DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 3-4, 13-15 and 18-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 5-12, 16-17 and 20 are currently.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombawela et al. (“Dombawela”, US 2008/0266397 A1, on the record) in view of Kannon et al. (“Kannon”, US 2017/0178512 A1, on the record), Mazzilli (US 2005/0140785 A1, on the record), Demers et al (“Demers”, CA 3024799 A1) and Austin (GB 2482751 A). 1) Regarding claim 1, Dombawela discloses a hit-and-run dash camera device (Fig. 1: camera assembly 1) comprising: a body comprised of a camera (¶15; Fig. 1: camera 1). As per the limitation a distance sensor. Kannon discloses, in abstract; ¶¶13, 31 with reference to Fig. 7, the concept of providing a distance proximity sensor with a distance threshold into a device with a camera. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate , the concept of providing a distance proximity sensor into a device with a camera, with the motivation to enhance monitoring features of the system. As per the limitation a first fastener. Dombawela discloses, in ¶15, the concept of mounting the device into a vehicle, but does not illustrate an arrangement. Mazzilli illustrates, in Figs. 3, 7, 9 & 11-13, the concept of providing multiple arrangements options to fasten a camera device. Notice 11A-B illustrates a base 5a fastened to a surface (corresponding to a first fastener) for mounting and further provides a second mount via an extension type device 5b (corresponding to a second fastener since it provides attachment of the camera device). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate , the concept of providing multiple arrangements options to fasten a camera device, with the motivation to enhance the mounting option features of the system. As per the limitation wherein the first fastener is a magnetic fastener. According to applicant’s specification, in ¶29, a magnetic fastener is known in the art of fastening, therefore the limitation is amended art. Demers discloses in ¶¶63-64, 73 with reference to Fig. 46, the concept of using a multi-mount that includes magnetic fastening and thread screw fastening techniques to enable mounting of a camera. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a multi-mount that includes magnetic fastening and thread screw fastening techniques to enable mounting of a camera, with the motivation to make use of known fastening techniques. As per the limitation further wherein the body further comprises a status light and a button. Austin discloses, on page 11, lines 23-30, the concept of providing buttons and a status light to a camera body. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing buttons and a status light to a camera body, with the motivation to enhance the functional features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 5 the hit-and-run dash camera device of claim 1, wherein the body is attached to a housing via a second fastener (Demers: Fig. 46 with regard to magnetic connector 210).
3) Regarding claim 7 the device of claim 5, as per the limitation wherein the housing attaches to the first fastener via a rotation point (Mazzilli illustrates in Fig. 3, the concept of providing a rotation point via a first fastener see hinge mechanism 9. Also see Demers Fig. 46 with regard to the fastener screw providing a rotation point of attachment).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombawela in view of Kannon, Mazzilli, Demers and Austin, and in further view of Guo (CN 104574570 B, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 2 the device of claim 1, as per the limitation wherein the distance sensor (Kannon: ¶¶13, 31). As per the limitation the distance sensor is comprised of a threshold distance that when exceeded causes the camera to begin capturing a photo or a video. Guo discloses, in Claim 1, the concept of determining distance threshold exceeding conditions to cause a camera to record video information. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining distance threshold exceeding conditions to cause a camera to record video information, with the motivation to enhance the distance monitoring features of the system.
Claim(s) 6, 8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombawela in view of Kannon and Mazzilli, and in further view of Liu et al. (“Liu”, CN 205916050 U, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 6 the device of claim 5, as per the limitation wherein the body can rotate 90 degrees relative to a x-axis of the second fastener. Mazzilli: Fig. 11B: with regard to the of the stem 5B comprising pivoting ball connection extending at the end, which suggest the attached device can rotate 360 degrees relative to the base attachment as indicated by Liu, in abstract. The examiner take official the pivoting ball connect allows rotation about the x-axis and the y-axis. One skilled in the art would configure a ball connection this manner to enhance the rotation features of the attached device. 2) Regarding claim 8 the device of claim 7, as per the limitation wherein the housing can rotate 360 degrees around a Y-axis of the fastener via the rotation point. Mazzilli: Fig. 11B: with regard to the of the stem 5B comprising pivoting ball connection extending at the end, which suggest the attached device can rotate 360 degrees relative to the base attachment as indicated by Liu, in abstract. The examiner take official the pivoting ball connect allows rotation about the x-axis and the y-axis. One skilled in the art would configure a ball connection this manner to enhance the rotation features of the attached device. 3) Regarding claim 17 the method of using a hit-and-run dash camera device of claim 16, as per the limitation wherein the body can be rotated 360 degrees relative to the Y-axis of the fastener. Mazzilli: Fig. 11B: with regard to the of the stem 5B comprising pivoting ball connection extending at the end, which suggest the attached device can rotate 360 degrees relative to the base attachment as indicated by Liu, in abstract. The examiner take official the pivoting ball connect allows rotation about the x-axis and the y-axis. One skilled in the art would configure a ball connection this manner to enhance the rotation features of the attached device.
