Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the listing of claims filed on May 30, 2025. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-17 of Application No. 19/223,864. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-21 of Application No. 19/224,020. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitations “reception unit”, “determination unit”, transmission unit”, “imaging unit”, “recording control unit”, and “attachment unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structures, materials, or acts to the functions. It is unclear what structures/hardware equate to each of these claimed unit(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siminoff et al (US Patent No: 11,217,076), hereafter referred to as Siminoff.
With regard to claims 1, 16, and 18, Siminoff teaches a video reception apparatus configured to communicate with a video transmission apparatus, the video reception apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a reception unit configured to receive video data via the communication (Siminoff teaches receiving video data from an A/V recording; see Figure 6B and column 26, lines 60-62, Siminoff);
a determination unit configured to determine whether the received video data has been tampered with (Siminoff teaches determining a tampering occurrence based on received video data; see figure 6B and column 26, lines 59-62, Siminoff);
and a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the video transmission apparatus, a command to change a setting related to video data recording in a case where the received video data is determined to have been tampered with (Siminoff teaches that upon determination of a tampering occurrence, the server transmits an instruction/command to a second A/V recording and communication device to upload a second video data captured by the second A/V recording (i.e. change setting related to video data recording) and communication device to the server; see column 26, lines 36-48, Siminoff).
With regards to claim 2, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus wherein, in a case where the received video data is determined to have been tampered with, the transmission unit transmits, to the video transmission apparatus, a command to stop video transmission from the video transmission apparatus to the video reception apparatus (Siminoff teaches generation and transmission of additional control signal that causes the first A/V recording and communication device to stop capturing and/or transmitting the first image data; see column 53, lines 61-64, Siminoff).
With regard to claim 5, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus wherein the determination unit determines whether the received video data has been tampered with by analyzing the received video data (Siminoff teaches determining the video data contains tampering data based on analysis of the video data; see Figure 6B, Siminoff).
With regard to claim 6, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus wherein the video transmission apparatus includes an imaging unit, and wherein the command is a command to change a setting related to recording of video data captured by the imaging unit (see imaging processor; see column 15, lines 52-53, Siminoff).
With regard to claims 9, 17, and 19, Siminoff teaches a video transmission apparatus configured to communicate with a video reception apparatus, the video transmission apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a reception unit configured to receive information indicating that video data received by the video reception apparatus via the communication has been tampered with (Siminoff teaches receiving video data from an A/V recording; see Figure 6B and column 26, lines 60-62, Siminoff. Siminoff further teaches determining a tampering occurrence based on received video data; see figure 6B and column 26, lines 59-62, Siminof);
and a recording control unit configured to change a setting related to video data recording upon receiving the information (Siminoff teaches that upon determination of a tampering occurrence, the server transmits an instruction/command to a second A/V recording and communication device to upload a second video data captured by the second A/V recording (i.e. change setting related to video data recording) and communication device to the server; see column 26, lines 36-48, Siminoff).
With regard to claim 11, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus further comprising: an imaging unit; and a transmission unit configured to transmit video data captured by the imaging unit to the video reception apparatus, wherein, upon receiving the information, the recording control unit changes a setting related to recording of the video data captured by the imaging unit (Siminoff teaches that upon determination of a tampering occurrence, the server transmits an instruction/command to a second A/V recording and communication device to upload a second video data captured by the second A/V recording (i.e. change setting related to video data recording) and communication device to the server; see column 26, lines 36-48, Siminoff).
With regard to claim 12, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus further comprising: an imaging unit; and a transmission unit configured to transmit video data captured by the imaging unit to the video reception apparatus, wherein, upon receiving the information, the recording control unit changes a setting related to recording of the video data captured by the imaging unit (Siminoff teaches the server transmitting an instruction/command to a second A/V recording and communication/transmission device to upload a second video data captured by the second A/V recording (i.e. change setting related to video data recording) and communication device to the server; see column 26, lines 36-48, Siminoff).
