the first bitstream into a first video, and
storing the first video to a storage unit; and
encapsulate the second bitstream into a second video when detecting an intrusion target in the monitored area, and
store the second video to the storage unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al (US 12,462,657 and hereafter referred to as “Fu”) in view of Ma et al (US 2024/0364889 and hereafter referred to as “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 1, Fu discloses a method for video data generation and storage implemented by a camera device, the method comprising:
capturing an image of a monitored area by an image capturing unit of the camera device (Column 3, lines 4-40, Figure 1, 102a-102n, 108a, 110a-n, Column 10, lines 32-33, Column 44, lines 52-58, Column 15, lines 31-43);
controlling a video encoding unit of the camera device to encode the image with a first resolution, a first frame rate and a first bitrate to obtain a first bitstream (Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5, Figure 1, 112, 102a-102n, 110a-n);
controlling the video encoding unit to perform parallel encoding on the image with a second resolution, a second frame rate and a second bitrate to obtain a second bitstream, wherein the second resolution is greater than the first resolution, the second frame rate is greater than or equal to the first frame rate, and the second bitrate is greater than the first bitrate (Column 36, lines 18-55, 66-67 – low bitrate video frames have lower resolution and lower frame rate than high bitrate videos, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5);
generating a first video, storing the first video to a storage unit (Column 42, lines 11-17, Column 36, lines 18-55, Column 41, lines 18-30, Column 17 Column 10, lines 54-64);
generating max resolution/second videos when detecting an intrusion target in a monitored area (Column 42, lines 11-29, Column 36, lines 56-65, Column 37, lines 30-67, Column 38, lines 1-2 – generating videos can occur at all times so while detecting or not detecting intrusion targets),
storing the second video to the storage unit (Column 36, lines 18-55, Column 41, lines 18-30, Column 17, lines 25-39).
Fu does not explicitly disclose encapsulating.
Ma discloses encapsulating the first bitstream into a first video and storing the first video to a storage unit (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 1, Page 5-6, paragraph 0056) ; and encapsulating the second bitstream into a second video, and storing the second video to the storage unit (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 1, Page 5-6, paragraph 0056). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fu to include the missing limitations as taught by Ma in order to have smoother playback and multiple device compatibility for playback.
Regarding Claim 13, Fug discloses . A camera device, comprising:
an image capturing unit being configured to acquire an image of a monitored area (Column 3, lines 4-40, Figure 1, 102a-102n, 108a, 110a-n, Column 10, lines 32-33, Column 44, lines 52-58, Column 15, lines 31-43);
a video encoding unit being connected to the image capturing unit, and configured to perform encoding on the image captured by the image capturing unit (Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5, Figure 1, 112, 102a-102n, 110a-n); and
a controller being connected to the video encoding unit, and configured to execute a computer program stored in a memory of the controller (Figure 102a-n, 112, 116, 118, 114, Column 10, lines 40-47, Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5) to:
control a video encoding unit of the camera device to encode the image with a first resolution, a first frame rate and a first bitrate to obtain a first bitstream (Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5, Figure 1, 112, 102a-102n, 110a-n);
control the video encoding unit to perform parallel encoding on the image with a second resolution, a second frame rate and a second bitrate to obtain a second bitstream, wherein the second resolution is greater than the first resolution, the second frame rate is greater than or equal to the first frame rate, and the second bitrate is greater than the first bitrate (Column 36, lines 18-55, 66-67 – low bitrate video frames have lower resolution and lower frame rate than high bitrate videos, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5);
generate a first video, storing the first video to a storage unit (Column 42, lines 11-17, Column 36, lines 18-55, Column 41, lines 18-30, Column 17 Column 10, lines 54-64);
generate max resolution/second videos when detecting an intrusion target in a monitored area (Column 42, lines 11-29, Column 36, lines 56-65, Column 37, lines 30-67, Column 38, lines 1-2 – generating videos can occur at all times so while detecting or not detecting intrusion targets),
store the second video to the storage unit (Column 36, lines 18-55, Column 41, lines 18-30, Column 17, lines 25-39).
Fu does not explicitly disclose encapsulating.
Ma discloses encapsulating the first bitstream into a first video and storing the first video to a storage unit (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 1, Page 5-6, paragraph 0056) ; and encapsulating the second bitstream into a second video, and storing the second video to the storage unit (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 1, Page 5-6, paragraph 0056). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fu to include the missing limitations as taught by Ma in order to have smoother playback and multiple device compatibility for playback.
