DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been considered. However, these arguments are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection discussed below.
Applicant's additional arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re page 2, with respect to claim 15, Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose where the portion of the image data further comprises a length of time after the trigger signal, and the length of time after the trigger signal comprises a predetermined length of time. In particular, Applicant asserts that Yerazunis does not disclose a certain number of frames or time after the trigger.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yerazunis teaches that a same number of frames may be recorded before and after detection of a trigger signal (Yerazunis: column 8, lines 47-50). The particular number of frames, according to Yerazunis, may be a matter of design choice (Yerazunis: column 8, lines 47-61). In this manner, Yerazunis discloses where the portion of the image data further comprises a length of time after the trigger signal, and the length of time after the trigger signal comprises a predetermined length of time.
In re page 2, with respect to claim 16, Applicant argues that Yerazunis fails to disclose, in response to a stop signal after the trigger signal, stop write-protecting of the first portion of the image data. In particular, Applicant asserts that the stop signal of the claim does not equate to an erasure of the data disclosed by Yerazunis and that it just ends the write-protecting segment while the recording of the video continues.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yerazunis discloses that upon activation of a purge button, the contents of a circular buffer and any still images captured are erased (Yerazunis: column 9, lines 47-53. As taught by Yerazunis, a frame stored in the circular buffer is “protected from overwriting while video capture within the circular buffer continues” (Yerazunis: column 9, lines 34-38). Because the frames in the circular buffer are protected from overwriting, purging the frames in the circular buffer results in those frames no longer being write-protected and thus erased. In this manner, Yerazunis discloses, in response to a stop signal after the trigger signal, stop write-protecting of the first portion of the image data.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yerazunis et al. (US 7,158,167 B1, already of
record, referred to herein as “Yerazunis”) in view of Honda (US 2005/0201738 A1, referred to herein as “Honda”) and Feinberg et al. (US 2007/0073937 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Feinberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Yerazunis discloses: A recording system comprising:
a camera (Yerazunis: Fig. 3, element 40; column 3, lines 43-45, disclosing a camera with a lens
and image sensor); and
a processor (Yerazunis: Fig. 3, element 54; column 6, lines 24-26 and 37-42, disclosing a central
control processor that executes a control program) programmed to:
record image data received from the camera into a memory (Yerazunis: column 5, lines 40-67,
disclosing that the camera input is converted to digital signals; column 6, lines 52-55, disclosing that
the frame data is compressed; column 7, lines 7-11, disclosing that the frame data is stored in a
circular memory buffer within semiconductor memory);
in response to a trigger signal, write-protect in the memory, a portion of the image data corresponding to a
length of time prior to the trigger signal (Yerazunis: column 6, lines 40-42, disclosing that the
central control processor receives a number of inputs that permit activation of the recording device;
column 8, lines 8-25, disclosing an event sensor that provides a trigger output signal in response to a
condition desired to initiate video capture; column 8, lines 26-30, disclosing that image frames are
stored in the memory buffer upon detection of the trigger event; column 8, lines 38-61, disclosing
that a number of image frames before the detection of the trigger event may be stored in the memory buffer; column 3, lines 25-33, disclosing that the specified frame data is stored in the
memory buffer so as to be preserved and kept from being overwritten as a result of subsequent
trigger events), wherein the portion of the image data occupies a portion of the at least one memory that is less than
the entirety of the at least one memory (Yerazunis: column 17, lines 9-38, disclosing that the buffer
memory may be subdivided to accommodate image frames from a number of trigger events—e.g.,
with the image frames associated with a first event occupying less than the entirety of the buffer
memory);
[…] and
…transmit a file that includes the write-protected portion (Yerazunis: Fig. 3, element 78, disclosing a
serial output channel; column 9, lines 60-65, disclosing that image frame data may be transmitted to
an external PC, workstation, or other suitable device for viewing of recorded images ), the transmission
occurring from the recording system to a remote memory (Yerazunis: Fig. 3, element 78, disclosing a serial
output channel; column 9, lines 60-65, disclosing that image frame data may be transmitted to an
external PC, workstation, or other suitable device for viewing of recorded images)…
Yerazunis does not explicitly disclose:
index the write-protected portion, wherein the indexing occurs while the image data continues to be recorded into the memory; and
automatically transmit the file wirelessly via a wireless connection.
However, Honda discloses: index the write-protected portion, wherein the indexing occurs while the image data continues to be recorded into the memory (Honda: Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0082] – [0085], disclosing storage of image video and audio data along with index information).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to store the write-protected image date of Yerazunis using the indexing of Honda.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis in this manner in order to more easily select a particular image signal stored on a recording medium (Honda: claim 57, paragraphs [0002] – [0023]).
Yerazunis and Honda do not explicitly disclose: automatically transmit the file wirelessly via a wireless connection.
However, Feinberg discloses: automatically transmit the file wirelessly via a wireless connection
(Feinberg: paragraph [0029], disclosing various digital media storage devices for storing data files;
paragraphs [0027], disclosing wireless transmission of data files via a wireless connection; paragraphs
[0058] and [0072] – [0074], disclosing automatic transmission of files—e.g., based on configuration).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having
ordinary skill in the art to use the wireless transmission of Feinberg in the recording system of
Yerazunis and Honda.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis and Honda in this manner in order to more conveniently transfer data files between devices (Feinberg: paragraphs [0002] – [0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the processor is programmed to continuously record the image data into the memory (Yerazunis: column 7, lines 7-22, disclosing that captured frames continue to be stored in the buffer memory).
Regarding claim 3, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further programmed to continuously record the image data into the memory upon powering on of the system (Yerazunis: column 7, lines 7-22, disclosing that captured frames continue to be stored in the buffer memory; column 8, lines 62-67 and column 9, lines 1-16, disclosing powering on of the system to enable image frame capture).
Regarding claim 5, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the trigger signal comprises a manually-activated trigger signal (Yerazunis: column 2, lines 53-64, disclosing detection of a trigger event such as actuation of a button by a user).
Regarding claim 6, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the trigger signal comprises a signal from a sensor in response to a detection by the sensor (Yerazunis: column 8, lines 8-25, disclosing an event sensor that provides a trigger output signal in response to a condition desired to initiate video capture).
Regarding claim 11, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, further comprising the memory (Yerazunis: column 6, lines 24-26, disclosing a processor coupled to a memory).
Regarding claim 12, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the memory comprises a memory card (Feinberg: paragraphs [0010] and [0025], disclosing use of a memory card).
The motivation for combining Yerazunis and Feinberg has been discussed in connection
with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the length of time prior to the trigger signal comprises a pre-determined length of time (Yerazunis: column 8, lines 43- 61, disclosing recording a predetermined number of frames prior a trigger event; column 10, line 23, disclosing that video is captured at a frame rate—e.g., that a certain number of frames at a certain frame rate designates a length of time).
Regarding claim 15, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the portion of the image data further comprises a length of time after the trigger signal, and the length of time after the trigger signal comprises a predetermined length of time (Yerazunis: column 8, lines 43-61, disclosing recording a predetermined number of frames prior a trigger event; column 10, line 23, disclosing that video is captured at a frame rate—e.g., that a certain number of frames at a certain frame rate designates a length of time).
Regarding claim 16, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1,
wherein the processor is further programmed to, in response to a stop signal after the trigger signal, stop write-protecting of the first portion of the image data (Yerazunis: column 9, lines 47-53, disclosing that image data may be erased upon a signal).
Regarding claim 18, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the remote memory provides for a plurality of levels of functionality, including read access, write access, and edit-level access (Yerazunis: column 13, lines 66-67 and column 14, lines 1-34, disclosing writing of video data in the buffer memory; column 18, lines 55-617, disclosing read access of video data; column 19, lines 1-9, disclosing edit access to generate a time-stamp of image frames).
Regarding claim 20, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to authenticate access to the remote memory to allow for access to the write-protected portion and provide a level of access from a plurality of levels of access based on the authentication
(Yerazunis: column 18, lines 55-67, disclosing use of an authorization code to grant access to read
the video data and erase the video data; Feinberg: paragraph [0058], disclosing authentication of
access for remote storage).
The motivation for combining various embodiments of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 21, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the processor programmed to automatically transmit the file that includes the write-protected portion further comprises the processor programmed to: store the write-protected portion in the memory (Yerazunis: column 3, lines 25-33, disclosing that the specified frame data is stored in the memory buffer so as to be preserved and kept from being overwritten; Feinberg: paragraph [0029], disclosing storage of data files on memory cards); and upon reaching a wireless range of transmission of a wireless transceiver communicatively coupled with the remote memory, initiating the automatic transmission of the file that includes the write-protected portion to the remote memory wirelessly via the wireless connection (Feinberg: paragraphs [0016] and [0095], disclosing wireless transmission to a remote memory based on the proximity of memory devices via an ad hoc wireless network).
The motivation for combining various embodiments of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 23, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the camera is mounted on a security camera mount (Yerazunis: column 4, lines 35-39 and column 14, lines 45-50, disclosing mounting of the camera; column 8, lines 8-17, disclosing use of the device for
security).
Regarding claim 24, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg discloses: The recording system of claim 23, wherein the trigger signal is a sound picked up by a microphone coupled with the camera (Yerazunis discloses: column 16, lines 46-50, disclosing a microphone to detect the trigger signal).
Regarding claim 25, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg discloses: The recording system of claim 1, wherein the processor programmed to automatically transmit the file that includes the write-protected portion further comprises the processor programmed to: receive, from a remote component, a pull request message; and transmit, to the remote memory, the file that includes the write-protected portion (Feinberg: paragraphs [0092], [0094] and [0150], disclosing transmission of data files upon request).
The motivation for combining various embodiments of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Claims 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yerazunis in view of Honda and Feinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isobe et al. (US 2002/0018644 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Isobe”).
Regarding claim 4, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, as
discussed above.
Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg do not explicitly disclose: wherein the processor is programmed to record the image data from the camera into the memory as a stream file.
However, Isobe discloses: wherein the processor is programmed to record the image data from the camera
into the memory as a stream file (Isobe: paragraph [0003], disclosing storage of video data as files;
paragraph [0025], disclosing storage of data as a stream file).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having
ordinary skill in the art to use the stream file of Isobe in the recording system of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg in this manner in order to better repair video data acquired at the time of an unexpected stoppage such as a power failure (Isobe: paragraphs [0005] and [0006]).
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yerazunis in view of Honda and Feinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Logan (US 2003/0125991 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Logan”).
Regarding claim 7, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, as
discussed above.
Yerazunis and Feinberg do not explicitly disclose: wherein the trigger signal comprises a voice signal.
However, Logan discloses: wherein the trigger signal comprises a voice signal (Logan: paragraph
[0072], disclosing use of a voice activated camera).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having
ordinary skill in the art to use the voice signal of Logan in the recording system of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg in this manner in order to permit a user to activate camera recording while performing other tasks (Logan: paragraph [0072]).
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yerazunis in view of Honda and Feinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orii (US 5,200,863 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Orii”).
Regarding claim 19, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, as
discussed above.
Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg do not explicitly disclose: wherein the first trigger signal is generated by pushing a switch on a remote device.
However, Orii discloses: wherein the first trigger signal is generated by pushing a switch on a remote
device (Orii: column 9, lines 49-67; column 13, lines 52-61, disclosing remote control of camera
recording).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having
ordinary skill in the art to use the remote control of Orii in the recording system of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg in this manner in order to miniaturize camera components and permit more user control options (Orii: column 2, lines 3-9 and column 9, lines 49-54).
Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yerazunis in view of Honda and Feinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spitzer (US 6,349,001 B1, already of record, referred to herein as “Spitzer”).
Regarding claim 22, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg do not explicitly disclose: a pair of glasses, wherein the camera is disposed within the pair of glasses; a viewfinder lens disposed on a first lens of the glasses, wherein the viewfinder lens is
arranged to have a same field of view as the camera; and wherein the processor is programmed to cause the glasses to
vibrate.
However, Spitzer discloses: a pair of glasses, wherein the camera is disposed within the pair of glasses
(Spitzer: Fig. 1, disclosing a pair of glasses with a camera disposed within); a viewfinder lens disposed on a
first lens of the glasses, wherein the viewfinder lens is arranged to have a same field of view as the camera (Spitzer:
Fig. 2, column 4, lines 50-54, disclosing a viewfinder lens and camera with a field of view that
overlaps the field of view of a user); and wherein the processor is programmed to cause the glasses to vibrate
(Spitzer: column 7, lines 28-43, disclosing audio transducers integrated within the eyeglasses as
input/output devices that emit vibrations).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having
ordinary skill in the art to use the glasses of Spitzer with the recording system of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg in this manner in order to improve portability (Spitzer: column 1, lines 56-64).
Claim 26 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yerazunis in view of Honda and Feinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindo et al. (US 2009/0133033 A1, referred to herein as “Lindo”).
Regarding claim 26, Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg disclose: The recording system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg do not explicitly disclose: wherein the indexing of the write-protected portion is performed using a memory heap or a clustered index.
However, Lindo discloses: wherein the indexing of the write-protected portion is performed using a memory heap or a clustered index (Lindo: Fig. 7, [0178] – [0180], disclosing storage of data into a memory using index values; paragraph [0328], disclosing storage of write-protected data; paragraph [0140], disclosing use of a memory heap for memory allocation. Note that the earliest parent application of the instant application that discloses indexing of a write-protected portion using a memory heap or clustered index is U.S. App. No. 12/268,286, filed November 10, 2008; Lindo’s filing precedes this date).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the memory heap of Lindo in the recording system of Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg.
One would have been motivated to modify Yerazunis, Honda, and Feinberg in this manner in order to more dynamically allocate memory for data storage (Lindo: paragraphs [0140] – [0141]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017 in view of Lindo.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
A recording system comprising:
a camera; and
a processor programmed to:
record image data received from the camera into a memory;
in response to a trigger signal, write-protect in the memory, a portion of the image data corresponding to a length of time prior to the trigger signal, wherein the portion of the image data occupies a portion of the at least one memory that is less than the entirety of the at least one memory
index the write-protected portion, wherein the indexing occurs while the image data continues to be recorded into the memory; and
automatically transmit a file that includes the write-protected portion, the transmission occurring from the recording system to a remote memory wirelessly via a wireless connection.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017
A recording system comprising:
a camera; and
a processor programmed to:
record image data received from the camera into a memory;
in response to a first trigger signal, write-protect in the memory, a first portion of the image data corresponding to a length of time prior to the first trigger signal, wherein the first portion of the image data occupies a portion of the at least one memory that is less than the entirety of the at least one memory; and
continue to record the image data into the memory while the first portion of the image data is being write-protected;
in response to a second trigger signal, write-protect a second portion of the image data in the memory wherein the second portion occupies less than the remaining entirety of the memory not designated for write-protecting and corresponds to a length of time prior to the second trigger signal; and
upon reaching at least one of the first portion and the second portion while continuing to record the image data in the memory, excluding from overwriting the at least one of the first portion and second portion.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017
8. The recording system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to write-protect the first portion of the image data as a first file in the memory, and transmit the first file to a remote memory.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017
9. The recording system of claim 8, wherein the first file is transmitted wirelessly.
Table 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017 discloses many of the same limitations as shown in Table 1.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017 does not explicitly disclose: index the write-protected portion, wherein the indexing occurs while the image data continues to be recorded into the memory; and automatically transmit a file.
However, Lindo discloses: index the write-protected portion, wherein the indexing occurs while the image data continues to be recorded into the memory (Lindo: Fig. 7, [0178] – [0180], disclosing storage of data into a memory using index values; paragraph [0328], disclosing storage of write-protected data); and automatically transmit the file (Lindo: paragraphs [0372] – [0374], disclosing automated computer systems that send data via a networks—including a wireless network).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the indexing of Lindo in the recording system of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017.
One would have been motivated to modify claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,017 in this manner in order to better identify recorded data (Lindo: paragraphs [0108] and [0178-] – [0180]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights