N O N - F I N A L A C T I O N
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
(pages 6-8 made by Applicant’s Representative – filed 6/27/25)
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objection due to an undescriptive invention title are persuasive in view of the recent amendment. Therefore, this objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 102/103 rejections to amended claim 1 – are persuasive. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon new prior art findings during an updated search AND further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art teachings cited in the “Closest Prior Art” section (below) when applied under 35 USC 102/103.
Specifically, the new grounds of rejection is made because the Examiner overlooked the term “flasher” taught by the previous primary prior art HILDNER in para [0033]. HILDNER’s para [0033] states: “Further, the monitoring device or the camera unit respectively may also include a megapixel sensor (e.g. 8 MP), an autofocus camera objective (or lens), a flasher, an internal memory (e.g. 4 GB), a microphone for touchless remote, an ON/OFF or reset switch and an accelerometer sensor”.
Therefore, regarding Applicant’s amended limitation recited in claim 1:
“an illumination unit configured to project light into a viewing range of the imaging device”,
prior art HILDNER teaches these features over Fig. 10 and para [0033, 0049, 0054] in view of Fig. 1-2 which discloses an imaging apparatus (monitoring device 3) comprising an illumination unit (flasher) configured to project light into a viewing range of the imaging device (flasher’s light projected into the “sensor” FOV or “camera unit 29” FOV which is directed toward/into the oven cooker 10 through glass panel 9).
The previous applied references (HILDNER and HAYASHI) are still considered pertinent to the claimed invention for reasons discussed in the “Closest Prior Art” section (below) and for reasons discussed in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection below.
Closest Prior Art
The prior art (cited on PTO-892) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among these, the following references are considered to be the closest, collectively disclosing the state of the art concerned with a remotely controllable adjustable oven mounted surveillance camera or a remotely controllable mountable surveillance camera in general.
HILDNER (US 20190277509) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-2, FIG. 10-11, FIG. 12-14: monitoring device 3, camera unit 29, oven 10 with glass panel 9 and PARA [0012, 0014, 0018, 0024-26, 0030, 0033, 0049, 0054]. HILDNER’s para [0033] states: “Further, the monitoring device or the camera unit respectively may also include a megapixel sensor (e.g. 8 MP), an autofocus camera objective (or lens), a flasher, an internal memory (e.g. 4 GB), a microphone for touchless remote, an ON/OFF or reset switch and an accelerometer sensor”.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
302
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PARK (US 20170261213) – discloses an oven adjustable camera in which a user’s phone can remotely view capture images and remotely control a camera’s pan (left/right) & tilt (up/down) operations based on user commands. The commands also include controlling an oven’s light source. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 5-7, 9-10, 18-29, and PARA [0193-0198].
KUROYAMA (US 20160364613) – discloses an oven adjustable camera in which a user’s mobile device can remotely view capture images and remotely control a camera’s direction / angle based on user commands. The commands also include controlling brightness. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 15, and PARA [0112, 0176].
PFAFFINGER (US 20160366314) – discloses an oven mounted adjustable camera having a battery. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-5, and PARA [0016-40].
LUCKHARDT (US 20170208652) – discloses an oven mounted adjustable camera having a power supply that may be a plug connector, cable, and rechargeable battery. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-5, and PARA [0063, 0072, 0077-78, 0081].
CHIEN (US 20180332204) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, discloses a mountable surveillance camera with LED lights, power supply being a prong/wired and rechargeable battery. See FIG. 7B, 11A, 12F, 12G, 12I, PARA [0092, 0114, 0242, 0249, 0406, 0467-468, 0485], and FIG. 17.
YUMIKI (US 20120307091) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Fig. 1: Remote Control “SELF-STAND” 50 Pan/Tilt 51 for a surveillance wireless camera 1, para [0072-75, 0146].
FAHN (US 20090128647) – discloses a surveillance camera having an in-body adjustable image sensor that may pan, tilt, and zoom. See FIG. 1, 2A-B, 3B and PARA [0034-35].
HAYASHI (US 20170180635) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, discloses a phone for remote viewing capture images and remote controlling a camera’s pan/tilt/zoom operation based on user commands. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1, and PARA [0109-111].
TANIGUCHI (US 20220151037) – discloses a food monitoring oven camera with adjustable exposure conditions such as adjusting the lighting. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 2, and PARA [0111].
BEIFUSS (US 20170188416) – discloses a food monitoring oven camera that may receive images captured by a camera. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1 & 2, and PARA [0015].
NOTE: Examiner welcomes INTERVIEW(s) to discuss the instant application’s claimed invention as it corresponds to the specification embodiments, as well as, discussing the similarities/differences taught/not taught by prior art. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments/amendments should not only address the cited closest art applied/relied on in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection (below), but also address the other cited closest art not applied/relied on.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HILDNER (US 20190277509) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, HILDNER teaches an imaging apparatus (Fig. 1-2 in view of Fig. 10 and para [0033, 0049, 0054]: monitoring device 3) comprising:
an imaging device configured to perform image capturing and to generate imaging data (Fig. 1-2 in view of Fig. 10 and para [0033, 0049, 0054]: monitoring device 3 includes a megapixel sensor or camera unit 29);
a support body configured to support the imaging device (Support body with six walls shown in Figures 2, 10, 11 in view of para [0033, 0049, 0054]: houses the megapixel sensor or camera unit 29);
an attachment/detachment mechanism configured to temporarily attach the support body to a cooking apparatus (Fig. 2 in view of para [0049]: support body has fixation units 2 which may be suction cups, magnetic strips, hook & loop fastener for easy fastening of the monitoring device 3 to the glass panel 9 of the cooking appliance “oven” 10 as shown mounted in Fig. 1);
wherein the cooking apparatus includes a cooking space in which food is cooked, and a window portion causing the cooking space to be visible (Fig. 1 in view of para [0049]: cooking appliance “oven” 10 has an interior cooking space and a glass panel “window” 9), and
the attachment/detachment mechanism temporarily attaches the support body to the cooking apparatus at a position at which an image of the cooking space is capturable by the imaging device through the window portion (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in view of para [0049]: monitoring device 3 support body uses front-mounted fixation units 2 (i.e. suction cups, magnetic strips, hook & loop fastener) which attaches the monitoring device 3 to the oven 10 glass panel 9 such that the camera’s lens objective 1 is positioned to capture images through the glass panel 9).
As per CLAIM 2, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a wireless communication unit configured to wirelessly transmit the imaging data (HILDNER, Fig. 10 in view of para [0014, 0024, 0054]: wireless communication devices 20 & 23 (i.e. Wi-Fi or Bluetooth antennas) may be integrated into the camera unit 29 and attached to the monitoring device 3 support body. Para [0024] states: “The wireless communication devices allow to stream and record audio and video images by mobile devices such as smart phones and laptops. Furthermore, operators can use a standard web browser to connect to the monitoring device for viewing, recording or taking snap shots. It can also be controlled by means of different applications which allow detecting a preview multiple monitoring devices connected to the local area network (LAN)”).
As per CLAIM 6, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a partition wall disposed between the imaging device and the illumination unit (Fig. 1-2 in view of Fig. 10 and para [0033, 0049, 0054]: this limitation is taught when considering the embodiment that the camera unit 29 includes the megapixel sensor “imaging device” AND that the monitoring device 3 includes the flasher and camera unit 29. Therefore, the six walls of the camera unit 29 serve as partition walls between the sensor “imaging device” and the flasher “illumination device”).
As per CLAIM 7, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the partition wall has flexibility (Merely claiming that the walls have “flexibility” is not descriptive enough to be patentable over HILDNER’s camera unit 29 six walls because materials in general have a certain measurable degree of elasticity / tensile strength depending on the materials composition, size, shape, thickness and external factors such as temperature).
As per CLAIM 14, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a power supply interface unit to which an external power supply line is detachably connected (HILDNER, para [0025-26]).
As per CLAIM 15, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising: a secondary battery configured to store power supplied to the power supply interface unit (HILDNER, para [0025-26]).
As per CLAIM 16, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a blackout portion configured to suppress light reflected by the window portion of the cooking apparatus from entering a viewing range of the imaging device (HILDNER, Fig. 1-2 & Fig. 10-11: support walls of monitoring device 3 considered to be blackout portion).
As per CLAIM 17, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the blackout portion is a portion of the support body (HILDNER, Fig. 1-2 & Fig. 10-11: support walls of monitoring device 3 considered to be blackout portion).
As per CLAIM 18, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the blackout portion has flexibility (HILDNER, Fig. 1-2 & Fig. 10-11: support walls of monitoring device considered to be blackout portion, wherein the support walls are considered to have flexibility. Merely claiming that the walls have “flexibility” is not descriptive enough to be patentable over HILDNER’s camera unit 29 six walls because materials in general have a certain measurable degree of elasticity / tensile strength depending on the materials composition, size, shape, thickness and external factors such as temperature).
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 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 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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HILDNER (US 20190277509) in view of CHIEN (US 20180332204) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 4, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1 but remains silent to: “a control unit configured to control a light amount of the light emitted from the illumination unit”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was known in the related art for a digital camera. For example, prior art CHIEN, discloses a mountable surveillance camera with LED lights (FIG. 7B, 11A, 12F, 12G, 12I) that are controllable via a software APP via wireless communications per FIG. 17 in view of PARA [0092, 0114, 0242, 0249, 0406, 0467-468, 0485].
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of CHIEN into suitable modification with the teachings of HILDNER to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of controlling a camera and camera lights to improve the capturing lighting conditions in the analogous art of a camera controlled by wireless control commands.
As per CLAIM 5, HILDNER in view of CHIEN teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a wireless communication unit configured to wirelessly receive a light amount instruction signal instructing the light amount of the light emitted from the illumination unit to be changed, wherein the control unit controls the light amount of the light emitted from the illumination unit based on the light amount instruction signal (This limitation is considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 4. HILDNER, see Fig. 10 in view of para [0014, 0024, 0054]: wireless communication devices 20 & 23 (i.e. Wi-Fi or Bluetooth antennas) may be integrated into the camera unit 29 and attached to the monitoring device 3 support body. Para [0024] states: “The wireless communication devices allow to stream and record audio and video images by mobile devices such as smart phones and laptops. Furthermore, operators can use a standard web browser to connect to the monitoring device for viewing, recording or taking snap shots. It can also be controlled by means of different applications which allow detecting a preview multiple monitoring devices connected to the local area network (LAN)”. Additional teachings of CHIEN discloses a mountable surveillance camera with LED lights (FIG. 7B, 11A, 12F, 12G, 12I) that are controllable via a software APP via wireless communications (i.e. Wi-Fi) per FIG. 17 in view of PARA [0092, 0114, 0242, 0249, 0406, 0467-468, 0485]).
As per CLAIM 6, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding the limitation: “a partition wall disposed between the imaging device and the illumination unit” HILDNER’s Fig. 1-2 in view of Fig. 10 and para [0033, 0049, 0054]: this limitation could be considered taught when considering the embodiment that the camera unit 29 includes the megapixel sensor “imaging device” AND that the monitoring device 3 includes the flasher and camera unit 29. Therefore, the six walls of the camera unit 29 serve as partition walls between the sensor “imaging device” and the flasher “illumination device”.
However, to further illustrate this limitation is well known see prior art CHIEN, discloses a mountable surveillance camera with LED lights (12F, 12G, 12I) and FIG. 17 in view of PARA [0092, 0114, 0242, 0249, 0406, 0467-468, 0485] which have separate housings for the camera and the LED lights, thus, serving as partition members to preventing unwanted light from impairing image capture.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of CHIEN into suitable modification with the teachings of HILDNER to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of preventing unwanted light from impairing image capture in the analogous art of a digital camera.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HILDNER (US 20190277509) in view of HAYASHI (US 20170180635) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 8, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding the limitations: “wherein the imaging device includes a viewing range adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a viewing range of the imaging device”, HILDNER, para [0030] discloses orienting section arranges the camera objective within the predetermined distance and/or within an angle relative to the monitoring region of the household appliance. It therefore can be managed for the perfect settings of the focus and/or the right angle of the camera objective in order to achieve the best images of the monitoring region 32.
Given HILDNER’s sparse explanation of the “orienting section”, it may not be clear if this is referring to the limitation “viewing range adjustment mechanism”. However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was known in the related art for a digital camera. For example, prior art HAYASHI, discloses a phone for remote viewing capture images and remote controlling a camera’s pan, tilt, zoom operations (which control the camera’s pan/tilt/zoom mechanisms) based on user commands. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-2, and PARA [0109-111].
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of HAYASHI (camera’s pan/tilt/zoom mechanisms) into suitable modification with the teachings of HILDNER (camera unit 29) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of controlling a camera in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 9, HILDNER in view of HAYASHI teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising: a wireless communication unit configured to wirelessly receive a viewing range instruction signal instructing the viewing range to be changed; and a control unit configured to control the viewing range adjustment mechanism based on the viewing range instruction signal (HILDNER, this feature is implied over para [0024] in view of para [0030, 0049-53]: operator wirelessly connect to camera for viewing, recording, and taking snap shots AND the additional teachings of HAYASHI, which discloses a phone for remote viewing capture images and remote controlling a camera’s pan, tilt, zoom operations (which control the camera’s pan/tilt/zoom mechanisms) based on user commands. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-2, and PARA [0109-111]).
As per CLAIM 10, HILDNER teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, but remains silent to: “an imaging direction adjustment mechanism configured to adjust an attachment angle of the imaging device with respect to the support body”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was known in the related art for a digital camera. For example, prior art HAYASHI, discloses a phone for remote viewing capture images and remote controlling a camera’s pan, tilt, zoom operations (which control the camera’s pan/tilt/zoom mechanisms) based on user commands. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-2, and PARA [0109-111]: the pan / tilt mechanisms adjust an attachment angle of the imaging device 20 with respect to the support body 12.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of HAYASHI (camera’s pan/tilt mechanisms relative to support body) into suitable modification with the teachings of HILDNER (camera unit 29 relative to support body 3) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of controlling a camera in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 11, HILDNER in view of HAYASHI teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising: a wireless communication unit configured to wirelessly receive an attachment angle instruction signal instructing the attachment angle of the imaging device to be changed; and a control unit configured to control the imaging direction adjustment mechanism based on the attachment angle instruction signal (HILDNER, see para [0024] in view of para [0030, 0049-53]: operator wirelessly connect to camera for viewing, recording, and taking snap shots AND the additional teachings of HAYASHI, FIG. 1-2, and PARA [0109-111] for wireless control commands to adjust pan/tilt of camera 20).
As per CLAIM 12, HILDNER in view of HAYASHI teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1 but remains silent to: “a self-standing mechanism configured to cause the support body to stand by itself”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was known in the related art for a digital camera. For example, prior art HAYASHI, discloses a phone for remote viewing capture images and remote controlling a camera’s pan, tilt, zoom operations (which control the camera’s pan/tilt/zoom mechanisms) based on user commands. See ABSTRACT, FIG. 1-2, and PARA [0109-111]: the pan / tilt mechanisms adjust an attachment angle of the imaging device 20 with respect to the support body 12, wherein para [0057] states a tripod mounting unit (for example, tripod screw hole; not shown) to be provided on a back surface of the device body 12.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of HAYASHI (camera’s pan/tilt mechanisms relative to support body mounted on a tripod) into suitable modification with the teachings of HILDNER (camera unit 29 relative to support body 3) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of controlling a camera in the analogous art of a digital camera.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HILDNER (US 20190277509) in view of HAYASHI (US 20170180635) in view of YUMIKI (US 20120307091) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 13, HILDNER in view of HAYASHI teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 12 but remains silent to: “wherein the self-standing mechanism includes a posture adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a posture of the support body”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was known in the related art for a tripod. For example, prior art YUMIKI, discloses an imaging apparatus 1 (having a support body) that can be mounted a tripod 50 having an electric pan head 51 in which a motor is mounted per para [0030, 0075] to adjust pan / tilt of a mounted support body of an imaging apparatus. Furthermore, it is well known that the pan/tilt motor may be configured in the imaging apparatus or the tripod per para [0153] in view of para [0030, 0075].
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of YUMIKI into suitable modification with the teachings of HILDNER in view of HAYASHI to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of controlling a camera in the analogous art of a digital camera.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the EXAMINER should be directed to AKSHAY TREHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5252. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 10am – 6pm during the weekdays Monday – Friday.
Interviews with the examiner are available via telephone AND video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may contact the examiner via telephone OR use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR), which can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached on (571) 272-7406. 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.
/AKSHAY TREHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639