Application No. 14/670,307
`Reply to Office Action dated November 29, 2017
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 10—1 1, 13—15, 18—19, 21—23, and 28—46 will be pending upon entry of
`
`this amendment. Claims 10, 11, 18, 19, 30, 32, 34, and 36 have been amended. Claims 1—9, 12,
`
`16—17, 20, and 24—27 have been canceled. No new matter has been added to the application.
`
`MW
`
`Claims 10—1 1, 13, 15, 18-19, 21, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, and 38-45 are rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20060209176 A1) in view of Jones
`
`(US 20090141932 Al).
`
`Claims 14, 22-23, 31, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Nakamura and Jones, further in view of Lee (US 20110090822 A1).
`
`Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura
`
`and Jones, further in view of Slavin (US 8675071 B1).
`
`Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura
`
`and Jones, further in view of Hundal (US 20050197061 A1).
`
`In response, applicant has amended the claims as set forth above to more
`
`particularly recite the subject matter that applicant considers as their invention and to more
`
`clearly distinguish the claims from the prior art. Support for the amendment is found in
`
`FIG. 12A, reproduced below, and its related description in the application as filed.
`
`In particular, independent claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 have been amended to more
`
`particularly recite the interactive exchange of information about "a technical malfunction state of
`
`a monitoring camera" or "a technical malfunction state of a sensor" between the master device of
`
`a monitoring system and a smartphone, which a user may use as a monitoring handset for the
`
`monitoring system. Further, the claims recite that such interactive exchange of information
`
`occurs in stages. In the first stage, the master device transmits notification information to the
`
`smartphone to display thereon "a warning screen indicating that the monitoring camera [or the
`
`sensor] is in the technical malfunction state." In the second stage, "in response to receiving, from
`
`the smartphone, user selection of a first reguest displayed as part of the warning screen," the
`
`master device transmits "first detailed information about the technical malfunction state of the
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/670,307
`Reply to Office Action dated November 29, 2017
`
`monitoring camera [or the sensor] to the smartphone for display." In the third stage, "in response
`
`to receiving, from the smartphone, user selection of a second reguest displayed as part of the first
`
`information," the master device transmits "second detailed information about the technical
`
`malfunction state of the monitoring camera [or the sensor] including a suspected reason for the
`
`technical malfunction state to the smartphone for display."
`
`F18. 125A
`{$133
`
`33.:
`
`$33
`
`is‘ =51 {ks {as amiss. $3.? mamas???
`
`,itI4:4:rr4:t4:t4:t4:4:tr4:t4:4:t4:It}:ttltttfffff‘fffffllfrlift/rill!II‘IIIWIIIMIIWWIIM_
`'
`
`"yamfllzmwrrrmzttfjW
`
`:‘w rim-swam, whims
`{Wm migki mug:- mmixing.
`:3 Norm? ogarssfiésm wfi§
`\‘ ems:am :3: ass I: macaw this
`:, swig“! nmmaétmz
`smymstm
`
`;
`i
`
`'
`‘
`
`_ Swag:
`
`
`Rwasxka.31g LN.
`
`Nakamura does not teach or suggest such interactive exchange of information in
`
`three stages, as now more explicitly recited in claims 10, 11, 18, and 19. Nakamura, in 11[0104],
`
`describes "the sensor communication section 53 transmits a remaining battery level lowering
`
`notice to the main controller." Nakamura, in 11[0190], describes "when the cellular phone 12
`
`receives the notice of abnormality detected by the sensor 21, the user primarily input the transfer
`
`request instruction of the image of the camera 23 to the cellular phone 12, and transmits the
`
`transfer request instruction to the main controller 25." The "notice of abnormality" as disclosed
`
`in Nakamura means "an abnormality in the state of the environment" such as "trespass" or
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/670,307
`Reply to Office Action dated November 29, 2017
`
`"suspected person, fire, or the like" or "the user is in bad health." Nakamura, flfl[0036],
`
`[0094]&[0240].