Claim(s) 9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombawela in view of Kannon and Mazzilli, Demers, Austin, and in further view of Bassett (US 2003/0041329 A1, on the record), Lu et al (“Lu”, CN 209692885 U) and Stevens (US 20070056334 A1). 1) Regarding claim 9, Dombawela, Kannon, Mazzilli, Demers and Austin with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 1 teach hit-and-run dash camera device (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1) comprising: a body comprised of a camera (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), a distance sensor (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1) comprised of a threshold distance (Kannon: abstract; ¶13), an acceleration sensor (Dombawela: ¶9). As per the limitation the acceleration sensor comprises of a threshold acceleration. Dombawela discloses, in ¶9, that the G-Force sensor detects impact and movement which suggest the use of threshold detection conditions. Bassett discloses, in ¶9, the concept of using threshold value condition to determine collision conditions. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using threshold value condition to determine collision conditions, with the motivation to enhance the impact detection features of the system. As per the limitation a first fastener (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); and a battery (Dombawela: ¶9). As per the limitation wherein the body is attached to a housing by a threaded fastener configured to allow the body to rotate at least 90 degrees relative to the housing along an x-axis of the threaded fastener. Demers illustrates using threaded attachment Fig. 46 with regard to the threaded screw providing the camera to be attached to the mounting surfaces. Lu illustrates, in Fig. 8, the concept of providing a connecting surfaces (elements 7 and 8) that once coupled together with a camera body (element 2) that provide housing for the camera therebetween. Notice Fig. 2 illustrates elements 7, 8 being separated, hence some form of fastening is used. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a connecting surfaces that once coupled together with a camera body that provide housing for the camera therebetween and provide screw threading to couple the camera body therebetween, with the motivation to enhance to make use of known fastening techniques. Make notice that Demers Fig. 46 illustrates the use of threaded screw attachment that will permit full rotation (360 degree when attaching a component). Element 7 of Lu is provided with an attachment hole (center hole Fig. 2) that are known provide screw insertion for coupling/attaching a component, hence modifying to use of the housing as taught by Lu would require attachment of element 7 that can be provided via threaded screw attachment one skilled in the art would motivate to use screw threaded attachment in such a manner to make use of known fastening techniques. As per the limitation further wherein the camera comprises an infrared flash. Stevens discloses, in ¶22, the concept of using an infrared flash for a camera.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using an infrared flash for a camera, with the motivation to enhance the camera flashing features. 2) Regarding claim 11 the device of claim 9, wherein the camera is comprised of a wide-angle lens (Dombawela: ¶9). 3) Regarding claim 12 the device of claim 9, wherein the camera is comprised of a night vision lens (Dombawela: ¶9).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombawela in view of Kannon, Mazzilli, Demers, Austin, Basset, Lu and Stevens, and in further view of Guo. 1) Regarding claim 10 the device of claim 9, with the motivation to combine the teaching by Guo in the rejection of claim 2, Dombawela, Kannon, Mazzilli, Demers, Austin, Basset, Lu, Stevens and Guo teach wherein after the threshold distance (Guo: claim 1) and the threshold acceleration have been exceeded (Bassett:¶9), the camera begins capturing a photo or a video (Guo: Claim 1; Basset: ¶9).
Claim(s) 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombawela in view of Kannon, Mazzilli, Demers and Austin, and in further view Lu. 1) Regarding claim 16, Dombawela, Kannon, Mazzilli, Demers and Austin with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 1 teach a method of using a hit-and-run dash camera device (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), the method comprising the following steps: providing a hit-and-run dash camera device comprised of a fastener (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), and a body comprised of a camera and a sensor (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); magnetically attaching (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1) the hit-and-run dash camera device to a vehicle interior surface or a vehicle exterior surface (Mazzilli: Figs. 3, 7, 9 & 11-13). As per the limitation reviewing a footage taken by the camera via a mobile application. Kannon discloses, in ¶35, the concept of using a mobile application to review image information provided from a camera. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a mobile application to review image information, with the motivation to enhance the image monitoring and processing features of the system. As per the limitation wherein the body is threadedly attached to a housing. Demers illustrates using threaded attachment Fig. 46 with regard to the threaded screw providing the camera to be attached to the mounting surfaces. Lu illustrates, in Fig. 8, the concept of providing a connecting surfaces (elements 7 and 8) that once coupled together with a camera body (element 2) that provide housing for the camera therebetween. Notice Fig. 2 illustrates elements 7, 8 being separated, hence some form of fastening is used.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a connecting surfaces that once coupled together with a camera body that provide housing for the camera therebetween and provide screw threading to couple the camera body therebetween, with the motivation to enhance to make use of known fastening techniques. 2) Regarding claim 20 the method of using a hit-and-run dash camera device of claim 16, wherein the hit-and- run dash camera device is comprised of a transmitter (Dombawela: ¶¶9, 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/14/2025 have been considered but are moot because the amendment change the scope. Furthermore, the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of prior art reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685