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 .
This action is in response to the CON filed on 04/24/2025
This is a CON of 18/626,705, now a PAT 12,342,003 B2 which is a CON of 18/201,830, now a PAT 11,979,616 B1
Application claims a DP date of 01/27/2023
Claims 1-20 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025 and 10/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,616 B1 and of U.S. Patent No. 12,342,003 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11,979,616 B1 and U.S. Patent No. 12,342,003 B2 with obvious wording variations as shown in the table below.
1. Application: A method, comprising: receiving, by a first endpoint device, an input to begin streaming of video from a camera;
1. Patent 11,979,616 B1: A method, comprising: receiving, by a camera, a request to establish a first connection between a first application hosted by a computing device and the camera
in response to the input, establishing a connection through which to stream video from the camera to the first endpoint device;
1. Patent 11,979,616 B1: in response to the camera receiving the request, determine, by the camera, that a second connection is already established between a second application hosted by an endpoint device and the camera,
1. Patent 11,979,616 B1: the second connection is configured to allow streaming of video data from the camera to the endpoint device;
receiving, by the first endpoint device and from the camera via the connection, data that causes the first endpoint device to display a message indicative of stoppage of video streaming to the first endpoint device in response to a second endpoint device streaming video from the camera; and
2. Patent 11,979,616 B1: prior to terminating the existing connection, sending, by the camera, a message to the second endpoint device indicating that the existing connection is going to be terminated.
de-establishing the connection after the data has been received by the first endpoint device.
1. Patent 11,979,616 B1: terminating by the camera, the second connection and establishing, by the camera, the first connection to provide the computing device with access to one or more functionalities of the camera free of interference by the endpoint device.
2. Application: further comprising: after establishing the connection and before de-establishing the connection, displaying, by the first endpoint device, video streamed from the camera via the connection.
4. Patent 11,979,616 B1: the first connection is further configured to allow the streaming of audio data from the computing device to the camera
3. Application: wherein establishing the connection includes: sending, to the camera, a session description protocol (SDP) offer via a web real-time communication (WebRTC) signaling server; and receiving, from the camera, an SDP answer via the WebRTC signaling server.
6. Patent 11,979,616 B1: wherein: the request comprises a session description protocol (SDP) offer received from the computing device via a web realtime communication (WebRTC) signaling server, and establishing the first connection comprises sending an SDP answer to the computing device via the webRTC signaling server.
4. Application: wherein the connection is a peer-to-peer connection between the first endpoint device and the camera.
3. Patent 11,979,616 B1: wherein: the first connection is a first peer-to-peer connection between the computing device and the camera.
5. Application: wherein video is streamed from the camera to the second endpoint device via a second peer-to-peer connection between the second endpoint device and the camera.
3. Patent 12,014,544 B2: wherein: the second connection comprises a second peer-to-peer connection between the endpoint device and the camera.
5. Patent 12,014,544 B2: wherein the second connection is further configured to allow the streaming of audio data from the endpoint device to the camera.
6. Application: wherein the second peer-to-peer connection is configured to allow the streaming of audio from the second endpoint device to the camera device via the WebRTC signaling server.
6. Patent 11,979,616 B1: wherein: the request comprises a session description protocol (SDP) offer received from the computing device via a web real-time communication (WebRTC) signaling server; and establishing the first connection comprises sending an SDP answer to the computing device via the WebRTC signaling server.
7. Application: wherein: the first endpoint device is a mobile device of an end user of a security monitoring system; and the second endpoint device is a computer of a monitoring agent of the security monitoring system
7. Patent 11,979,616 B1: wherein: the first type of application is configured to be operated by a monitoring agent associated with the security company and the second type of application is configured to be operated by a person associated with a property at which the camera is located.
Claims 8-20 are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,616 B1 and U.S. Patent No. 12,342,003 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsukada et al. (WO2017081840A1 Published on May 18,2017. U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0098237 A1 has been used for citing purposes).
Regarding Claim 13, Burns discloses a device (Burns: Figs 103 – network level view of extensible devices), comprising: means for streaming video from a camera (Burns: Fig 1 - video cameras 118) remote from the device (Fig 1- mobile device 166 (portable electronic device is an example of client device 504) in the hands of the user; Also see ¶0081); and
means for displaying a message (In ¶0115, Burns discloses using small displays for displaying textual information and error codes) indicative of stoppage of video streaming to the device in response to a second device streaming video from the camera (In ¶0097, Burns discloses that the in some implementation, the server 508 serves for monitoring and reviewing alert events; In ¶0098, Burns further discloses that a detection of a hazard may be communicated to the smart home server; In ¶0208 and in ¶0384, Burns teaches about connection pool module 8204 that maintains multiple video connection, where he also discloses that each video connection may be either active or passive. Passive video connections do not transmit video feed at the given time; He further teaches in the same paragraph that the connection pool is configured to maintain a predetermined amount of video connections. And therefore, the module “terminates a connection” in some cases).
Regarding Claims 14, Burns discloses further comprising: means, responsive to an input indicative of a request to stream video from the camera, for establishing a connection through which to stream video from the camera to the device (Burns discloses this throughout. In the Abstract he discloses a method that includes receiving a request to execute communication with a plurality of smart devices including cameras in response to receiving a request establishing a connection for the cameras and display including a video feed).
Regarding Claims 15, Burns discloses means for causing display of the message in response to data received from the camera via the connection (Burns, in ¶0114 discloses that the hub device 180 includes one or more devices to display textual information and error codes etc; In ¶0153 he also discloses displaying “real-time” events for providing notifications as new events are detected).
Regarding Claims 16, Burns discloses means for de-establishing the connection after the data has been received by the device (Burns discloses this in ¶0384 where he discloses that connections are terminated based on a ranking).
Regarding Claim 20 Burns discloses wherein: the first endpoint device ( Fig 1-User client device 166) is a mobile device of an end user of a security monitoring system (Fig 1- cameras 118); and the second endpoint device is a computer of a monitoring agent of the security monitoring system (Fig 1- smart home provided server system 164).
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0280112 A1) in view of Burns et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0019889 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Siminoff discloses a method (Fig 1 discloses an embodiment of audio/video recording, monitoring and communication device), comprising:
by a first endpoint device (Fig 1 – camera 102), an input to begin streaming of video from a camera (Siminoff in ¶0123 teaches that the doorbell 100 sends streaming video to the user’s client 114);
in response to the input, establishing a connection through which to stream video from the camera to the first endpoint device (In the flow chart of Fig 13 and in ¶0153, Siminoff discloses that at block B202 the communication module 164 sends a request to a network device for connection to the doorbell 130 to the user client device 114);
receiving, by the first endpoint device (Fig 1 – camera 102) and from the camera via the connection (Siminoff further discloses that the audio and/or video data is stored at a cloud service. Also see Figs 20-24 and ¶0179), data that causes the first endpoint device to display a message (In Figs 20-24 GUI of the process of sharing video footage is disclosed. Since Siminoff discloses the use of display screen to display message and information, Examiner uses BRI that Siminoff discloses displaying activities related to video streaming) indicative of stoppage of video streaming to the first endpoint device in response to a second endpoint device (Fig 1 – Server 118) streaming video from the camera;
Siminoff discloses multiple connection between devices but fails to clearly disclose data that causes the first endpoint device to display a message indicative of stoppage of video streaming to the first endpoint device in response to a second endpoint device; and de-establishing the connection after the data has been received by the first endpoint device.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Burns discloses data that causes the first endpoint device to display a message indicative of stoppage of video streaming to the first endpoint device in response to a second endpoint device; and de-establishing the connection after the data has been received by the first endpoint device (In ¶0208 and in ¶0384, Burns teaches about connection pool module 8204 that maintains multiple video connection, where he also discloses that each video connection may be either active or passive. Passive video connections do not transmit video feed at the given time; He further teaches in the same paragraph that the connection pool is configured to maintain a predetermined amount of video connections. And therefore, the module “terminates a connection” in some cases).
