DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 02/27/2026. Claims 1 - 20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 – 6 and 13 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
Claims 5 and 6 disclose a function that is used to calculate a retention value. The function is indicated as being based on the priority score and an amount of available capacity along with having a negative exponent. However, the specifics of what calculations are in the function are not disclosed. It is unclear what the scope of the function is exactly. The specifics of what mathematical operations are in the function need to be defined. It is also unclear what part of the function has a negative exponent of if the negative exponent is applied to the entire function as a whole. This makes the scope of what the function is indefinite. For examination the function will be considered any calculation that takes into consideration the priority score, the amount of available capacity, and has a negative exponent somewhere in relation to the function.
Claims 13 – 14 contain similar language rejected in claims 5 – 6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 9 – 12, and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boudreau et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0006922) referred to as Boudreau.
Regarding claim 1, Boudreau teaches one or more processors [216, Fig 2] coupled with a memory [114, Fig 1; 214, Fig 2] to:
identify an amount of available capacity of a storage device [114, Fig 1] of a vehicle [202, Fig 2], the storage device [114, Fig 1; 214, Fig 2] storing a plurality of video fragments of one or more videos taken from the vehicle [202, Fig 2; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, and 0063; Video clips/fragments are stored from the camera in memory];
determine, for a first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments, a priority score based on an operation of the vehicle that occurred during the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments, wherein the first video fragment is identified based on a time interval associated with the operation of the vehicle [806 and 808, Fig 11; 904, Fig 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, and 0063; Video clips/fragments are stored from the camera in memory. Flagging a portion of a video flags a video segment based on the operation of the vehicle at the time the fragment was recorded];
determine, for the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments, a retention value based on the priority score for the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments and the amount of the available capacity of the storage device [Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, and 0039; A retention score of a video clip/fragment is one of delete or not delete the clip/fragment based on the prioritization flag when the memory is full];
select for deletion the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments based at least on a determination that the retention value does not exceed a threshold for retention [Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0039, 0063 and 0118; Video clips/fragments are selected for deletion based on the retention value not exceeding a threshold retention which can be either the file is locked and/or the file has been transferred to another device]; and
delete from the storage device [114, Fig 1] the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments [Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0039, 0063 and 0118; The video data that is selected for deletion is deleted] to increase the amount of the available capacity of the storage device [Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0039, 0063 and 0118; This limitations is considered intended use since the increase in the amount of capacity is worded as an intended result of the deletion instead of being worded positively. However, the video data that is selected for deletion is deleted which does increase the useable capacity of the related memory].
Regarding claim 2, Boudreau teaches the one or more processors [216, Fig 2] to:
store the priority score for the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments in respective metadata of the first video fragment [806 and 808, Fig 11; 904, Fig 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, and 0063; Flagging or otherwise marking a video clip as important so it is not deleted shows the use of metadata to store the flag information allowing the system to know the video clip is flagged].
Regarding claim 3, Boudreau teaches the one or more processors [216, Fig 2] to:
select a subset of the plurality of video fragments, wherein each video fragments of the subset includes a respective retention value exceeding the threshold for retention and corresponds to a second time interval within which one or more sensors of the vehicle measured one of a G-force or a jerk intensity of the vehicle exceeding a second threshold; and
generate a video of an event using the subset of the plurality of video fragments [806 and 808, Fig 11; 904, Fig 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0063, 0129 – 0130, and 0140; The camera flagging video based on acceleration or deceleration is a form of G-force or jerk intensity exceeding a threshold to flag the corresponding video data. The flagging is performed at any time interval a threshold for flagging is exceeded such as high deceleration or acceleration among other thresholds].
Regarding claim 4, Boudreau teaches the one or more processors [216, Fig 2] to:
identify data of the vehicle [202, Fig 2] corresponding to a measurement of a sensor of the vehicle [202, Fig 2] during the time interval [208, Fig 2; Paragraph 0058; Item 208 represents a sensor that provides measurement of operation of the vehicle such as speed, acceleration, braking, and other information used to flag video data during the time interval the of a video fragment]; and
determine the priority score for the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments based at least on the measurement of the sensor [806 and 808, Fig 11; 904, Fig 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0058, 0063, 0129 – 0130, and 0140; The video clip/fragment priority is indicated as flagged or not based on the monitors sensor data from 208].
Claims 9 – 12 and 17 – 20 are corresponding method and media claims of claims 1 – 4 and are rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning. Boudreau teaches the method of operation [Figs 11 – 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0058, 0063, 0129 – 0130, and 0140] and the media [Figs 11 – 12; Paragraphs 0070; The flowcharts and instructions to operation the camera system indicate media to store the received instructions or instructions to perform the method of the flowcharts].
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 – 6 and 13 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0006922) referred to as Boudreau as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Anonymous (Negative Exponents) referred to as Anonymous.
Regarding claim 5, Boudreau teaches the one or more processors [216, Fig 2] to:
determine, for the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments, the retention value using a function based in part on the priority score of the first video fragment of the plurality of video fragments of the plurality of video fragments and the amount of the available capacity [Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, and 0039; A retention score of a video clip/fragment is one of delete or not delete the clip/fragment based on the prioritization flag when the memory is full].
However, Boudreau may not specifically disclose the limitations of a function whose exponent is negative.
Anonymous discloses a function whose exponent is negative [Page 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Anonymous in Boudreau, because the use of negative exponents is a common mathematical operation performed on a function with a high level of expected result that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to predict to have a specific value based on the value of the negative exponent.
Regarding claim 6, Boudreau teaches the function is configured to decrease a second retention value for at least one video fragment of the plurality of video fragments as the amount of the available capacity is decreased [Paragraphs 0031 - 0036, 0038 - 0039, 0063 and 0118; The retention value of data decreases from do not delete to delete when the priority of the data is set as not flagged and the available capacity decreases to zero where the recording start to loop].
Claims 13 - 14 are corresponding method claims of claims 5 - 6 and are rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning. Boudreau teaches the method of operation [Figs 11 – 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, 0058, 0063, 0129 – 0130, and 0140].
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0006922) referred to as Boudreau as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Bialynicka-Birula (Pub. No.: US 2018/0196587) referred to as Birula.
Regarding claim 7, Boudreau teaches the one or more processors [216, Fig 2] to:
identify a subset of the plurality of video fragments, wherein each video fragment of the subset corresponds to a same time interval and has a respective retention value exceeding the threshold for retention [806 and 808, Fig 11; 904, Fig 12; Paragraphs 0031 – 0033, 0035, and 0063; Multiple 1 minute video clips that span an event that occurs over multiple minutes that are flagged correspond to a time interval of the event. The clips being flagged indicate the clips have a retention value that exceeds the threshold of not to delete when it comes time to delete data].
However, Boudreau may not specifically disclose the limitations of determine, based on each video fragment of the subset input into a model trained on a data of a plurality of scenes, a type of scene for each respective video fragment of the subset and select for deletion at least one video fragment of the subset of the plurality of video fragments based at least on the type of scene of the at least one video fragment of the subset of the plurality of video fragments.
Birula discloses determine, based on each video fragment of the subset input into a model trained on a data of a plurality of scenes [160, Fig 1; Paragraphs 0086, 0113, 0154 - 0157, and 0244; The model trainer trains the model based on image data processed by the system], a type of scene for each respective video fragment of the subset and select for deletion at least one of the subset of the plurality of video fragments based at least on the type of scene of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of video fragments [124, Fig 1; Paragraphs 0050, 0052, 0060 – 0061, 0122 – 0123, and 0125; The scene analyzer analyzes a type of scene from a video, determines if the type of scene is desired to be stored or not, and then deletes the scene if it is not desired to be maintained in memory].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Birula in Boudreau, because it makes an image capture device more efficient while providing advanced features compared to
Claims 15 is a corresponding method claim of claim 7 and is rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches recording video data from a vehicle camera system, separating the video data into fragments, using the video fragments to train a learning model to identify scenes in the video data, and determining when to delete video data based on the scene of the video data. However, the prior art fails to teach individually or in combination the limitations of…
(Claim 8) “…identify a subset of the plurality of video fragments having retention values exceeding the retention threshold and corresponding to an event;
select, based on the subset of the plurality of video fragments input into a model trained on a data of a plurality of scenes, a second subset of subset of the plurality of video fragments having a type of scene corresponding to the event; and
generate a composite video of the event using the second subset.”
Claim 16 is a corresponding method of claim 8 and thus contains the same allowable subject matter as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 9 – 11 that the claims are allowable since the amendments to the claims overcome the previous 112 rejections. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendments overcome the previous 112 rejection. However, that alone does not make the claims currently allowable. The applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The amendments have changed the scope of the claims requiring further search and consideration of the prior art. The new grounds of rejection are a result of the further search and consideration of the prior art. The examiner suggests amending the claims to include further details defining the inventive concept from the specification to overcome the cited prior art and further advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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 D Birkhimer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138