`
`As such, Nakamura does not teach or suggest, in the first stage, a master device
`
`transmits notification information to a smartphone to display thereon "a warning screen
`
`indicating that the monitoring camera [or the sensor] is in the technical malfunction state,"
`
`followed by the second stage, wherein the master device "in response to receiving, from the
`
`smartphone, user selection of a first request displayed as part of the warning screen," transmits
`
`"first detailed information about the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera [or the
`
`sensor] to the smartphone for display." Nakamura does not teach or suggest a smartphone
`
`displaying "a warning screen indicating that the monitoring camera [or the sensor] is in the
`
`technical malfunction state" wherein the warning screen includes "a first request" which the user
`
`can select on the smartphone display to request "first detailed information about the technical
`
`malfunction state of the monitoring camera |or the sensor|." Rather, in Nakamura, a user
`
`receives a notice of abnormality (e.g., suspected person) and requests an image taken by a
`
`monitoring camera to visually confirm the abnormality. Nakamura, 1][0190].
`
`Nakamura further fails to teach or suggest, in the third stage, the master device "in
`
`response to receiving, from the smartphone, user selection of a second request displayed as part
`
`of the first information," transmits "second detailed information about the technical malfunction
`
`state of the monitoring camera [or the sensor] including a suspected reason for the technical
`
`malfunction state to the smartphone for display." Nakamura does not teach or suggest a
`
`smartphone displaying the "first detailed information about the technical malfunction state of the
`
`monitoring camera [or the sensor]" wherein the first detailed information includes "a second
`
`request" which the user can select on the smartphone display to request "second detailed
`
`information about the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera |or the sensor|
`
`including a suspected reason for the technical malfunction state to the smartphone for display."
`
`Jones is titled "Method for Image Quality Assessment Using Quality Vectors" and
`
`describes a method for assessing the image quality of image data using various "image quality
`
`metrics" including "an indicator of the physical status of the digital image capture device (for
`
`example, a fluctuating power supply voltage that could lead to poor capture quality, or a
`
`ll
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/670,307
`Reply to Office Action dated November 29, 2017
`
`temperature sensor that indicates excessively high or low temperature, which might reduce the
`
`performance of the image sensor in the image capture device)." 1][0088]. As such, Jones is
`
`unrelated to a monitoring system or a monitoring method and, thus, cannot cure the deficiencies
`
`of Nakamura, discussed above. Specifically, Jones is silent as to, in the first stage, a master
`
`device transmits notification information to the smartphone to display thereon "a warning screen
`
`indicating that the monitoring camera [or the sensor] is in the technical malfunction state,"
`
`followed by the second stage, wherein the master device "in response to receiving, from the
`
`smartphone, user selection of a first reguest displayed as part of the warning screen," transmits
`
`"first detailed information about the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera [or the
`
`sensor] to the smartphone for display," further followed by the third stage, wherein the master
`
`device "in response to receiving, from the smartphone, user selection of a second reguest
`
`displayed as part of the first information," transmits "second detailed information about the
`
`technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera [or the sensor] including a suspected reason
`
`for the technical malfunction state to the smartphone for display."
`
`The rest of the cited prior art does not cure the deficiencies of Nakamura and
`
`Jones and, therefore, does not render claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 obvious, alone or in any
`
`combination.
`
`Based on the foregoing, claims 10, 11, 18, and 19, as amended, are now believed
`
`to be clearly allowable over the cited prior art of record. Allowance of claims 10, 11, 18, and 19,
`
`as well as or their respective dependent claims, is respectfully requested.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/670,307
`Reply to Office Action dated November 29, 2017
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the claims remaining in the application are now clearly allowable.
`
`Favorable consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Shoko Leek/
`
`Shoko I. Leek
`
`Registration No. 43,746
`
`SILzmck
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`594311571
`
`13
`
`