Regarding Claim 2 and 14, Fu and Ma disclose all the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 13 respectively. Fu discloses the camera device has a first buffer storing video (which includes the first video bitstream – Column 41, lines 51-54). Ma discloses buffer to store images in a first in first out bugger (paragraph 0082, 0096) which includes wherein the camera device comprises a first buffer for temporarily storing the first video bitstream, and the method further comprises: storing the first bitstream to the first buffer; if the first buffer is insufficient to store the first bitstream, overwriting the earliest first bitstream stored in the first buffer with the first bitstream to be stored; or removing the earliest stored data from the first buffer, and storing the first bitstream in the first buffer (paragraph 0032, 0082, 0096). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 3 and 15, Fu and Ma disclose all the limitations of Claim 2 and 14 respectively. Fu discloses wherein the storage unit is a memory card of the camera device and storing the first video to the memory card (Column 17, lines 18-30). Ma discloses the encapsulating the first bitstream into a first video and storing the first video to a storage unit comprises: acquiring the first bitstream from the first buffer (paragraph 0063, 0089); encapsulating the first bitstream into the first video (paragraph 0056); and storing the first video to the storage unit (paragraph 0056). The combination of Fu and Ma teaches the limitation. Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 4, Fu and Ma disclose all the limitations of Claim 2. Fu disclose requesting video. Ma discloses response to a request for real-time viewing of the first bitstream sent by an electronic device (paragraph 0028, 0045), acquiring the latest first bitstream stored in the first buffer ((paragraph 0028, 0045), and transmitting the latest first bitstream to the electronic device to decode the latest first bitstream and play the decoded first bitstream, wherein the electronic device is communicatively connected to the camera device (Figure 1, 40, 48, 20). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 20, Fu discloses a video surveillance system, comprising:
a camera device (Figure 1, 102a-n), and
a network video recorder communicatively connected to the camera device (Figure 1, 120a-n, 102a-n),
wherein the camera device comprises:
an image capturing unit being configured to acquire an image of a monitored area (Column 3, lines 4-40, Figure 1, 102a-102n, 108a, 110a-n, Column 10, lines 32-33, Column 44, lines 52-58, Column 15, lines 31-43);
a video encoding unit being connected to the image capturing unit, and configured to perform encoding on the image captured by the image capturing unit (Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5, Figure 1, 112, 102a-102n, 110a-n); and
a controller being connected to the video encoding unit, and configured to execute a computer program stored in a memory of the controller (Figure 102a-n, 112, 116, 118, 114, Column 10, lines 40-47, Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5) to:
control a video encoding unit of the camera device to encode the image with a first resolution, a first frame rate and a first bitrate to obtain a first bitstream (Column 36, lines 39-55, 66-67, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5, Figure 1, 112, 102a-102n, 110a-n);
control the video encoding unit to perform parallel encoding on the image with a second resolution, a second frame rate and a second bitrate to obtain a second bitstream, wherein the second resolution is greater than the first resolution, the second frame rate is greater than or equal to the first frame rate, and the second bitrate is greater than the first bitrate (Column 36, lines 18-55, 66-67 – low bitrate video frames have lower resolution and lower frame rate than high bitrate videos, Column 37, lines Column 28, lines 59-67, Column 29, lines 1-5);
generate a first video, storing the first video to a storage unit (Column 42, lines 11-17, Column 36, lines 18-55, Column 41, lines 18-30, Column 17 Column 10, lines 54-64);
generate max resolution/second videos when detecting an intrusion target in a monitored area (Column 42, lines 11-29, Column 36, lines 56-65, Column 37, lines 30-67, Column 38, lines 1-2 – generating videos can occur at all times so while detecting or not detecting intrusion targets),
store the second video to the storage unit (Column 36, lines 18-55, Column 41, lines 18-30, Column 17, lines 25-39).
Fu does not explicitly disclose encapsulating.
Ma discloses encapsulating the first bitstream into a first video and storing the first video to a storage unit (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 1, Page 5-6, paragraph 0056) ; and encapsulating the second bitstream into a second video, and storing the second video to the storage unit (Page 4, paragraph 0039, Figure 1, Page 5-6, paragraph 0056). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fu to include the missing limitations as taught by Ma in order to have smoother playback and multiple device compatibility for playback.
Claims 5-8, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Ma as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of DeKeyser (US 2008/0055410 and hereafter referred to as “Dekeyser”).
Regarding Claim 5 and 16, Fu and Ma disclose all the limitations of Claim 1 and claim 13 respectively. The combination does not explicitly disclose second buffer. Dekeyser discloses wherein the camera device further comprises a second buffer for temporarily storing the second video bitstream, and the method further comprises: storing the second bitstream to the second buffer (paragraph 0012); if the second buffer is insufficient to store the second bitstream, overwriting the earliest second bitstream stored in the second buffer with the second bitstream to be stored (paragraph 0012); or removing the earliest stored data from the second buffer, and storing the second bitstream in the second buffer. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Dekeyser in order to improve recordation of multiple events prior to offloading or overwriting.
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, Fu, Ma and Dekeyser disclose all the limitations of Claim 5 and 16 respectively. Fu discloses wherein the storage unit is a memory card of the camera device and storing the first video to the memory card (Column 17, lines 18-30). Ma discloses the encapsulating the first bitstream into a first video and storing the first video to a storage unit comprises: acquiring the first bitstream from the first buffer (paragraph 0063, 0089); encapsulating the first bitstream into the first video (paragraph 0056); and storing the first video to the storage unit (paragraph 0056). The combination of Fu and Ma teaches the limitation. Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 7, Fu, Ma and Dekeyser disclose all the limitations of Claim 5. Note that the limitation “if the intrusion target is detected” are contingent limitations and are not required in method claims. Therefore, any limitations which refers to are the detection are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II.
Therefore, the claims are not required and met by the rejection of Fu, Ma and Dekeyser.
Regarding Claim 8 and 19, Fu, Ma and Dekeyser disclose all the limitations of Claim 5 and 16 respectively. Fu disclose requesting video. Ma discloses response to a request for real-time viewing of the second bitstream sent by an electronic device (paragraph 0028, 0045), acquiring the latest second bitstream stored in a buffer ((paragraph 0028, 0045), and transmitting the latest second bitstream to the electronic device to decode the latest second bitstream and play the decoded second bitstream, wherein the electronic device is communicatively connected to the camera device (Figure 1, 40, 48, 20). Decoyer discloses the second buffer. Same motivation as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights