DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0241945) and Haderbache et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0026159).
Regarding Claim 1, Mimura discloses a capture apparatus (Figures 1 and 15, item 1) comprising:
a camera sensor (Figure 1, item 100, paragraph 0027);
a network interface (Figure 1, item 151, paragraph 0041);
a first processor core (Figure 1, item 103, paragraph 0029);
a second processor core (paragraph 0109; i.e., CPU 103 may have multiple cores);
a first non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a first set of instructions that when executed by the first processor core, causes the first processor core to:
provide a virtual action address to a control device (paragraph 0127; i.e., the reference states that an address [equivalent to the claimed “virtual action address”] of the communication circuit 151 within camera 1 is “registered” with the smartphone 1801 in advance; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this to mean an identifying address [e.g., an IP or MAC address] is provided to the smartphone 1801 so that the smartphone 1801 can access the communication circuit 151 when it is needed);
configure the network interface to scan for a connection request to the virtual action address (paragraph 0126; i.e., the communication unit 151 remains on and scans for a start packet to be received from the smartphone 1801; although the start packet is an instruction/command to turn the camera 1 on, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to request the camera to turn on instead, so that the camera can choose to accept the request in the event the camera is low on battery or another reason);
enter a standby mode (paragraph 0123; i.e., all of the components of the camera 1 are placed in an off state except the communication processor 150 and communication circuit 151); and
a second non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a second set of instructions that when executed by the second processor core (Figure 14, items S605 and S611), causes the second processor core to service an action associated with the virtual action address (paragraphs 0124 and 0128; i.e., the camera 1 is turned on and enters the image capture function state in response to the start packet being received at the designated address; the second core can also service the action associated with the virtual action address [see paragraph 0115 - in this example, the second core services a playback function action]).
Mimura does not expressly disclose where the virtual action address is associated with a user-selected action.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., execution of actions using predefined addresses), Haderbache teaches where the virtual action address is associated with a user-selected action (paragraphs 0068 and 0171; i.e., a virtual action address is monitored; if it is accessed, the controller 714 executes “given control” based on that virtual address; a user may select a function/action associated with the virtual address).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Haderbache’s teachings of execution of actions using predefined addresses with the teachings of Mimura, for the purpose of allowing for customization of which action to take when a particular address is accessed thereby enhancing the capabilities of the device.
Regarding Claim 2, Mimura discloses where the connection request to the virtual action address causes a wake event (paragraph 0124; i.e., the start packet causes the camera 1 to turn on).
Regarding Claim 3, Mimura discloses where the first set of instructions further causes the first processor core to boot a general purpose-operating system (paragraph 0045) on the wake event (paragraphs 0052 and 0062; i.e., the smart packet being received from smartphone 1801 can replace the action of manually pressing the power on switch).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura and Haderbache as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takagi (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0286125).
Regarding Claim 4, Mimura discloses where the second set of instructions further causes the second processor core to resume a real-time program on the wake event (paragraph 0115; i.e., the playback function restoration program 1204 may be executed by other cores of the CPU 103).
Mimura and Haderbache do not expressly disclose a real-time operating system.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., digital cameras), Takagi teaches where the first set of instructions further causes the second processor core (Figure 2, item 214) to resume a real-time program on the wake event (paragraphs 0029-0030; i.e., the real time operating system is activated when the camera 100 is turned on [“wake event”]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Takagi’s teachings of digital cameras with the teachings of Mimura and Haderbache, for the purpose of being able to take a photo in a relatively short amount of time in the event a fast action event is occurring.
Regarding Claim 5, Mimura discloses where the action comprises one or more threads to capture an image (paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 6, Mimura discloses where the action comprises one or more threads to capture a video (paragraph 0030; i.e., moving images).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura and Haderbache as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narula et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11,758,598).
Regarding Claim 7, Mimura and Haderbache do not expressly disclose further where the first set of instructions further causes the first processor core to transfer re-connection information to the control device.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., wireless communications), Narula teaches further where the first set of instructions further causes the first processor core to transfer re-connection information to the control device (Column 7, lines 20-52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Narula’s teachings of wireless communications with the teachings of Mimura and Haderbache, for the purpose of avoiding the need to renegotiate the wireless link each time the two devices want to re-establish the link.
Regarding Claim 8, Narula teaches further where the re-connection information comprises pairing and bonding keys (Column 7, lines 20-52).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura and Graif et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0108149).
Regarding Claim 9, Mimura discloses a method for fast wake-up via virtualized addresses comprising:
providing a virtual action address to a control device (paragraph 0127; i.e., the reference states that an address [equivalent to the claimed “virtual action address”] of the communication circuit 151 within camera 1 is “registered” with the smartphone 1801 [the claimed “control device”] in advance; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this to mean an identifying address [e.g., an IP or MAC address] is provided to the smartphone 1801 so that the smartphone 1801 can access the communication circuit 151 when it is needed);
configure a network interface (Figure 1, item 151, paragraph 0041) to scan for a connection request to the virtual action address (paragraph 0126; i.e., the communication unit 151 remains on and scans for a start packet to be received from the smartphone 1801; although the start packet is an instruction/command to turn the camera 1 on, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to request the camera to turn on instead, so that the camera can choose to accept the request in the event the camera is low on battery or another reason);
entering a standby mode (paragraph 0123; i.e., all of the components of the camera 1 are placed in an off state except the communication processor 150 and communication circuit 151) and periodically scanning for the connection request to the virtual action address (paragraph 0126; i.e., the communication unit 151 remains on and scans for a start packet to be received from the smartphone 1801); and
responsive to receiving the connection request, servicing an action associated with the virtual action address (paragraphs 0124 and 0128; i.e., the camera 1 is turned on and enters the image capture function state in response to the start packet being received at the designated address).
Mimura does not expressly disclose where the virtual action address maps to an interrupt that is serviced by a real-time operating system (RTOS).
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., execution of actions using predefined addresses), Graif teaches where the virtual action address maps to an interrupt that is serviced by a real-time operating system (RTOS) (Figure 9, item 922, paragraphs 0078 and 0080; i.e., a dynamic address [the claimed “virtual action address”] maps to an interrupt which can be serviced by a particular execution environment 922; the execution environment may be a real-time operating system).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Graif’s teachings of execution of actions using predefined addresses with the teachings of Mimura, for the purpose of allowing more important events to be performed faster (i.e., by using a real-time operating system as opposed to a traditional operating system).
Regarding Claim 10, Mimura discloses where the action is serviced by a first processor core (Figure 1, item 150); and responsive to receiving the connection request, booting a general-purpose operating system with a second processor core (Figure 1, item 103, paragraphs 0052 and 0062; i.e., the smart packet being received from smartphone 1801 can replace the action of manually pressing the power on switch).
Mimura does not expressly disclose wherein the first processor core executes the real-time operating system.
In the same field of endeavor, Graif teaches wherein the first processor core executes the real-time operating system (paragraph 0080).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 9 applies equally as well to Claim 10.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura and Graif as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Takagi.
Regarding Claim 11, Mimura and Graif do not expressly disclose where the action comprises capturing an image or a video while booting the general-purpose operating system.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., digital cameras), Takagi teaches where the action comprises capturing an image or a video while booting the general-purpose operating system (paragraphs 0045-0046; i.e., the real time operating system allows capturing of an image or video while the general-purpose operating system is still booting up).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Takagi’s teachings of digital cameras with the teachings of Mimura and Graif, for the purpose of being able to take a photo in a relatively short amount of time in the event a fast action event is occurring.
Regarding Claim 12, Mimura discloses transferring the image or the video via the general-purpose operating system (paragraph 0129; i.e., images can be played back on the smartphone 1801, which would involve transferring the images via the OS).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura and Graif as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Narula.
Regarding Claim 13, Mimura and Graif do not expressly disclose generating a network address according to a generic attribute (GATT) profile of a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., wireless communications), Narula teaches generating a network address according to a generic attribute (GATT) profile of a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol (Column 2, lines 50-62 and Column 5, lines 20-26).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Narula’s teachings of wireless communications with the teachings of Mimura and Graif, for the purpose of avoiding the need to renegotiate the wireless link each time the two devices want to re-establish the link.
Regarding Claim 14, Narula teaches serving the network address according to a generic access attribute (GAP) profile of the Bluetooth Low Energy protocol (Column 2, lines 50-62 and Column 5, lines 20-26; i.e., although the term generic access attribute profile is not mentioned in the reference, a GAP profile is inherent and required in a Bluetooth Low Energy connection).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura, Chan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0272592), Graif, Haderbache, and Narula.
Regarding Claim 15, Mimura discloses a control apparatus (Figure 15, item 1801) comprising:
a network interface (paragraph 0122; i.e., an interface for wireless LAN);
a processor core (paragraph 0122; i.e., mobile device such as smartphones and laptops are known in the art to contain at least one processor core); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions that when executed by the processor core, causes the processor core to:
obtain a virtual action address from an action device (paragraph 0127; i.e., the reference states that an address [equivalent to the claimed “virtual action address”] of the communication circuit 151 within camera 1 [the claimed “action device”] is “registered” with the smartphone 1801 in advance; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this to mean an identifying address [e.g., an IP or MAC address] is provided to the smartphone 1801 so that the smartphone 1801 can access the communication circuit 151 when it is needed);
transmit a first connection request to the virtual action address to cause the action device to capture an image (paragraphs 0126 and 0128; i.e., the communication unit 151 remains on and scans for a start packet to be received from the smartphone 1801 and subsequently starts the image capture function restoration program; although the start packet is an instruction/command to turn the camera 1 on, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to request the camera to turn on instead, so that the camera can choose to accept the request in the event the camera is low on battery or another reason).
Mimura does not expressly disclose obtaining a network address from the action device;
where the virtual action address maps to an interrupt that is serviced by a real-time operating system (RTOS) to trigger execution of a user-selected action; and
transmit a second connection request to the network address to request the image.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., remote access between a control device and peripheral device), Chan teaches obtaining a network address from the action device (paragraph 0063; i.e., the predefined address of the other device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Chan’s teachings of remote access between a control device and peripheral device with the teachings of Mimura, for the purpose of being able to identify which specific device to send the request to in the event there are multiple available devices.
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., execution of actions using predefined addresses), Graif teaches where the virtual action address maps to an interrupt that is serviced by a real-time operating system (RTOS) to trigger execution of an action (Figure 9, item 922, paragraphs 0078 and 0080-0081; i.e., a dynamic address [the claimed “virtual action address”] maps to an interrupt which can be serviced by a particular execution environment 922; the execution environment may be a real-time operating system; different types of actions can be executed such as events related to light conditions, changes in captured images, available data, buffer conditions, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Graif’s teachings of execution of actions using predefined addresses with the teachings of Mimura, for the purpose of allowing more important events to be performed faster (i.e., by using a real-time operating system as opposed to a traditional operating system).
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., execution of actions using predefined addresses), Haderbache teaches where the virtual action address is associated with a user-selected action (paragraphs 0068 and 0171; i.e., a virtual action address is monitored; if it is accessed, the controller 714 executes “given control” based on that virtual address; a user may select a function/action associated with the virtual address).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Haderbache’s teachings of execution of actions using predefined addresses with the teachings of Mimura, for the purpose of allowing for customization of which action to take when a particular address is accessed thereby enhancing the capabilities of the device.
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., wireless communications), Narula teaches transmit a second connection request to the network address to request the image (Column 7, lines 20-52; i.e., a Bluetooth connection request is known in the art to include a MAC address; further, the peripheral may be a camera [Column 10, lines 7-11] and therefore the request would be for an image).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Narula’s teachings of wireless communications with the teachings of Mimura, for the purpose of avoiding the need to renegotiate the wireless link each time the two devices want to re-establish the link.
Regarding Claim 16, Narula teaches where the set of instructions causes the processor core to pair and bond to the action device via at least the network address (Column 7, lines 20-52).
Regarding Claim 17, Narula teaches where at least one cryptographic key is shared between the virtual action address and the network address (Column 7, lines 20-52; i.e., cryptographic keys such as Bluetooth IR and ER keys may be used; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a single one of these keys for both the virtual action address and the network address for the purpose of preventing unauthorized access to these addresses for users who do not have access to the key).
Regarding Claim 18, Narula teaches where the virtual action address and the network address have different cryptographic keys (Column 7, lines 20-52; i.e., cryptographic keys such as Bluetooth IR and ER keys may be used; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a different ones of these keys for the virtual action address and the network address for the purpose of preventing unauthorized access to these addresses for users who do not have access to the keys).
Regarding Claim 19, Mimura discloses where the first connection request is sent while the action device is in a sleep mode (paragraphs 0123-0124).
Regarding Claim 20, Mimura discloses where the second connection request is sent after the action device has completed a boot sequence (paragraph 0062).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a camera that receives a command to capture an image from a control device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FAISAL M ZAMAN, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175