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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claim language, addressed on new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically taught 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Letter et al. (US 20170219815) (hereinafter Letter), further in view of Wall (US 20110072956) (hereinafter Wall), further in view of Simon et al. (US 20160368510) (hereinafter Simon), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff), further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 1, Kaylor teaches a trailer that is towable by a vehicle; a telescopic mast that is mounted atop said trailer (see Kaylor fig. 1 and paragraph 32-34 regarding towable vehicle trailer with beam and cameras mounted at top of telescopic mast),
a beam mounted atop said telescopic mast; (see Kaylor fig. 1 and paragraph 32-34 regarding towable vehicle trailer with beam and cameras mounted at top of telescopic mast), an
However, Kaylor does not explicitly teach a thermal optical imager as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Richards, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches A mobile real-time monitoring system for high-voltage electrical equipment (see Richards paragraph 3) comprising:
wherein said imaging system further comprises a thermal imager and optical imager (see Richards paragraph 45 regarding camera mountable on a movable platform and paragraph 25 regarding both IR and visible light camera as part of camera- in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kaylor to include the teaching of Richards so that in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the modular camera apparatus to an electrical monitoring environment to increase portability and modularity of the monitoring cameras (see Richards paragraph 3 regarding electrical application of cameras).
However, the combination of Kaylor and Richards does not explicitly teach a hand crank as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Letter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein said telescopic mast has a hand crank that is capable of lowering and raising said telescopic mast (see Letter paragraph 35 regarding hand crank for camera telescoping mast in combination with motorized drive- in combination with Kaylor, the telescoping mast of Kaylor may include the hand crank of Letter in combination with the motorized drive),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor and Richards to include the teaching of Letter so that in combination with Kaylor, the telescoping mast of Kaylor may include the hand crank of Letter in combination with the motorized drive.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to allow for the telescoping mast to be either manually or automatically raised or lowered (see Letter paragraph 35).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, and Letter does not explicitly teach a loudspeaker as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Wall, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a two-way loudspeaker mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Wall paragraph 69 regarding two-way speaker attached to the end of a camera pole- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescopic mast may have a two-way speaker):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, and Letter to include the teaching of Wall so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescopic mast may have a two-way speaker.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide means for remote communication at a surveillance mast (see Wall paragraph 69).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, and Wall does not explicitly teach a spotlight as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Simon, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a spotlight on a pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ) base mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Simon paragraph 56 regarding spotlight on a mast on a pan tilt unit- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the mast may have a pant tilt spotlight- examiner notes that the Z in PTZ refers to the zoom function of a camera, which is not applicable to a spotlight, so a pan-tilt base fully satisfies a PTZ base for a spotlight);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, and Wall to include the teaching of Simon so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the mast may have a pant tilt spotlight- examiner notes that the Z in PTZ refers to the zoom function of a camera, which is not applicable to a spotlight, so a pan-tilt base fully satisfies a PTZ base for a spotlight.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide an illumination source at a surveillance mast (see Simon paragraph 56).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, and Simon does not explicitly teach a heat sink as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Van Hoff, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an imaging system that is located in said imaging system chassis and having a first heat sink located between the imaging system and said lid, and a second heat sink located between the imaging system and said vented bottom surface (see Van Hoff paragraph 9 and figure 1 regarding heat sinks above and below camera portion of a camera module that is within a greater housing- in combination with Kaylor, Richards, and Montgomery and Miller bellow, the camera of the combination may have the upper and lower heat sinks of Van Hoff and be placed in the chassis with a lid and vented bottom surface of Montgomery and Miller), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, and Simon to include the teaching of Van Hoff so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the camera of the combination may have the upper and lower heat sinks of Van Hoff.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide for heat management in a camera housing (see Van Hoff paragraph 9).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, and Van Hoff does not explicitly teach a lid as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Montgomery, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a camera chassis having a lid (see Montgomery paragraph 19 and figures 2 and 3 regarding hinged lid on top of camera chassis- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the imaging system chassis may have a lid) and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, and Van Hoff to include the teaching of Montgomery so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the imaging system chassis may have a lid.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to allow for ease of access to the camera’s internal structure (see Montgomery paragraph 19 and figures 2 and 3).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, and Montgomery does not explicitly teach a lid as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Miller, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vented bottom surface, the imaging system chassis attached to said beam (see Miller paragraphs 102 and figures 1 and 5A regarding beam mounted imaging system chassis with vented bottom surface- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the beam mounted imaging chassis may have bottom vents);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, and Montgomery to include the teaching of Miller so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the beam mounted imaging chassis may have bottom vents.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the camera chassis’ ability to deal with heat (see Miller paragraphs 102 and figures 1 and 5A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said imaging system is mounted onto a PTZ bracket (see Kaylor fig. 1 and paragraph 32-34 regarding towable vehicle trailer with beam and cameras mounted at top of telescopic mast and paragraph 40 regarding PTZ cameras obviating PTZ bracket and rotatable base that allows camera to pan).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said PTZ bracket is attached to a rotatable base, wherein said rotatable base is attached to said beam (see Kaylor fig. 1 and paragraph 32-34 regarding towable vehicle trailer with beam and cameras mounted at top of telescopic mast and paragraph 40 regarding PTZ cameras obviating PTZ bracket and rotatable base that allows camera to pan [rotate]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said trailer further comprises a network box that contains a computer and router (see Kaylor paragraph 40-43 regarding cabinet of trailer that includes computing devices and transmitting equipment [router]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said network box is in bidirectional communication with said imaging system (see Kaylor fig. 9 and paragraphs 40-43 and 69 regarding bidirectional communication between cabinet and imaging system. Cabinet receives images from camera and PTZ control means imaging system receives control signals from cabinet module).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said network box is in bidirectional communication with a control station (see Kaylor paragraphs 48 and 69 regarding command center in communication with an individual trailer, where trailer sends command center images and receives camera control commands from command center).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said trailer is powered by an electrical plug (see Kaylor paragraph 45 regarding external AC power for trailer).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Letter, Wall, Simon, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said trailer has a solar panel mounted on the top (see Kaylor paragraph 47 regarding solar panel mounted on trailer, obviating a top mount as that would be the direction facing the sun).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Tomomasa et al. (US 20170094144) (hereinafter Tomomasa), further in view of Cao et al. (US 20220165167) (hereinafter Cao), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff), further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 9, Kaylor teaches a battery pack (see Kaylor paragraph 45 regarding battery pack for camera on telescoping mast that is rechargeable);
said imaging system mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Kaylor fig. 1 and paragraph 32-34 regarding cameras mounted at top of telescopic mast), and
However, Kaylor does not explicitly teach a thermal optical imager as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Richards, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches A mobile real-time monitoring system for high-voltage electrical equipment (see Richards paragraph 3) comprising:
the imaging system comprising a thermal imager and an optical imager (see Richards paragraph 45 regarding camera mountable on a movable platform and paragraph 25 regarding both IR and visible light camera as part of camera- in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kaylor to include the teaching of Richards so that in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the modular camera apparatus to an electrical monitoring environment to increase portability and modularity of the monitoring cameras (see Richards paragraph 3 regarding electrical application of cameras).
However, the combination of Kaylor and Richards does not explicitly teach an autonomous vehicle as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Tomomasa, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of mobile inspection units, each comprising: an autonomous vehicle base, wherein said autonomous vehicle base further comprises a navigation module, a motor unit (see Tomomasa paragraphs 68, 73, and 106 regarding GPS navigated autonomous vehicle with telescopic raised camera- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescoping IR and visible camera may be mounted on the autonomous vehicle of Tomomasa- in combination with Cao below, the vehicle of Tomomasa may be one of a plurality of vehicles), and
a telescopic mast that is mounted atop said autonomous vehicle base (see Tomomasa paragraphs 68, 73, and 106 regarding GPS navigated autonomous vehicle with telescopic raised camera- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescoping IR and visible camera may be mounted on the autonomous vehicle of Tomomasa);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor and Richards to include the teaching of Tomomasa so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescoping IR and visible camera may be mounted on the autonomous vehicle of Tomomasa.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to further increase modularity of cameras on a wheeled platform by having the wheeled platform navigate itself autonomously (see Tomomasa paragraphs 68, 73, and 106).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, and Tomomasa does not explicitly teach an autonomous vehicle as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Cao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein each unit communicates with other units to ensure adequate coverage of a site to be inspected and to avoid collisions (see Cao paragraphs 19, 30 and 36-38 regarding route manager for multiple land vehicles to inspect a number of points in a coverage area where the devices are able to communicate with each other- the device manager is interpreted to ensure adequate coverage, which obviates overlap and collision prevention- in combination with Kaylor, Richards, and Tomomasa, the route manager may manage a plurality of power line surveillance vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, and Tomomasa to include the teaching of Cao so that in combination with Kaylor, Richards, and Tomomasa, the route manager may manage a plurality of power line surveillance vehicles.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to manage a plurality of surveillance vehicles in an area (see Cao paragraphs 19, 30 and 36-38).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, and Cao does not explicitly teach a heat sink as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Van Hoff, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an imaging system located in said imaging system chassis and having a first heat sink located between the imaging system and the lid, and a second heat sink located between the imaging system and the vented bottom surface, (see Van Hoff paragraph 9 and figure 1 regarding heat sinks above and below camera portion of a camera module that is within a greater housing- in combination with Kaylor, Richards, and Montgomery and Miller bellow, the camera of the combination may have the upper and lower heat sinks of Van Hoff and be placed in the chassis with a lid and vented bottom surface of Montgomery and Miller)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, and Cao to include the teaching of Van Hoff so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the camera of the combination may have the upper and lower heat sinks of Van Hoff.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide for heat management in a camera housing (see Van Hoff paragraph 9).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao and Van Hoff does not explicitly teach a lid as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Montgomery, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an imaging system chassis having a lid (see Montgomery paragraph 19 and figures 2 and 3 regarding hinged lid on top of camera chassis- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the imaging system chassis may have a lid) and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, and Van Hoff to include the teaching of Montgomery so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the imaging system chassis may have a lid.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to allow for ease of access to the camera’s internal structure (see Montgomery paragraph 19 and figures 2 and 3).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, and Montgomery does not explicitly teach a lid as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Miller, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches vented bottom surface (see Miller paragraphs 102 and figures 1 and 5A regarding beam mounted imaging system chassis with vented bottom surface- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the beam mounted imaging chassis may have bottom vents); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, and Montgomery to include the teaching of Miller so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the beam mounted imaging chassis may have bottom vents.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the camera chassis’ ability to deal with heat (see Miller paragraphs 102 and figures 1 and 5A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said navigational module is capable of geo-positioning said mobile real-time monitoring system (see Tomomasa paragraphs 68, 73, and 106 regarding GPS navigated autonomous vehicle with telescopic raised camera- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescoping IR and visible camera may be mounted on the autonomous vehicle of Tomomasa).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to further increase modularity of cameras on a wheeled platform by having the wheeled platform navigate itself autonomously (see Tomomasa paragraphs 68, 73, and 106).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein said battery is rechargeable (see Kaylor paragraph 45 regarding battery pack for camera on telescoping mast that is rechargeable).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Tomomasa et al. (US 20170094144) (hereinafter Tomomasa), further in view of Cao et al. (US 20220165167) (hereinafter Cao), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff), further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller), further in view of Wall (US 20110072956) (hereinafter Wall), and further in view of Simon et al. (US 20160368510) (hereinafter Simon).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller does not explicitly teach a loudspeaker as needed for the limitations of claim 12.
Wall, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein each mobile inspection unit further comprises: a two-way loudspeaker mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Wall paragraph 69 regarding two-way speaker attached to the end of a camera pole- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescopic mast may have a two-way speaker), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller to include the teaching of Wall so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescopic mast may have a two-way speaker.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide means for remote communication at a surveillance mast (see Wall paragraph 69).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff, Montgomery, Miller, and Wall does not explicitly teach a spotlight as needed for the limitations of claim 12.
Simon, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a spotlight mounted on a pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ) base atop said telescopic mast (see Simon paragraph 56 regarding spotlight on a mast on a pan tilt unit- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the mast may have a pant tilt spotlight- examiner notes that the Z in PTZ refers to the zoom function of a camera, which is not applicable to a spotlight, so a pan-tilt base fully satisfies a PTZ base for a spotlight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Tomomasa, Cao, Van Hoff and Wall to include the teaching of Simon so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the mast may have a pant tilt spotlight- examiner notes that the Z in PTZ refers to the zoom function of a camera, which is not applicable to a spotlight, so a pan-tilt base fully satisfies a PTZ base for a spotlight.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide an illumination source at a surveillance mast (see Simon paragraph 56).
Claim(s) 13, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff) further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 13, Kaylor teaches a trailer; a telescopic mast mounted atop said trailer; a beam mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Kaylor fig. 1 and paragraph 32-34 regarding towable vehicle trailer with beam and cameras mounted at top of telescopic mast);
a first secondary camera mounted on a first pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ) bracket attached to said beam; and a second secondary camera mounted on a second PTZ bracket attached to said beam (see Kaylor paragraphs 68-69 regarding first and second PTZ camera brackets mounted on mast- in combination with Richards, these PTZ cameras may be secondary cameras mounted along with the dual imager of Richards),
However, Kaylor does not explicitly teach a thermal optical imager as needed for the limitations of claim 13.
Richards, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches A mobile real-time monitoring system for high-voltage electrical equipment (see Richards paragraph 3) comprising:
a dual imaging camera attached to said beam (see Richards paragraph 45 regarding camera mountable on a movable platform and paragraph 25 regarding both IR and visible light camera as part of camera- in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment);
wherein said dual imaging camera comprises a thermal imager and a visual imager (see Richards paragraph 45 regarding camera mountable on a movable platform and paragraph 25 regarding both IR and visible light camera as part of camera- in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kaylor to include the teaching of Richards so that in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the modular camera apparatus to an electrical monitoring environment to increase portability and modularity of the monitoring cameras (see Richards paragraph 3 regarding electrical application of cameras).
However, the combination of Kaylor and Richards does not explicitly teach a heat sink as needed for the limitations of claim 13.
Van Hoff, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches located in said camera chassis and having a first heat sink located between the dual imaging camera and the lid, and a second heat sink located between the dual imaging camera and the vented bottom surface (see Van Hoff paragraph 9 and figure 1 regarding heat sinks above and below camera portion of a camera module that is within a greater housing- in combination with Kaylor, Richards, and Montgomery and Miller bellow, the camera of the combination may have the upper and lower heat sinks of Van Hoff and be placed in the chassis with a lid and vented bottom surface of Montgomery and Miller);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor and Richards to include the teaching of Van Hoff so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the camera of the combination may have the upper and lower heat sinks of Van Hoff.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide for heat management in a camera housing (see Van Hoff paragraph 9).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, and Van Hoff does not explicitly teach a lid as needed for the limitations of claim 13.
Montgomery, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a camera chassis having a lid (see Montgomery paragraph 19 and figures 2 and 3 regarding hinged lid on top of camera chassis- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the imaging system chassis may have a lid) and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, and Van Hoff to include the teaching of Montgomery so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the imaging system chassis may have a lid.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to allow for ease of access to the camera’s internal structure (see Montgomery paragraph 19 and figures 2 and 3).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, and Montgomery does not explicitly teach a lid as needed for the limitations of claim 13.
Miller, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vented bottom surface, the imaging system chassis attached to said beam (see Miller paragraphs 102 and figures 1 and 5A regarding beam mounted imaging system chassis with vented bottom surface- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the beam mounted imaging chassis may have bottom vents);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, and Montgomery to include the teaching of Miller so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the beam mounted imaging chassis may have bottom vents.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the camera chassis’ ability to deal with heat (see Miller paragraphs 102 and figures 1 and 5A).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches wherein the first secondary camera and the second secondary camera each comprise a visual imager and a thermal imager and are capable of simultaneous optical and thermal imaging (see Richards paragraph 45 regarding camera mountable on a movable platform and paragraph 25 regarding both IR and visible light camera as part of camera- in combination with Kaylor, the camera of Richards may be mounted on the mast of Kaylor to image electrical equipment).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the modular camera apparatus to an electrical monitoring environment to increase portability and modularity of the monitoring cameras (see Richards paragraph 3 regarding electrical application of cameras).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches further comprising a network box in communication with a control station (see Kaylor paragraph 48 regarding communication means for communicating with a remote location, which includes setups that may be broadly interpreted to be a control station).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches further comprising a solar panel mounted on the top of said trailer (see Kaylor paragraph 47 regarding solar panel on trailer).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches further comprising a control system configured to monitor high-voltage electrical equipment and detect faults and fire (see Richards paragraph 3 regarding power line monitoring for faults and fire).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the modular camera apparatus to an electrical monitoring environment to increase portability and modularity of the monitoring cameras (see Richards paragraph 3 regarding electrical application of cameras).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff), further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller), further in view of Tomomasa et al.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller does not explicitly teach vertical movement only as needed for the limitations of claim 14.
Tomomasa, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the dual imaging camera is restricted to vertical movement (see Tomomasa paragraph 103 regarding the teaching of a PTZ camera being only one of several advantageously viable options for a surveillance camera, such that there are cases where there are uses for cameras restricted to the movement of the arm it is on without having its own rotational ability- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, which teaches a vertical mast and PTZ dual imaging camera respectively, the PTZ camera of Richards may be replaced with a fixed camera that can only move vertically in order to reduce the power and mechanical needs for the camera).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller to include the teaching of Tomomasa so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, which teaches a vertical mast and PTZ dual imaging camera respectively, the PTZ camera of Richards may be replaced with a fixed camera that can only move vertically in order to reduce the power and mechanical needs for the camera.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the power and mechanical needs for a camera on a mast (see Tomomasa paragraphs 103).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff), further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller), further in view of Wall (US 20110072956) (hereinafter Wall), and further in view of Simon et al. (US 20160368510) (hereinafter Simon).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller does not explicitly teach a loudspeaker as needed for the limitations of claim 16.
Wall, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a two-way loudspeaker mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Wall paragraph 69 regarding two-way speaker attached to the end of a camera pole- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescopic mast may have a two-way speaker); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller to include the teaching of Wall so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the telescopic mast may have a two-way speaker.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide means for remote communication at a surveillance mast (see Wall paragraph 69).
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, Miller, and Wall does not explicitly teach a spotlight as needed for the limitations of claim 16.
Simon, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a spotlight on a pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ) base mounted atop said telescopic mast (see Simon paragraph 56 regarding spotlight on a mast on a pan tilt unit- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the mast may have a pant tilt spotlight- examiner notes that the Z in PTZ refers to the zoom function of a camera, which is not applicable to a spotlight, so a pan-tilt base fully satisfies a PTZ base for a spotlight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, Miller, and Wall to include the teaching of Simon so that in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the mast may have a pant tilt spotlight- examiner notes that the Z in PTZ refers to the zoom function of a camera, which is not applicable to a spotlight, so a pan-tilt base fully satisfies a PTZ base for a spotlight.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide an illumination source at a surveillance mast (see Simon paragraph 56).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaylor et al. (US 20030025791) (hereinafter Kaylor) in view of Richards et al. (US 20150304612) (hereinafter Richards), further in view of Van Hoff et al. (US 20170078647) (hereinafter Van Hoff), further in view of Montgomery (US 20120320150) (hereinafter Montgomery), further in view of Miller et al. (US 20140375828) (hereinafter Miller), further in view of Schwartz et al. (US 20190382111) (hereinafter Schwartz).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 13, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller does not explicitly teach deep learning as needed for the limitations of claim 20.
Schwartz, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control system uses a deep learning algorithm to improve fault detection by tailoring it to location (see Schwartz paragraphs 2, 45, 59, and 87 regarding power line inspection system that utilizes machine learning that uses location information to determine how to adjust the monitoring process- in combination with Kaylor and Richards, the monitoring system of the combination may use machine learning and location to enhance power line monitoring).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller to include the teaching of Schwartz so that in combination with Kaylor, Richards, Van Hoff, Montgomery, and Miller, the monitoring system of the combination may use machine learning and location to enhance power line monitoring.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide means for remote communication at a surveillance mast (see Schwartz paragraphs 2, 45, 59, and 87).
Conclusion
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 Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483