With regard to claim 15, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus wherein the reception unit receives the information from the video reception apparatus (Siminoff teaches receiving video data from an A/V recording; see Figure 6B and column 26, lines 60-62, Siminoff).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 3-4, 7-8, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff et al (US Patent No: 11,217,076) in view of Galvin et al (US Patent No: 10,477,158), hereafter referred to as Siminoff and Galvin, respectively.
With regards to claim 3, Siminoff teaches through Galvin, the video reception apparatus wherein a digital signature generated based on the video data is attached to the video data received via the communication, and based on the digital signature, the determination unit determines whether the received video data has been tampered with.
While Siminoff teaches a network video recording system, Siminoff does not explicitly teach generating a digital signature based on and added to the video data, to be used in assessing tampering. In the same field of endeavor, Galvin also teaches a network video recording system; see column 3, lines 58-61, Galvin. In particular, Galvin teaches a NVR (network video recorder) receiving a set of data including a set of signature identifiers; see column 30, lines 65-66, Galvin. The NVR also monitors and receives camera events, such as tampering, via its event manager; see column 13, lines 27-38, Galvin. Based on the type of event, the NVR’s event manager uses instructions to provide actions in response to the tampering event; see column 13, lines 39-60 and Table 1, Galvin.
Having a network detect data and configure cameras allows the network to respond to various conditions (e.g. tampering) and reduce maintenance time; see column 3, lines 58-67, Galvin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Galvin with those of Siminoff, to respond to conditions and reduce maintenance time.
With regards to claim 4, Siminoff teaches through Galvin, the video reception apparatus wherein the command is a command compliant with an Open Network Video Interface Forum (ONVIF) standard
Galvin teaches the video recorder supports all network cameras compliant with ONVIF standard commands/instructions; see column 4, lines 52-54, Galvin.
Having a network detect data and configure cameras allows the network to respond to various conditions (e.g. tampering) and reduce maintenance time; see column 3, lines 58-67, Galvin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Galvin with those of Siminoff, to respond to conditions and reduce maintenance time.
With regard to claims 7 and 10, Siminoff teaches through Galvin, the video reception apparatus wherein the change to the setting is a change to increase a retention period of recorded video data
Galvin teaches periodically performing clean-up of media in a database; see column 13, lines 10-14, Galvin. The system allows for configuring (commanding) of moving video files to archival storage (i.e. increase retention period of recorded video data); see column 13, lines 17-21, Galvin.
Having a network detect data, record, and configure cameras allows the network to respond to various conditions (e.g. tampering) and reduce maintenance time; see column 3, lines 58-67, Galvin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Galvin with those of Siminoff, to respond to conditions and reduce maintenance time.
With regard to claims 8 and 13, Siminoff teaches through Galvin, the video reception apparatus wherein the change to the setting is a change to prohibit overwriting of recorded video data
Galvin teaches the system allows for configuring (commanding) of moving video files to archival storage, including USB drive or a DVD disc drive (i.e. prohibit overwriting of recorded video); see column 13, lines 17-21, Galvin.
Having a network detect data, record, and configure cameras allows the network to respond to various conditions (e.g. tampering) and reduce maintenance time; see column 3, lines 58-67, Galvin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Galvin with those of Siminoff, to respond to conditions and reduce maintenance time.
With regard to claim 14, Siminoff teaches through Galvin, the video transmission apparatus further comprising an attachment unit configured to attach, to video data to be transmitted to the video reception apparatus, a digital signature generated based on the video data
Galvin also teaches a network video recording system; see column 3, lines 58-61, Galvin. In particular, Galvin teaches a NVR (network video recorder) receiving a set of data including a set of signature identifiers; see column 30, lines 65-66, Galvin. The NVR also monitors and receives camera events, such as tampering, via its event manager; see column 13, lines 27-38, Galvin. Based on the type of event, the NVR’s event manager uses instructions to provide actions in response to the tampering event; see column 13, lines 39-60 and Table 1, Galvin.
Having a network detect data and configure cameras allows the network to respond to various conditions (e.g. tampering) and reduce maintenance time; see column 3, lines 58-67, Galvin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Galvin with those of Siminoff, to respond to conditions and reduce maintenance time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, EMMANUEL MOISE can be reached at (571) 272-3865. 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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights