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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 8-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 of this title, 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, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Hwang et al. (KR20100022247) and further in view of Seder et al. (US 2023/0175855) and further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) and further in view of Farnham et al. (US 10,013,883).
Regarding claim 1, Warner teaches a system for a vehicle comprising:
a first imager operable to capture a first video having a plurality of first frames, the first imager having a first field of view exterior the vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraph 38 teaches one or more cameras 126);
a second imager operable to capture a second video having a plurality of second frames, the second imager having a second field of view exterior the vehicle different than the first field of view (paragraph 38 and 60 teaches a plurality of cameras mounted to the exterior to capture “different direction” away from the vehicle);
a location sensor operable to determine a location of the vehicle (paragraphs 35 and 77 teaches GPS);
a controller communicatively connected to the first imager, the second imager, and the location sensor (Fig. 1, processors 110 connect to cameras 126); the controller operable to:
associate the location of the vehicle with a plurality of the plurality of first frames and the plurality of second frames where the location substantially corresponds to the vehicle’s location when each respective first frame was captured (paragraphs 38 and 77-80 teaches wherein the video data captured is associated with the GPS coordinates such that the data is geotagged by its correlation to when the video was captured. Paragraph 38 states “cameras 126 may be configured to record streaming videos of the travel route … the streaming video … may be geotagged … to associated the camera images with geographical locations of the images”), and
store one or more first video clips, each comprising a series of the first frames, and one or more second video clips, each comprising a series of second frames (paragraph 78 teaches wherein the geotagged video file is thereafter stored in the memory. Paragraph 38 states “cameras 126 may be configured to record streaming videos of the travel route … the streaming video … may be geotagged … to associated the camera images with geographical locations of the images”); and
a display communicatively connected to the controller, the display operable to simultaneously show one of the first video clips and a map of an area substantially encompassing all the locations of the vehicle associated with the first frames included in the shown first video clip (see Figs. 41-7B and paragraph 56 wherein a display shows the video data of its corresponding GPS location and a map depicting the location of the vehicle. The map also includes indications of where the vehicle has traveled along its route).
However, while Warner teaches at least a plurality of exterior cameras being recorded, fails to explicitly teach that the second video clip is also displayed on a screen together with the map that encompasses the location of the vehicle encompassing the locations of the vehicle associated with the video frames.
In an analogous art, Hwang et al. teaches the claimed in Fig. 3 shows a display of displaying more than two cameras at the same time as the map of the same location of the vehicle and page 4 wherein “the control unit records the travel location and recording time according to the movement path information for each of the playback time of the moving picture recording system of the vehicle to store in the header of the video”. Furthermore, page 3 teaches “The controller 112 configures a split screen of image signals captured by the camera 102 and the map data retrieved by the driving route providing unit 108 and the image signals according to the camera selected through the key input unit 120 to be described later. Produce one video with audio signal. For example, when the first to third cameras are selected through the selection unit, the video signals and the map data captured by the first to third cameras are displayed on a quad screen”.
Therefore, Hwang teaches that which is missing from Warner in that more than one externally capturing camera is displayed with the map data encompassing the locations of the vehicle associated with the frames of videos captured by the cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Hwang into the system of Warner because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of allowing the user to recognize the photographing place and to also provide a log/diary of a recent travel for later access (pages 2-3 of Hwang).
However, while Warner and Hwang teaches the claimed drive recorder, fails to explicitly teach the following limitations, but Seder in a similar endeavor teaches: “wherein substantially all the locations are represented as a line of travel on the map representing the vehicle’s journey for the duration of the shown first video clip and during display of the shown video clip, the vehicle’s location most recently stored relative a currently displayed first frame is shown as a marker along the mapped line of travel” (Paragraph 21, and Fig. 6 illustrates previously recorded line of travel, the locations of the vehicle is recorded. Paragraph 21 teaches a method of replaying route data with annotation identifying a travel route taken. Fig. 3 and paragraphs 40-44, 54 and 64 teaches wherein the playback includes the video as well on a display device in addition to the map of travelled line in another display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Seder into the proposed combination of Warner and Hwang because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of allowing users to share their past trips with annotations thereby improving the user experience (abstract and paragraphs 2-3).
Warner teaches the claimed wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle (paragraph 58 teaches wherein the trip is a completed trip), however, isn’t explicit that the trip of the car/vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle, and therefore, fails to explicitly teach “wherein one or more of the first video clips correspond to a substantially complete trip of the vehicle and the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle”.
In an analogous art, Zhao teaches wherein “wherein one or more of the first video clips correspond to a substantially complete trip of the vehicle and the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle” (paragraphs 27 and 36 teaches wherein records of video include from when the engine is started and to the stopping of driving including driving episodes without using a navigational input per se. Zhao is clear in that “Each driving data stored in the general driving data store 112 includes an episode of driving performed by one driver, containing a sequence of vectors from the start of the driving to the end of the driving” and that “The engine start indicates a start of a new driving episode and may initiate recording of the sensor signals of the sensors 102. The engine stop indicates an end of the driving episode and may terminate the recording of the sensor signals of the sensors 102”. As is clear above, the start of recording is tied to the start of the engine and the termination of the recording is when the engine stop is indicated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Zhao in the system of Warner, Hwang and Seder because said incorporation because said incorporation allows for the recording of drives to allow all drives to be saved for safety and insurance purposes.
While it is noted that Zhao is explicit in teaching the video starts recording from when the engine is started and terminates recording when the driving is engine is stopped, it does not quite state the inherent feature that the vehicle is parked at the time of start and the vehicle is parked again at the time of engine being stopped.
Therefore, in an analogous art, Nishimura explicitly teaches “When driving of the vehicle 30 is started (for example, when the power source is started such as when the ignition is turned on and the vehicle 30 starts traveling from a parked position)” (see paragraphs 35) and “After driving of the vehicle 30 is finished (for example, when the power source is stopped such as when an ignition is turned off and the vehicle 30 is parked)” (see paragraph 34).
The teaching of Nishimura teaches the missing aspect (albeit an inherent feature) of Zhao, that requires a vehicle to be parked when an ignition is turned on, and similarly that requires a vehicle to once again be parked at a second location (after travelling/driving-episode) when the ignition is turned off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder and Zhao because Nishimura simply describes an inherent aspect of vehicle operation - namely that a driving episode begins with the vehicle parked at a first location and ends with the vehicle parked at a second location. Since Zhao already detects or analyze s driving episodes (see above), it necessarily requires such start and end condition. Incorporating the inherent vehicle-state transitions from Nishimura would have been an obvious clarification yielding a predictable result consistent with routine principles in the art.
While the prior arts above teaches the above, fails to teach graphic indicators indicating first and second imagers, but Farnham teaches “a graphic indicating that the first video clip was obtained by the first imager” and “a graphic indicating that the second video clip was obtained by the second imager” (See Fig. 7 and supporting disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Farnham into the proposed combination because said incorporation allows for an improved user experience to easily identify which camera took which footage.
Regarding claim 4, Warner teaches the claimed as discussed above, however fails to teach, but Farnham teaches wherein storage of a first video clip is triggered based, at least in part, on receipt by the controller of a signal indicative of a vehicle event or a user input (Fig. 5 and supporting disclosure teaches wherein an incident is detected resulting in the video being recorded around the event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Farnham into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao and Nishimura such that while Warner discusses recording the drive, it allows for another modification of recording event related information in addition to recording the drive, because such a modification would allow for the benefit of also viewing incident related information thereby saving time.
Regarding claim 5, Farnham teaches wherein the stored first video clip is composed of first frames from a predetermined amount of time prior to the trigger and a predetermined amount of time after the trigger (col. 13, lines 57-67). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, Warner teaches the claimed wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on an entering of a destination into a navigation platform and reaching the destination (paragraph 58 teaches wherein the destination is input by the user).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang teaches the claimed further comprising:
wherein the display is further operable to show one of the second video clips substantially time synchronized the shown fist video clip (page 3 teaches “The controller 112 configures a split screen of image signals captured by the camera 102 and the map data retrieved by the driving route providing unit 108 and the image signals according to the camera selected through the key input unit 120 to be described later. Produce one video with audio signal. For example, when the first to third cameras are selected through the selection unit, the video signals and the map data captured by the first to third cameras are displayed on a quad screen”).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang teaches the claimed wherein one of the first and second fields of view is forward relative the vehicle and other of the first and second fields of view is rearward relative the vehicle (page 2: The camera unit 102 includes a first camera installed at the front of the vehicle and photographing the front side of the vehicle, a second camera installed at the rear of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Warner teaches the claimed wherein the display is part of a mobile communications device (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 16, Farnham teaches the claimed wherein the vehicle event is a collision (col. 6, lines 28-40). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang teaches the claimed wherein the controller is further operable to store the additional first video clip based, at least in part, on receipt, by the controller of the user input during the trip (page 3: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the controller 112 receives a selection of at least one camera to capture an image signal from the occupant through the key input unit 120 (S10). Subsequently, the controller 112 photographs the outside or the inside of the vehicle using a camera selected by the occupant and generates an image signal in real time (S11)”). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) and further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2010/0129064) and further in view of Bates et al. (US 2020/0194004).
Regarding claim 8, Warner teaches a system for a vehicle comprising:
a first imager operable to capture a first video having a plurality of first frames, the first imager having a first field of view exterior the vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraph 38 teaches one or more cameras 126);
a location sensor operable to determine a location of the vehicle (paragraphs 35 and 77 teaches GPS);
a controller communicatively connected to the first imager, the second imager, and the location sensor (Fig. 1, processors 110 connect to cameras 126); the controller operable to:
associate the location of the vehicle with a plurality of the plurality of first frames where the location substantially corresponds to the vehicle’s location when each respective first frame was captured (paragraphs 38 and 77-80 teaches wherein the video data captured is associated with the GPS coordinates such that the data is geotagged by its correlation to when the video was captured. Paragraph 38 states “cameras 126 may be configured to record streaming videos of the travel route … the streaming video … may be geotagged … to associated the camera images with geographical locations of the images”), and
store one or more first video clips, each comprising a series of the first frames, and one or more second video clips, each comprising a series of second frames (paragraph 78 teaches wherein the geotagged video file is thereafter stored in the memory. Paragraph 38 states “cameras 126 may be configured to record streaming videos of the travel route … the streaming video … may be geotagged … to associated the camera images with geographical locations of the images”); and
a display communicatively connected to the controller, the display operable to simultaneously show one of the first video clips and a map of an area substantially encompassing all the locations of the vehicle associated with the first frames included in the shown first video clip (see Figs. 41-7B and paragraph 56 wherein a display shows the video data of its corresponding GPS location and a map depicting the location of the vehicle. The map also includes indications of where the vehicle has traveled along its route).
Warner teaches the claimed wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle (paragraph 58 teaches wherein the trip is a completed trip), however, isn’t explicit that the trip of the car/vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle, and therefore, fails to explicitly teach “wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle”.
In an analogous art, Zhao teaches wherein “wherein one or more first video clips correspond to a substantially complete trip of the vehicle and the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle” (paragraphs 27 and 36 teaches wherein records of video include from when the engine is started and to the stopping of driving including driving episodes without using a navigational input per se. Zhao is clear in that “Each driving data stored in the general driving data store 112 includes an episode of driving performed by one driver, containing a sequence of vectors from the start of the driving to the end of the driving” and that “The engine start indicates a start of a new driving episode and may initiate recording of the sensor signals of the sensors 102. The engine stop indicates an end of the driving episode and may terminate the recording of the sensor signals of the sensors 102”. As is clear above, the start of recording is tied to the start of the engine and the termination of the recording is when the engine stop is indicated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Zhao in the system of Warner because said incorporation because said incorporation allows for the recording of drives to allow all drives to be saved for safety and insurance purposes.
While it is noted that Zhao is explicit in teaching the video starts recording from when the engine is started and terminates recording when the driving is engine is stopped, it does not quite state the inherent feature that the vehicle is parked at the time of start and the vehicle is parked again at the time of engine being stopped.
Therefore, in an analogous art, Nishimura explicitly teaches “When driving of the vehicle 30 is started (for example, when the power source is started such as when the ignition is turned on and the vehicle 30 starts traveling from a parked position)” (see paragraphs 35) and “After driving of the vehicle 30 is finished (for example, when the power source is stopped such as when an ignition is turned off and the vehicle 30 is parked)” (see paragraph 34).
The teaching of Nishimura teaches the missing aspect (albeit an inherent feature) of Zhao, that requires a vehicle to be parked when an ignition is turned on, and similarly that requires a vehicle to once again be parked at a second location (after travelling/driving-episode) when the ignition is turned off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura into the proposed combination of Warner and Zhao because Nishimura simply describes an inherent aspect of vehicle operation - namely that a driving episode begins with the vehicle parked at a first location and ends with the vehicle parked at a second location. Since Zhao already detects or analyze s driving episodes (see above), it necessarily requires such start and end condition. Incorporating the inherent vehicle-state transitions from Nishimura would have been an obvious clarification yielding a predictable result consistent with routine principles in the art.
While the prior arts above teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, but Maeda teaches “stored based on a time interval that is independent of a trip duration of the vehicle” (paragraphs 84, 91 and 96-98 teaches storing together all the video segments in a sequence within the same folder from when each of the recording conditions is met. Paragraph 91 teaches that for the recording conditions to be met, a “constant recording file” is created to join the video stream together to generate a proper file. Paragraph 91 further teaches: “That is, the CPU 424 of the reproducing device 400 extracts still image data of ten frames per second during time T2 to T4 and operation information corresponding to this still image data from the folder q at the time of establishment of the recording condition, and combines the extracted information with data recorded in the constant recording file (p+1), thereby forming data of the time T1 to T5 by constant recording”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Maeda into the proposed combination of Warner, Zhao and Nishimura such that the portions of video are recorded based on time intervals because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing the risk of total file loss (paragraph 84).
However, the proposed combination also fails to teach displaying elapsed time within the current time intervals but Bates teaches “in the current time interval, an elapsed time within the current time interval” (paragraphs 68 wherein elapsed and remaining times are displayed for a specific media file).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display both elapsed and remaining time within the current interval because a suer reviewing or monitoring segmented vehicle footage needs to understand their positional relationship to segment boundaries, knowing only elapsed time or only remaining time provides an incomplete picture that prevents the user from efficiently locating footage relative to interval transitions, particularly when evets of interest may occur near segment boundaries or when the system generates additional event-triggered clips that overlap with interval segments.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Shang et al. (US 2020/0275022) further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2010/0129064).
Regarding claim 10, Warner teaches a system for a vehicle comprising:
a first imager operable to capture a first video having a plurality of first frames, the first imager having a first field of view exterior the vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraph 38 teaches one or more cameras 126);
a location sensor operable to determine a location of the vehicle (paragraphs 35 and 77 teaches GPS);
a controller communicatively connected to the first imager, the second imager, and the location sensor (Fig. 1, processors 110 connect to cameras 126); the controller operable to:
associate the location of the vehicle with a plurality of the plurality of first frames where the location substantially corresponds to the vehicle’s location when each respective first frame was captured (paragraphs 38 and 77-80 teaches wherein the video data captured is associated with the GPS coordinates such that the data is geotagged by its correlation to when the video was captured. Paragraph 38 states “cameras 126 may be configured to record streaming videos of the travel route … the streaming video … may be geotagged … to associated the camera images with geographical locations of the images”), and
store a plurality of first video clips, each comprising a series of the first frames, and one or more second video clips, each comprising a series of second frames (paragraph 78 teaches wherein the geotagged video file is thereafter stored in the memory. Paragraph 38 states “cameras 126 may be configured to record streaming videos of the travel route … the streaming video … may be geotagged … to associated the camera images with geographical locations of the images”); and
a display communicatively connected to the controller, the display operable to simultaneously show one of the first video clips and a map of an area substantially encompassing all the locations of the vehicle associated with the first frames included in the shown first video clip (see Figs. 41-7B and paragraph 56 wherein a display shows the video data of its corresponding GPS location and a map depicting the location of the vehicle. The map also includes indications of where the vehicle has traveled along its route).
However fails to teach, but in an analogous art, Shang teaches wherein the plurality of first video clips corresponds to a substantially complete trip of the vehicle and the controller is further operable to store an additional first video clip based, at least in part, on receipt, by the controller of a signal indicative of a vehicle event or a user input during the trip, the additional first video clip smaller than the first video clip corresponding to the substantially complete trip of the vehicle (paragraphs 2 and 61 teaches that even when a drive recorder constantly records the video for the trip, the system is capable of generating an additional video clip to be stored in another folder that is just of the event of the collision).
Therefore, introducing Shang into Warner’s vehicular based camera system allows for the modification such that the videos generated by Warner is made smaller than the length of the complete trip of the vehicle based on a detected collision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Shang into Warner because said incorporation allows for the benefit of further improving the user experience by making sure the user only sees the important portions (paragraph 2 and 61 of Shang).
Warner teaches the claimed wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle (paragraph 58 teaches wherein the trip is a completed trip), however, isn’t explicit that the trip of the car/vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle, and therefore, fails to explicitly teach “wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle”.
In an analogous art, Zhao teaches wherein “wherein the trip of the vehicle is determined based, at least in part, on a first parked location of the vehicle and a second parked location of the vehicle” (paragraphs 27 and 36 teaches wherein records of video include from when the engine is started and to the stopping of driving including driving episodes without using a navigational input per se. Zhao is clear in that “Each driving data stored in the general driving data store 112 includes an episode of driving performed by one driver, containing a sequence of vectors from the start of the driving to the end of the driving” and that “The engine start indicates a start of a new driving episode and may initiate recording of the sensor signals of the sensors 102. The engine stop indicates an end of the driving episode and may terminate the recording of the sensor signals of the sensors 102”. As is clear above, the start of recording is tied to the start of the engine and the termination of the recording is when the engine stop is indicated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Zhao in the system of Warner and Shang because said incorporation because said incorporation allows for the recording of drives to allow all drives to be saved for safety and insurance purposes.
While it is noted that Zhao is explicit in teaching the video starts recording from when the engine is started and terminates recording when the driving is engine is stopped, it does not quite state the inherent feature that the vehicle is parked at the time of start and the vehicle is parked again at the time of engine being stopped.
Therefore, in an analogous art, Nishimura explicitly teaches “When driving of the vehicle 30 is started (for example, when the power source is started such as when the ignition is turned on and the vehicle 30 starts traveling from a parked position)” (see paragraphs 35) and “After driving of the vehicle 30 is finished (for example, when the power source is stopped such as when an ignition is turned off and the vehicle 30 is parked)” (see paragraph 34).
The teaching of Nishimura teaches the missing aspect (albeit an inherent feature) of Zhao, that requires a vehicle to be parked when an ignition is turned on, and similarly that requires a vehicle to once again be parked at a second location (after travelling/driving-episode) when the ignition is turned off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura into the proposed combination of Warner, Shang and Zhao because Nishimura simply describes an inherent aspect of vehicle operation - namely that a driving episode begins with the vehicle parked at a first location and ends with the vehicle parked at a second location. Since Zhao already detects or analyzes driving episodes (see above), it necessarily requires such start and end condition. Incorporating the inherent vehicle-state transitions from Nishimura would have been an obvious clarification yielding a predictable result consistent with routine principles in the art.
While the prior arts above teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, but Maeda teaches “plurality of first video clips” and “captured during a time interval” (paragraphs 84, 91 and 96-98 teaches storing together all the video segments in a sequence within the same folder from when each of the recording conditions is met. Paragraph 91 teaches that for the recording conditions to be met, a “constant recording file” is created to join the video stream together to generate a proper file. Paragraph 91 further teaches: “That is, the CPU 424 of the reproducing device 400 extracts still image data of ten frames per second during time T2 to T4 and operation information corresponding to this still image data from the folder q at the time of establishment of the recording condition, and combines the extracted information with data recorded in the constant recording file (p+1), thereby forming data of the time T1 to T5 by constant recording”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Maeda into the proposed combination of Warner, Shang, Zhao and Nishimura such that the portions of video are recorded based on time intervals because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing the risk of total file loss (paragraph 84).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Hwang et al. (KR20100022247) and further in view of Seder et al. (US 2023/0175855) and further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) and further in view of Farnham et al. (US 10,013,883) and further in view of Lindahl et al. (US 2020/0285331).
Regarding claim 13, Warner teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to teach, but Lindahl teaches wherein the signal is indicative of a user input received via a user interface of a rearview assembly associated with the vehicle (claim 8 teaches a user input being input into a rear-view mirror display device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Lindahl into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham such that the display location and user input can be the rear-view mirror because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing the number of areas to look inside a car when operating the vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Shang et al. (US 2020/0275022) further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2010/0129064) and further in view of Gross et al. (US 2022/0089181).
Regarding claim 15, Warner teaches the claimed as discussed above, however fails to teach, but Gross teaches the claimed wherein the time interval is a minute and, after each minute elapses, the controller is configured to store a most recent one of the plurality of first video clips recorded during the most recently elapsed minute (paragraph 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate Maeda’s continuous interval-based segmentation architecture with Gross’s explicitly disclosed one-minute interval would have arrived at a one-minute interval with a reasonable expectation of success, as one minute represents a well-known and industry-recognized standard segment duration for vehicle recording systems that balances file manageability against recording continuity.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Hwang et al. (KR20100022247) and further in view of Seder et al. (US 2023/0175855) and further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) and further in view of Farnham et al. (US 10,013,883) and further in view of Nishida et al. (US 2017/0124788).
Regarding claim 18, Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham fails to teach a trigger or time interval per se, but Nishida teaches the claimed wherein the controller is communicatively connected to the second imager and is further configured to store one or more second video clips from the second imager in response to at least one of a time interval or a trigger (paragraphs 73-79 teaches the claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nishida into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of alerting emergency personnel while also preserving battery life (paragraphs 4-7).
Regarding claim 19, Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham fails to teach a trigger or time interval per se, but Nishida teaches the claimed wherein the (missing “controller”) is configured to store the one or more second video clips from the second imager in response to the time interval, the time interval is associated with an elapsed amount of time independent of the destination (paragraphs 73-79 teaches the claimed predetermined time independent of destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nishida into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of alerting emergency personnel while also preserving battery life (paragraphs 4-7).
Regarding claim 20, Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham fails to teach a trigger or time interval per se, but Nishida teaches the claimed wherein the (missing “controller”) is configured to store the one or more first video clips from the first imager and the one or more second video clips from the second imager in response to the trigger, the trigger is associated with a collision, and the one or more second video clips are composed of frames from a predetermined amount of time prior to the trigger and a predetermined amount of time after the trigger (paragraphs 73-79 teaches the claimed wherein video from all the cameras are recorded prior to and after a trigger of a collision).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nishida into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura and Farnham because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of alerting emergency personnel while also preserving battery life (paragraphs 4-7).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Hwang et al. (KR20100022247) further in view of Seder et al. (US 2023/0175855) further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) further in view of Farnham et al. (US 10,013,883) and further in view of Nishida et al. (US 2017/0124788) further in view of Maeda et al. (US 2010/0129064) and further in view of Bates et al. (US 2020/0194004).
Regarding claim 21, while Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao, Nishimura, Farnham and Nishida teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to explicitly teach, but Gross teaches wherein the time interval is equal to one minute or less (paragraph 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate Maeda’s continuous interval-based segmentation architecture with Gross’s explicitly disclosed one-minute interval would have arrived at a one-minute interval with a reasonable expectation of success, as one minute represents a well-known and industry-recognized standard segment duration for vehicle recording systems that balances file manageability against recording continuity.
However, the proposed combination also fails to teach displaying elapsed time within the current time intervals but Bates teaches “the display is configured to show a duration of the time interval that includes both the elapsed and time remaining of the time interval” (paragraphs 68 wherein elapsed and remaining times are displayed for a specific media file).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display both elapsed and remaining time within the current interval because a suer reviewing or monitoring segmented vehicle footage needs to understand their positional relationship to segment boundaries, knowing only elapsed time or only remaining time provides an incomplete picture that prevents the user from efficiently locating footage relative to interval transitions, particularly when evets of interest may occur near segment boundaries or when the system generates additional event-triggered clips that overlap with interval segments.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Hwang et al. (KR20100022247) further in view of Seder et al. (US 2023/0175855) further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) and further in view of Perrin, III et al. (US 2016/0144788).
Regarding claim 22, while Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao and Nishimura teaches the claimed as discussed above including cameras used on cars/automobiles, fails to explicitly teach, but Perrin teaches wherein the first imager and the second imager are configured as one of Semi-Conductor Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) or a pixel sensor of Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semi-Conductor (CMOS) technologies (paragraph 337).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Perrin into the proposed combination of Warner, Hwang, Seder, Zhao and Nishimura because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reduction in video file size by utilizing CCD digital sensors to capture digital video.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al. (US 2021/0372809) in view of Hwang et al. (KR20100022247) and further in view of Seder et al. (US 2023/0175855) and further in view Zhao et al. (US 2020/0380354) and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 202/0286250) and further in view of Farnham et al. (US 10,013,883) and further in view of Malalur et al. (US 8,457,880).
Regarding claim 23, while Warner teaches a GPS location sensor in the vehicle opens the possibility of additional devices/sub-components incorporable into the system in paragraph 25, however, in another prior art, Malalur teaches wherein the location sensor is embedded in a user’s mobile communications device (see Figs. 1-2, positioning sensors on the smartphone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Malalur into the proposed combination because one of ordinary skill would highly expect this substitution to yield predictable results, which is the continuous logging of geographical coordinates and timestamps to trace a vehicle’s route.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
As discussed in page 12 of response filed 3/16/26, examiner is also of the same opinion that the prior arts, singularly, or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of “the controller stores the received first frames in a plurality of video segments based on predetermined time intervals starting at a beginning of the trip of the vehicle and continuing until an end of the trip of the vehicle, wherein a video segment associated with the end of the trip of the vehicle is not based on time interval but the end of the trip of the vehicle; and the one or more first video clips are formed by stitching together appropriate video segments.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights