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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviation AI should be spelled out the first times it is used. The language artificial intelligence (AI) should be used the first time it appears in the claim and then then abbreviation AI can be used afterword. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviation “AI” should be spelled out the first times it is used. The language artificial intelligence (AI) should be used the first time it appears in the claims and then then abbreviation AI can be used afterword. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner notes that claim is more than one sentence. An individual claim must contain only one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner notes that claim is more than one sentence. An individual claim must contain only one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner notes that claim is more than one sentence. An individual claim must contain only one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mechanism for generating commands” in claim 8. The examiner notes that structure “a mechanism” even if it might be interpreted to implicitly be a computer processor there is no disclosed associated algorithm. A 112(f) interpretation of a computer processor requires an algorithm to perform the claimed function in a means plus function claim. There is no algorithm to perform this function. As such the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
“a mechanism for sending commands” in claim 9. The examiner notes that structure “a mechanism” even if it might be interpreted to implicitly be a computer processor there is no disclosed associated algorithm. A 112(f) interpretation of a computer processor requires an algorithm to perform the claimed function in a means plus function claim. There is no algorithm to perform this function. As such the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
“a mechanism that can be easily configured” in claim 10. The examiner notes that structure “a mechanism” not defined in the specification even if it might be interpreted to implicitly be a computer processor there is no disclosed associated algorithm. A 112(f) interpretation of a computer processor requires an algorithm to perform the claimed function in a means plus function claim. There is no algorithm to perform this function. As such the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
“a mechanism especially designed for stand-alone use” in claim 11. The examiner notes that structure “a mechanism” is not defined in the specification even if it might be interpreted to implicitly be a computer processor there is no disclosed associated algorithm. A 112(f) interpretation of a computer processor requires an algorithm to perform the claimed function in a means plus function claim. There is no algorithm to perform this function. As such the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Re claim 1,
The language “Autonomous Camera Image Capture and Analysis System: A system comprising….” is unclear. It is unclear how “Autonomous Camera image capture and analysis system:” limits the claim or A system is meant to refer back the “Autonomous Camera image capture and analysis system:”. The examiner suggests the language An Autonomous Camera Image Capture and Analysis system comprising:
The language “configured to operate autonomously for capturing images of the environment at predetermined intervals, in response to specific events or trigged by sensors, wherein captured images are transmitted, along with natural language prompts, to the Google Cloud Al platform (or another similar one available) through various network modalities, including cable, wireless, or mobile networks” is unclear because it’s not clear which elements of the system performs this function. While elements of a system can be defined in part by the system the claim should clearly indicate which elements perform the claimed functional elements. As such its note clear exactly how these elements limit the claim. Applicant should rewrite the claim to clearly indicate the element of the system that performs the claimed function. For example, the claim could read for example:
An Autonomous Camera Image Capture and Analysis system comprising:
a camera configured to operate autonomously for capturing images of the environment at predetermined intervals, in response to specific events or trigged by sensors;
a mini-cpu…….
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the environment" in line two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The first time a claim element appears it should not be preceded by words like “the” or “said” as they are used to indicate that the claim element is referring back to a previously recited element. Here the claim should read an environment. If applicant was to subsequently refer to this element it should then be written for example as the environment or said environment. This indicates that a subsequent reference refers back to the previously recited an environment.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the google AI platform in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name “Google Cloud AI platform”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a cloud AI platform apparently made by google which is not a static or distinct product and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Further the language “Google Cloud Al platform (or another similar one available)” is confusing because it’s not clear what the meets and bounds of “similar” is in this context. That is how similar would it have to be to the trademarked name to meet the claim language there is no guidance in the specification to make this determination. The examiner suggests using the language cloud artificial intelligence platform to avoid use of the trademark and use of the word similar.
The language “through various network modalities, including cable, wireless, or mobile networks” is confusing because it is unclear if the claim requires the message to go through multiple modalities (further unclear because how many would be required to constitute “various”?) one of which is a cable, wireless or mobile network or these elements are merely examples of a modality which may be used. The examiner believes applicant intends only one modality to be required by the claim however that is not what is represented in the claim. The examiner suggests language simply stating “through a network”
The examiner further notes that the language “concurrent instructions (prompts)” is confusing are the concurrent instructions equivalent to the “natural language prompts” recited in the claim. If so, applicant should simply refer to this element as the natural language prompts.