Siminoff and Burns are combinable because both are related to electronic devices that have streaming video feed using a remote device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the number of connections and terminating connections as taught by Burns in the imaging module disclosed by Siminoff.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve performance and “having a more efficient user control flow” as disclosed by Burns in ¶0004.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Siminoff and Burns to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claim 2, Siminoff in view of Burns discloses further comprising: after establishing the connection (In the flow chart of Fig 13 and in ¶0153, Siminoff discloses that at block B202 the communication module 164 sends a request to a network device for connection to the doorbell 130 to the user client device 114) and before de-establishing the connection, displaying, by the first endpoint device, video streamed from the camera via the connection (Siminoff: In ¶0122, Siminoff discloses that the A/V recording foorbell 100 may send streaming video and audio to the client’s device 114).
Regarding Claim 3, Siminoff in view of Burns discloses wherein establishing the connection includes: sending, to the camera, a session description protocol (SDP) offer via a web real-time communication (WebRTC) signaling server; and receiving, from the camera, an SDP answer via the WebRTC signaling server (Burns: Burns teaches this in ¶0090 where he teaches the different protocol that could be used to implement this communication)).
Regarding Claim 7 and 12, Siminoff in view of Burns discloses wherein: the first endpoint device (Siminoff: User client device 114 vi user’s network 112 – In ¶0120, Siminoff discloses that the user’s client devie may be for example a mobile phone) is a mobile device of an end user of a security monitoring system; and the second endpoint device is a computer of a monitoring agent of the security monitoring system (Siminoff: backend API 120).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim has limitations parallel to Claims 2 and 3. Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as Claims 2 and 3.
Claims 4-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0280112 A1) in view of Burns et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0019889 A1) and further in view of Abbas (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0006975 A1)
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Siminoff in view of Burns discloses connections but fails to clearly disclose wherein the connection is a peer-to-peer connection between the first endpoint device and the camera.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Abbas discloses wherein the connection is a peer-to-peer connection between the first endpoint device and the camera (In ¶0035 Abbas teaches that the user device can establish a peer-to-peer communication channel with the monitoring device).
Siminoff , Burns and Abbas are combinable because all are related to electronic devices that have streaming video feed using a remote device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to user peer-to-peer communications as taught by Abbas in the imaging module disclosed by Siminoff in view of Burns.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow devices to connect and share data directly with each other without relying on a central server or intermediary as is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Siminoff, Burns and Abbas to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 10.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Siminoff in view of Burns and Abbas discloses wherein video is streamed from the camera to the second endpoint device via a second peer-to-peer connection between the second endpoint device and the camera (Abbas: In ¶0035 Abbas teaches that the user device can establish a peer-to-peer communication channel with the monitoring device; Also see ¶0057 and ¶0065).
Regarding Claim 6, Siminoff in view of Burns and Abbas discloses wherein the second peer-to-peer connection is configured to allow the streaming of audio from the second endpoint device to the camera (Abbas: In ¶0037, Abbas teaches that the monitoring device 104, the user device 106 and the server 108 can communicate for transforming information – e.g. video streaming, audio streaming, images, other information or a combination thereof from one endpoint to another endpoint).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0019889 A1) and further in view of Abbas (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0006975 A1)
Regarding Claims 17, Burns discloses connections but fails to clearly disclose wherein the connection is a peer-to-peer connection between the first endpoint device and the camera.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Abbas discloses wherein the connection is a peer-to-peer connection between the first endpoint device and the camera (In ¶0035 Abbas teaches that the user device can establish a peer-to-peer communication channel with the monitoring device).
Burns and Abbas are combinable because all are related to electronic devices that have streaming video feed using a remote device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to user peer-to-peer communications as taught by Abbas in the imaging module disclosed by Burns.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow devices to connect and share data directly with each other without relying on a central server or intermediary as is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burns and Abbas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding Claims 18, Burns and Abbas discloses wherein video is streamed from the camera to the second endpoint device via a second peer-to-peer connection between the second endpoint device and the camera (Abbas: In ¶0035 Abbas teaches that the user device can establish a peer-to-peer communication channel with the monitoring device; Also see ¶0057 and ¶0065).
Regarding Claims 19 Burns and Abbas discloses wherein the second peer-to-peer connection is configured to allow the streaming of audio from the second endpoint device to the camera (Abbas: In ¶0037, Abbas teaches that the monitoring device 104, the user device 106 and the server 108 can communicate for transforming information – e.g. video streaming, audio streaming, images, other information or a combination thereof from one endpoint to another endpoint).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights