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
1. Status of Claims:
Claims 1-17 are pending in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2025, 09/26/2025, and 05/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 7-8, 10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US 11,217,076 (Applicant IDS) issued to Siminoff et al. (Siminoff).
As per claim 1, 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 (Siminoff: Col. 14, ll. (46-49) - the processor(s) 202 and/or the memory 204 may include thereon instructions that, upon execution, implement computer vision and/or image or video analysis functions) as: a reception unit configured to receive video data via the communication (Siminoff: Fig. 6B - Receive video data from an A/V recording); a determination unit configured to determine whether the received video data has been tampered with (Siminoff: Fig. 6B - Determine an occurrence of tampering with the A/V recording and communication device); and a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the video transmission apparatus, a command to start video data recording in a case where the received video data is determined to have been tampered with (Siminoff: Col. 26, ll. (36-48) - in response to the determination of an occurrence of tampering, the server transmitting an instruction to the second A/V recording and communication device to upload second video data captured by the second A/V recording and communication device to the server (e.g., for analysis and/or other processing by the server). Whether the second A/V recording and communication device is an active device (which is always capturing video data) or a passive device (which only captures video data when switched from passive mode to active mode), the video data captured by the second A/V recording and communication device may include evidence of the event associated with the tampering).
As per claim 2, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus according to claim 1, 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 data transmission from the video transmission apparatus to the video reception apparatus (Siminoff: Col. 53, ll. (61-64) - the processor may also generate and transmit an additional control signal 1238 that causes the first AN recording and communication device 180 to stop capturing and/or transmitting the first image data).
As per claim 5, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether the received video data has been tampered with by analyzing the received video data (Siminoff: Fig. 6B - Based on analyzing the video data, determine that the video data contains data indicative of tampering).
As per claim 6, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus according to the video reception apparatus according to wherein the video transmission apparatus includes an imaging unit, and wherein the command is a command to start recording video data captured by the imaging unit (Siminoff: Col. 15, ll. (52-53) - the imaging processor 240 may be components of the computer vision module).
As per claim 7, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 8, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the recording control unit records the video data in a recording unit included in or external to the video transmission apparatus (Siminoff: Col. 19, ll. (36-40) - the communication module(s) 306 is configured to handle communication links between the client device 300 and other, external devices or receivers, and to route incoming/outgoing data appropriately).
As per claim 10, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus according to claim 7, 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 starts recording the video data captured by the imaging unit (Siminoff: Col. 34, ll. (13-16) - responsive to determining that the video data contains data indicative of tampering, the server may cause the camera of the second A/V recording and communication device to wake from a passive state to begin recording video data).
As per claim 13, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the reception unit receives the information from the video reception apparatus (Siminoff: Col. 8, ll. (20-21) - the A/V recording and communication device 200 receiving an input).
As per claim 14, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, Siminoff teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to function as each unit of the video reception apparatus according to claim 1 (Siminoff: Col. 21, ll. (5-8) - a computer-readable medium, such as volatile or non-volatile memory where the storage device(s) may provide storage for the system).
As per claim 17, Siminoff teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to function as each unit of the video reception apparatus according to claim 7 (Siminoff: Col. 21, ll. (5-8) - a computer-readable medium, such as volatile or non-volatile memory where the storage device(s) may provide storage for the system).
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.
4. Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,217,076 (Applicant IDS) issued to Siminoff et al. (Siminoff) in view of US 2018/0253567 (Applicant IDS) issued to Gonzalez-Banos et al. (Gonzalez).
As per claim 3, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus according to claim 1 however does not explicitly teach 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.
Gonzalez however explicitly teaches 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 (Gonzalez: ¶ 0027 - the video processing application provides tamper protection and source identification to a video fragment and/or a video composition. For example, the video processing application associates, at a source, a digital signature with a video fragment or embeds a watermark into the video fragment before transmitting the video fragment to a destination, and authenticates, at the destination, the video fragment based on the digital signature or the watermark to determine whether the video fragment has been altered during the transmission and the source of the video fragment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Siminoff in view of Gonzalez to teach 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. One would be motivated to do so as the video processing application provides tamper protection and source identification to a video fragment and/or a video composition. For example, the video processing application associates, at a source, a digital signature with a video fragment or embeds a watermark into the video fragment before transmitting the video fragment to a destination, and authenticates, at the destination, the video fragment based on the digital signature or the watermark to determine whether the video fragment has been altered during the transmission and the source of the video fragment (Gonzalez: ¶ 0027).
As per claim 9, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus according to claim 8 however does not explicitly teach wherein the recording control unit records, in the recording unit, video data from a moment before the reception of the information.
Gonzalez however explicitly teaches wherein the recording control unit records, in the recording unit, video data from a moment before the reception of the information (Gonzalez: ¶ 0027 - the video processing application 103 associates, at a source, a digital signature with a video fragment or embeds a watermark into the video fragment before transmitting the video fragment to a destination).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Siminoff in view of Gonzalez to teach wherein the recording control unit records, in the recording unit, video data from a moment before the reception of the information. One would be motivated to do so as the video processing application 103 associates, at a source, a digital signature with a video fragment or embeds a watermark into the video fragment before transmitting the video fragment to a destination (Gonzalez: ¶ 0027).
As per claim 12, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus according to claim 7 however does not explicitly teach 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.
Gonzalez however explicitly teaches 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 (Gonzalez: Fig. 4A - compute a digital signature based on content of the video object).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Siminoff in view of Gonzalez to teach 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. One would be motivated to do so as a digital signature can be computed based on content of the video object (Gonzalez: Fig. 4A).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,217,076 (Applicant IDS) issued to Siminoff et al. (Siminoff) in view of US 2017/0318223 (Applicant IDS) issued to Iwasaki.
As per claim 4, Siminoff teaches the video reception apparatus according to claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein the command is a command compliant with an Open Network Video Interface Forum (ONVIF) standard.
Iwasaki however explicitly teaches wherein the command is a command compliant with an Open Network Video Interface Forum (ONVIF) standard (Iwasaki: ¶ 0040 - a command group defined by a standard developed by ONVIF (Open Network Video Interface Forum) instructs changes to settings of the imaging device and starting of image distribution).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Siminoff in view of Iwasaki to teach wherein the command is a command compliant with an Open Network Video Interface Forum (ONVIF) standard. One would be motivated to do so as a command group defined by a standard developed by ONVIF (Open Network Video
Interface Forum) instructs changes to settings of the imaging device and starting of image distribution (Iwasaki: ¶ 0040).
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,217,076 (Applicant IDS) issued to Siminoff et al. (Siminoff) in view of US 2016/0285670 issued to Bakar.
As per claim 11, Siminoff teaches the video transmission apparatus according to claim 7 however does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case where the information is not received for a predetermined period after the start of video data recording, the recording control unit stops the video data recording.
Bakar teaches the wherein, in a case where the information is not received for a predetermined period after the start of video data recording, the recording control unit stops the video data recording (Bakar: claim 10 - the content recording system is configured to stop recording the video program for the client device after a predetermined amount of time passes without receiving a representation of a snippet of the video program from the client device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Siminoff in view of Bakar to teach where the information is not received for a predetermined period after the start of video data recording, the recording control unit stops the video data recording. One would be motivated to do so as the content recording system is configured to stop recording the video program for the client device after a predetermined amount of time passes without receiving a representation of a snippet of the video program from the client device (Bakar: claim 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SM AZIZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7360. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Telework;
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Shayanfar can be reached on 571-270-1050. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SM A RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights