DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2025 has been entered.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
3. An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
The application has been amended as follows:
It is noted that the claim, No. 4 is repeated twice. Please renumber claims starting from second claim 4 through claim 19; as claims 5-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1,3-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is noted that, the disclosure of the instant application fails to support and/or clearly define the claimed limitation “the second temperature gradient sensitivity is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity” and/or “the first motion sensor is configured with the first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with the second temperature gradient sensitivity that is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity” in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms. The only place, in the disclosure of the instant application, that mentions “temperature gradient” is in paragraph 0012, thus generally indicates “The pyroelectric sensors can be activated based on a temperature gradient, such as can be produced by a moving animal. Each motion sensor may have an adjustable sensitivity setting that determines how much of a gradient is sufficient to trigger the motion sensor (and/or adjustable amplifier gain) to cause the controller to take a picture/video”. For the purpose of art rejection, the claim is rejected based on temperature gradient defined in paragraph 0012.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlatky et al. (US 2019/0098199) in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0010109, provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hlatky teaches a trail camera comprising: a lens; a first motion sensor; a
second motion sensor; a flash; and a controller (e.g., figs. 1-2, Further implementations may have multiple motion sensors, e.g., one per viewing angle, and the particular viewing angle that is used for a given trigger may be based on the corresponding motion sensor that generated the trigger) configured to; receive user input or configuration instructions specifying first trail camera settings to employ when triggered by the first motion sensor and second trail camera settings, different from the first trail camera settings, to employ when the second motion sensor is triggered (e.g., paragraphs 0004,0010,0013,0138,0215, claim 21), while the first motion sensor is configured with a first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with a second temperature gradient sensitivity that is different than the first temperature gradient sensitivity (e.g., paragraphs 0010,0048,0073-0074,0141), when triggered by the first motion sensor, cause the trail camera to capture images according to the first trail camera settings specified by the user input or the configuration instructions (e.g., fig. 2, paragraphs 0005,0012,0015,0021,0026-0027,0036), and when triggered by the second motion sensor, cause the trail camera to capture images according to the second trail camera settings specified by the user input or the configuration instructions (e.g., paragraphs 0138,0215, claims 21,27), wherein the first trail camera settings and the second trail camera settings have different values that control image capture by the trail camera (e.g., paragraphs 0074,
0094,0141).
Hlatky, is silent to explicitly teach the claim language, for example; second motion sensor and/or second motion sensor is concurrently configured with a second sensitivity that is different than the first motion sensor sensitivity.
However; Hlatky (e.g., paragraphs 0138,0215 ad claims 21,27, and throughout the disclosure) teaches some implementation may use separate motion sensors with different sensitivity for triggering the trail camera to take picture/video, and further indicates control/adjust sensitivity settings on the motion sensors, higher motion sensitivity settings can be used to capture relatively more pictures In
these cases, the wireless control unit/computing device may be in wireless communication with the
remote motion sensors and control sensitivity settings on the motion sensors (which obviously implies
that, the motion sensors can be concurrently "Note that, the word concurrently does not carry any
weight, since the disclosure of the invention indicates, multiple motion sensors configurable to different
sensitivities, thus reads on sensitivity settings on the motion sensors disclosed by the reference" set to
have different sensitivity, further examiner indicate that the motion sensors are conventional electronic
devices, each can be set to a different range/sensitivity, which is known to one skilled in the art, and is
not specific to the current invention. For further clarification, it is noted that;
Chen (e.g., figs. 1-3, trail camera 10 with two separate first and second sensors 30,32, also paragraphs 0010,0027-0028) teaches the two sensors have different signal reactions under different temperatures, and controller is electrically connected with the two sensors for receiving the trigger signal from the first sensor or the second sensor and for photographing after receiving the trigger signal.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adaptive trial cameras of Hlatky, by using two motion sensors, as suggested by Chen, a first and a second motion sensors with different sensitivity for triggering the camera.
Regarding claim 2, Hlatky, teaches the trail camera of claim 1, wherein the first trail camera settings and the second trail camera settings have different values for least one of time lapse functionality, triggering functionality, flash intensity, picture/video mode functionality, number of pictures taken per trigger, length of videos, video frame rate, exposure time, and/or image resolution of the trail camera (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0017,0023-0026, 0074,0077,0080
0094,0141, etc.)
Regarding claim 3, Hlatky, teaches the trail camera of claim 2, wherein the second temperature gradient sensitivity is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity (e.g., fig. 1, paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 4, Hlatky, also teaches the trail camera of claim 3, wherein the user input or configuration instructions specify a first number of images to capture when triggered by the first motion sensor and a second number of images, greater than the first number, to capture when triggered by the second motion sensor, and the controller is configured to: while the first motion sensor is configured with the first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with the second temperature gradient sensitivity that is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity: cause the trail camera to capture the first number of images when triggered by the first motion sensor; and cause the trail camera to capture the second number of images, greater than the first number, when triggered by the second motion sensor (e.g., the fact that, the reference teaches taking certain number of pictures for each activation of the motion sensor/trigger, and further indicates, adjust/control motion sensor sensitivity, higher motion sensitivity settings can be used to capture relatively more pictures/video, also figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0010,0012,0023-0025, claims 21,27, also refer to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4 (renumbered as 5), Hlatky, teaches the trail camera of claim 3, wherein the user input or configuration instructions specify capturing pictures when triggered by the first motion sensor and capturing videos when triggered by the second motion sensor, and the controller is configured to: while the first motion sensor is configured with the first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with the second temperature gradient sensitivity that is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity: cause the trail camera to capture pictures when triggered by the first motion sensor; and cause the trail camera to capture videos when triggered by the second motion sensor (e.g., please refer to claim 1 and 4 above).
Regarding claim 5 (renumbered as 6), Hlatky, also teaches the trail camera of claim 3, wherein the user input or configuration instructions specify a first image resolution to employ when triggered by the first motion sensor and a second image resolution to employ when triggered by the second motion sensor, the first image resolution being different than the second image resolution, and the controller is configured to: while the first motion sensor is configured with the first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with the second temperature gradient sensitivity that is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity: cause the trail camera to capture images or video at the first image resolution when triggered by the first motion sensor; and cause the trail camera to capture images or video at the second image resolution that is different than the first image resolution when triggered by the second motion sensor (e.g., refer to claims 1 and 4, also abstract, paragraphs 0025-0026,0061-0062,0067-0068,0071,0074,0151,0155,0166).
Regarding claim 6 (renumbered as 7), Hlatky, also teaches the trail camera of claim 3, wherein the user input or configuration instructions specify a first length of videos to capture when triggered by the first motion sensor and a second length of videos, greater than the first length, to capture when triggered by the second motion sensor, and the controller is configured to; while the first motion sensor is configured with the first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with the second temperature gradient sensitivity that is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity: cause the trail camera to capture videos of the first length when triggered by the first motion sensor; and cause the trail camera to capture videos of the second length, greater than the first length, when triggered by the second motion sensor (please refer to claims 1 and 4 above, also paragraphs 0023,0025-0026,0059-0060,0065-0066,0074,0151, etc.; which is similar to paragraphs 0017,0019 of the disclosure of the instant application).
Regarding claim 7 (renumbered as 8), Hlatky, teaches the trail camera of claim 3, wherein the user input or configuration instructions specify that the trail camera temporarily enters time lapse mode or concurrent time lapse and triggering mode when triggered by the second motion sensor, and the controller is configured to: while the first motion sensor is configured with the first temperature gradient sensitivity and the second motion sensor is concurrently configured with the second temperature gradient sensitivity that is relatively less sensitive than the first temperature gradient sensitivity: cause the trail camera to temporarily enter time lapse mode or the concurrent time lapse and triggering mode when triggered by the second motion sensor (e.g., it is noted that the claim is set in an alternative form, and abstract, paragraphs 0017,0022,0024,0026-0028,0038-0041, claims 22,24,32,
34, meets at least one of the above alternatives).
Claims 8-15 (renumbered as 9-16); the limitations claimed are substantially similar to the above claims 1-7, and has been addressed in the above claims.
Regarding claim 16 (renumbered as 17), the trail camera of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to increase or decrease temperature gradient sensitivity of the first motion sensor responsive to the trigger by the second motion sensor, or shorten time lapse intervals responsive to the trigger by the second motion sensor (e.g., control/adjust sensitivity of motion sensor disclosed throughout the disclosure, paragraphs 0010,0017,0027,0088,0091,0093, consider to be equivalent to the limitation as claimed).
8. Claims 17-19 (renumbered as 18-20), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlatky et al. (US 2021/0337108) in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0010109) and further in view of Harry et al. (WO 2015/139971).
Regarding claim 17 (renumbered as 18), Hlatky as discussed in the above action, teaches the trail camera of claim 11, including motion sensors and controller to trigger and alter trial camera settings and/or turning on or off the motion sensor, and/or switch between modes to capture video and/or image.
Hlatky, is silent to explicitly teach controller is configured to, disable the first motion sensor or
ignore triggers from the first motion sensor for a specified period of time after receiving the trigger from
the second motion sensor.
Harry, in the same field of endeavor teaches the above triggering and disabling motion sensors
(e.g., abstract, fig. 3, also entire disclosure).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Harry, into the adaptive
trial camera system of Hlatky, in order to enable/disable motion sensors based on desired purpose.
Regarding claim 18 (renumbered as 19), the combination of Hlatky and Harry teach the trail camera, wherein the controller is configured to temporarily operate the trail camera according to the second trail camera settings for a specified period of time after receiving the trigger from the second motion sensor, and then revert to the first trail camera settings (Hlatky, abstract, paragraphs 0003-0005, 0017-0019,0024, 0013,0017-0019,0024,0033-0034,0041,0053,0070-0071, consider equivalent to the above limitation).
Regarding claim 19 (renumbered as 20), the combination of Hlatky and Harry teach the trail camera, wherein the wherein the controller is configured to receive the specified period of time via user input to a user interface mechanism on the trail camera or by receiving the specified period of time wirelessly from another device (e.g., indication of the trial camera may provide various user interface, user inputs, fig. 2, paragraphs 0027,0036,0060 of Hlatky).
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. 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.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482