The examiner notes that the language “a comprehensive response of the prompt” in the last line of the claim is confusing because it is unclear if it refers back to all or one of “natural language prompts” or “concurrent instructions (prompts). Further the language “a comprehensive response of the prompt” is grammatically confusing. The examiner suggests the language a comprehensive response to the natural language prompts
Apparatus claims should comprise a set of elements e.g. computer, camera, server. These elements can be limited functionally however it should be clear which claimed element of the system performs each function. Function should not be attributed a system in general. Further elements should be definite, not optional or possible.
All together an example of a clearer claim may read:
(currently amended)
An Autonomous Camera Image Capture and Analysis system comprising:
a camera configured to operate autonomously for capturing images of an environment at predetermined intervals, in response to specific events or trigged by sensors;
a mini- CPU which transmits the captured images along with natural language prompts through a network;
a server which hosts a cloud artificial intelligence (AI) platform, configured to receive the captured images and the natural language prompts and analyze the captured images utilizing artificial intelligence, interpreting them based on the natural language prompts received from the mini-CPU and sending back a comprehensive response to the natural language prompts for further actions.
The above example claim require elements (a camera, a mini cpu, and a server) and function of these elements is clearly attributed to a particular element. Claims should be clear as to what elements are actually required to read on the claim. The examiner suggests avoiding terms like “optional” “for example” “for instance”. A claim either requires element/features or it doesn’t there should not be any ambiguity. A system claim is defined by structural elements the claim should be clear on what those structural elements are and which structural elements perform any function/action described by the claim. List of alternatives elements should clearly be listed as alternative with the conjunction “or” in this case only one element need be shown to read on the claim. Lists of elements all of which are required should use the conjunction “and” in this case all the elements are required to read on the claim.
The examiner notes that the above suggestions are examples related to clarity only and don’t necessarily overcome the prior art. The examiner cannot comment about and does not know the value of the patent protection of such claim language should this language or something similar be patented. (emphasis added). The examiner suggest applicant consult the MPEP and look at examples drafting of claims in U.S. patents. The examiner further suggests looking up rules and or examples on amending claims. Note that cancelled subject matter should for example have a strike through indicating it is cancelled, added subject matter should be underlined. Subsequent claim sets should include a status indicator indicating if each claim is original, previously presented, currently amended or new.
Re claim 2-14 these claims depend from unclear claim 1 and therefore retain the same issues as claim 1.
Re claim 2 The claim language “Intelligent Device Activation: The system of Claim 1” is unclear because it is unclear how the language “Intelligent Device Activation” limits the claim. The examiner suggests applicant cancel this language.
The limitations "the processed images" in claim 2 lack antecedent basis in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the AI” is unclear if this refers to “the google AI platform” or “utilizing artificial intelligence”
The language “empower the system to activate external devices through relay outputs, issuing alerts across diverse communication channels, and providing responsive communication to the user.” Is unclear because it is unclear how these elements limit the claim does the language “empower the system to activate” actually require the system to be programed to do this or is this intended use.
Furthermore, it is not clear what element of the system performs this function. The claim appears to claim function without stating what physical elements are included in the function. Applicant should clarify the claim to clearly indicate what functions are required to read on the claim and clearly indicated which element(s) of the system perform the function.
Apparatus claims should comprise a set of elements i.e. computer camera server. These elements can be limited functionally however it should be clear which claimed element of the system performs each function. Function should not be attributed a system in general.
An example of how the claim might be amended:
2, (currently amended) the mini CPU is further configured to activate external devices through relay outputs, issue alerts across
Re claim 3 the language The claim language “Simplified Configuration and Parameterization: The system of Claim 1,” is unclear because it is unclear how the language “Simplified Configuration and Parameterization” limits the claim. The examiner suggests applicant cancel this language.
The language “offering a configuration and parameterization in an existing human interface or through a dedicated app accessible via mobile or computer devices, utilizing Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cable connections, and enabling remote configuration and monitoring through network connections, whether via mobile networks or local Wi-Fi”. Is unclear because it is unclear how these elements limit the claim, does the language “offering a configuration and parameterization” actually require the system to be programed to do this or is this intended use. Does the system require these elements or are they merely “offered”.
Furthermore, it is not clear what element of the system performs this function or which are elements are actually included in the claim system. Applicant should clarify the claim to clearly indicate what functions are required to read on the claim and clearly indicated which element(s) of the system perform the function.
For example, the language “enabling remote configuration and monitoring through network connections” is unclear because the claim does not clearly articulate whether the element “remote network connection” is a required element of the claim or something that is merely enabled. Nor is it clear what element of the system does the enabling.
The language “whether via mobile networks or local Wi-Fi.” Is unclear because it is unclear because the word whether means here. Are these elements actually required by the system or merely examples of types of network connection that could be used and not specifically required.
Claim 3 contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a Bluetooth network connection which is not necessarily a static product, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Re claim 4 the claim language “Comprehensive Environmental Monitoring: The system of Claim 1, wherein a method for comprehensive environmental monitoring, comprising capturing images, processing images utilizing clouded Al, generating commands based on image analysis, and executing said commands to trigger external devices and communicate alerts and reports.” Is unclear. It is unclear how “comprehensive environmental monitoring limits the claims. Further the claim seems to claim the system comprising a method performed by the system. System claims should be claimed as a list of structural elements they should not be defined by a method. While functional elements similar to steps can be included, each functional element should be attributed to a particular structural element so as to be part of the claimed description of that particular element. For example, one could claim “wherein the mini cpu is further configured to….” Followed by steps or acts attributed to the mini-CPU a dependent claim could also list further structural elements required by the system i.e. “the system of claim 1 further comprising:” followed by additional structural elements.
Re claim 5 and 6 these claims depend from unclear claim 1 and therefore retain the same issues as claim 4.
Re claim 5 The language “Enhanced Security Applications: The method of Claim 4, wherein the system is applied for security or safety purposes, reducing false alarms or incorrect lack of that (false positives and negatives) through intelligent processing compared to traditional sensors.” The examiner notes that claim 4 is not a method but a system the way this element is claimed creates a lot of confusion as to what is being claimed. Further it’s not clear what “Enhanced Security Applications” means in the context of the claim. If applicant wishes to claim a method the Examiner recommends applicant do so in a separate independent claim that does not depend from a system claim.
Re claim 6 The language “Diverse Sectors Applications: The method of Claim 4, further extending to unlimited residentials, personal, scientific, commercials or industrial sectors, including but not limited to environmental monitoring, scientific research, safety applications, or industrial process control, for instance” is unclear. The examiner notes that claim 4 is not a method but a system the way this element is claimed creates a lot of confusion as to what is being claimed. Further it’s not clear what “Diverse Sectors Applications” means in the context of the claim. Further language “for instance” causes confusion as to whether the claim elements are actually required by the claim or merely examples of what may be used.
Re claim 7 The language “Cost-Effective Camera Integration: The system of Claim 1, wherein the camera integration is cost- effective, especially when compared to systems that aim to analyze images with onboard electronics or even connected to a dedicated local or remote server that intends to analyze the received images, ensuring accessibility and widespread adoption.” Is confusing.
The language “Cost Effective Camera Integration” is confusing because it’s not clear how this element limits the claim
The term “cost- effective” “ensuring accessibility and widespread adoption” and in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cost- effective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner notes that “cost effective” is a term of degree and matter of opinion and therefore indefinite therefore one who created a similar system would not be able to determine if their system infringed upon the patent because the term cost effective is not a definite thing. Further the language “ensuring accessibility and widespread adoption” is a goal not a description of the claimed system. Similarly, they create confusion as to the limits of the claim.
Re claim 8
The examiner notes that the limitation “Dynamic Command Generation:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
Further the language “wherein a mechanism” is confusing because it’s unclear if the mechanism is part of the system. The examiner suggests the language wherein the system further comprises
The language ranging from simple actions to more complex tasks, such as device control or environmental identification is confusing. It is unclear if the language followed by such as is actually required or a mere example.
Claim limitation “wherein a mechanism for generating commands” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner notes that there is no structure or acts for performing the claimed function. Even if the mechanism could be implicitly understood to be a computer processor there is no associated algorithm in the specification to perform this function Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
See MPEP 218:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Re claim 9
The examiner notes that the limitation “Efficient Command Transmission:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
Further the language “wherein a mechanism” is confusing because it’s unclear if the mechanism is part of the system. The examiner suggests the language wherein the system further comprises
Claim limitation “wherein a mechanism for sending commands” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner notes that there is no structure or acts for performing the claimed function. Even if the mechanism could be implicitly understood to be a computer processor there is no associated algorithm in the specification to perform this function Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
See MPEP 218:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Re claim 10
The examiner notes that the limitation “Configuration:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
Further the language “wherein a mechanism” is confusing because it’s unclear if the mechanism is part of the system. The examiner suggests the language wherein the system further comprises
It is not clear what “in the latter case” refers to what is a case in this context and what are the cases”
The language “for models equipped with this feature” is confusing does this mean the claim does not actually require these features and it is only necessary for some models?
Claim limitation “wherein a mechanism that can be easily configured” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner notes that there is no structure or acts for performing the claimed function. Even if the mechanism could be implicitly understood to be a computer processor there is no associated algorithm in the specification to perform this function Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
See MPEP 218:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Re claim 11
The examiner notes that the limitation “Modes of Use:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
Further the language “wherein a mechanism” is confusing because it’s unclear if the mechanism is part of the system. The examiner suggests the language wherein the system further comprises
The language “especially designed for stand-alone use, but that can be integrated into an internal TV circuit system or a remote administration system for a network of cameras that can centrally manage the configuration of each camera and receive alerts and reports.” The examiner notes that the claim does not seem to actually require anything but merely lists of alternatives that CAN be. It’s not clear how to interpret this claim.
Claim limitation “mechanism especially designed for stand-alone use” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner notes that there is no structure or acts for performing the claimed function. Even if the mechanism could be implicitly understood to be a computer processor there is no associated algorithm in the specification to perform this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
See MPEP 218:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Re claim 12
The examiner notes that the limitation “Sensing:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
The language “may have” is confusing because it is unclear how this limits the claim. Does the claimed invention require these elements or not.
The language “for example” is confusing because it is unclear how this limits the claim. Does the claimed invention require these elements or not.
The language “Additionally, it will have one or more inputs to receive signals from external sensors that will trigger eventual actions, such as taking a photo with subsequent transmission to AI” is confusing because it is not clear which element “it” refers to in the language above.
Re claim 13
The examiner notes that the limitation “External Configuration and Parameterization:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
The language “wherein it can be the configurated and parameterized by a desktop software or mobile App to perform” is confusing because it is not clear which element “it” refers to in the language above. Further the language can make it seem that the claim elements are not actually required
The language “such as phone numbers or email addresses for forwarding alerts, messages, and reports” is confusing because it is unclear. It is unclear if these elements are required by the claim or merely examples of something.
The language “Additionally, fields for checkmark-type selections that may contain various pre-defined commands and parameters” is confusing because it is not clear what these elements are meant to be a part of or what additionally refers to? Is this an additional alternative of the claim?, The language “Additionally, fields for checkmark-type selections that may contain various pre-defined commands and parameters” and is grammatically confusing.
Re claim 14
The examiner notes that the limitation “Preprocessing:” is confusing because it’s unclear how this limits the claim. The examiner suggests deleting this element.
The language “wherein it can optionally preprocess the image (compress, manipulate, interpret, compare, transform, save locally or remotely, etc.), as well as directly send SMS messages or emails or with the assistance of a remote server, containing single txt messages or reports” is confusing because it is not clear which element “it” refers to in the language above.
Further the language optionally is confusing because it is unclear if these elements are actually required by the claim. If they are an option then the claim need not require them and therefore these elements do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Further the elements (compress, manipulate, interpret, compare, transform, save locally or remotely, etc.) appear to be examples and not elements that meaningfully limit the claim.
Further the language “directly send SMS messages or emails or with the assistance of a remote server, containing single txt messages or reports” is grammatically confusing and it’s not clear what with the assistance of a remote server, containing single txt messages or reports” is intended to mean.
Regarding the unclear claims art in the interest of compact prosecution prior art rejections/considerations have been applied to the best of the examiner’s ability and understanding of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa US 2022/0139199 in view of Li et al US 2025/0111674.
Re claim 1 Miwa discloses Autonomous Camera Image Capture and Analysis System: A system comprising a camera (see paragraph 50 and 51) and a mini- CPU (see paragraph 60 mobile terminal note that the mobile terminal could be considered a mini-cpu), configured to operate autonomously for capturing images of the environment,
wherein captured images are transmitted, along with prompts, (see figure 3 note that images and text [i.e prompts] are transmitted to a cloud platform); to the Google Cloud Al platform (or another similar one available)(see paragraph 39 and 115 note that data is transmitted to a server which uses AI accelerator 200, see paragraph 101) through various network modalities, including cable, wireless, or mobile networks (see figure 3 note that text and images may be transmitted to the cloud server)
further comprising a cloud server configured to analyze images oud server configured to analyze images utilizing artificial intelligence (see paragraph 49 note that monitoring equipment may be installed on a server see also paragraphs 115 and 101 note that the server be on a cloud and may analyze the images using artificial intelligence ) text data received from the mini-CPU (see figure 3 note that images and text may be received from the smartphone), and sending back a comprehensive response for further actions by the system (see paragraph 115 116 and 117 note that a push notification is sent which can be displayed and further action taken).
Miwa does not expressly disclose
capturing images of the environment at predetermined intervals, in response to specific events or trigged by sensors,
natural language prompts and interpreting images based on concurrent instructions (prompts)
sending a response of the prompt
Li discloses
capturing images of the environment at predetermined intervals, in response to specific events or trigged by sensors, (see paragraph 107 note that the images or video may be periodic or determined by sensors)
natural language prompts and interpreting images based on concurrent instructions (prompts) (see paragraph 53 and 54 note that natural language prompts may be analyzed and images analyzed based on the prompt).
Sending response of the prompt (see paragraph 146 and 53 and 54 note that the a summery may be sent to the user to the user based on the natural language request).
The motivation to combine is simplify the processes for the user by allowing language input for the summarization of video (See paragraph 4), and provide security a monitoring activity for the user of the camera system (see paragraph 1). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified the method of Miwa to capture images in interval and use the natural language prompts to analyze the images as described in Li to reach the aforementioned advantages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Miwa to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 2 Miwa further discloses wherein the processed images by the Al empower the system to activate external devices through relay outputs (see paragraph 83 note that audio may be played through a speaker see paragraph 117 note that notification can be made by audio), issuing alerts across diverse communication channels, and providing responsive communication to the user (see paragraph 117 note that notifications can be sent to a security company or emergency services, output notification to a screen or audio ).
Re claim 3 Miwa discloses Simplified Configuration and Parameterization: The system of Claim 1, offering a configuration and parameterization in an existing human interface or through a dedicated app accessible via mobile or computer devices (see paragraph 117 note that notification may be accessed through a phone screen), utilizing Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cable connections ( see paragraph 48 note WI-FI is used), and enabling remote configuration and monitoring through network connections (see paragraph 52 note that cameras are remotely operated), whether via mobile networks or local Wi-Fi.
Re claim 4 Miwa discloses wherein a method for comprehensive environmental monitoring, comprising capturing images (see paragraph 50 and 51 note images of the area are captured), processing images utilizing clouded Al (see paragraph 49 note that monitoring equipment may be installed on a server see also paragraphs 115 and 101 note that the server be on a cloud and may analyze the images using artificial intelligence ), generating commands based on image analysis, and executing said commands to trigger external devices and communicate alerts and reports (see paragraph 117 note that notification are generated based on the image analysis and are distributed to the user emergency services the notification could be considered a command ).
Re claim 5 Miwa