DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 because:
The drawings do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 172 (e.g. ¶35 of specification) or 272 (e.g. ¶63 of specification).
Appropriate corrections to the drawings and/or specification are required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
The originally-filed disclosure does not use the language "the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another", nor does the originally-filed disclosure appear consistent with it. For example, in ¶84 the user detached monitor device may be a cellular or mobile telephone that is used by an individual being monitored. The user attached monitor device may be attached to the individual being monitored via a strap. Thus, both monitor devices are physically associated with one another through the individual/user. The user detached monitor device may be in the individual's hand or in the individual's pocket, which the user attached device is attached to a part of the individual's body via a strap.
While the disclosure refers to a "non-associated device" in ¶35-36 and ¶63-64, this appears to refer to a third device that is neither the first monitor device or the second monitor device. Additionally, the disclosure does not make clear in what sense the third device is not associated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-10, 12, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom (US 2004/0192352 A1) in view of Vasavada (US 2021/0333759 A1).
In regard to claims 1-2, Vallstrom discloses a tracking system comprising:
a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (10E, Fig. 1);
a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
a transmitting circuit (10B, Fig, 1; ¶29, line 21); and
a controller circuit (10A, Fig. 1; ¶29, line 20) configured to:
transmit the location to a receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶11; ¶43);
after transmitting the location to the receiving device, receive the insignificant movement indication from the first monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmit the location to the receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶13).
Vallstrom fails to explicitly disclose the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another; and the first monitor device is a user attached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user detached monitor device.
Vasavada teaches:
a first monitor device (112, Fig. 1B; 312, Fig. 3) with a movement determination circuit (342, Fig. 3) is a user attached monitor device (watch band 112, Fig. 1A and 1B),
a second monitor device (104, Fig. 1B; 304, Fig. 3) with a location determination circuit (316, Fig. 3), a transmitting circuit (318, Fig. 3), and a controller circuit (326, Fig. 3) is a user detached monitor device (watch body 104, Fig. 1A and 1B) [where the watch body can be used detached from the watch band (¶49; ¶62)],
where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another (Fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, and 2C) [where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another/ physically engaged with one another].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the watch body device of Vasavada by using the movement determination circuit in the watch band to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the watch body.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the watch band will last longer since it will expend less power.
In regard to claims 10 and 12, Vallstrom discloses a method for tracking an individual comprising:
receiving a location of a first monitor device from a location determination circuit in the first monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
transmitting the location to a receiving device (10B, Fig, 1; ¶11; ¶29, line 21; ¶43);
after transmitting the location, receiving an insignificant movement indication from a movement determination circuit in a second monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reducing power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmitting the location to the receiving device (¶13) [where the first monitor device is 10, Fig. 1 and the second monitor device is 10E, Fig. 1, where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device].
Vallstrom fails to explicitly disclose the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another; and the first monitor device is a user detached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user attached monitor device.
Vasavada teaches:
a first monitor device (104, Fig. 1B; 304, Fig. 3) with a location determination circuit (316, Fig. 3), a transmitting circuit (318, Fig. 3), and a controller circuit (326, Fig. 3) is a user detached monitor device (watch body 104, Fig. 1A and 1B) [where the watch body can be used detached from the watch band (¶49; ¶62)];
a second monitor device (112, Fig. 1B; 312, Fig. 3) with a movement determination circuit (342, Fig. 3) is a user attached monitor device (watch band 112, Fig. 1A and 1B),
where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another (Fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, and 2C) [where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another/ physically engaged with one another].
In regard to claim 19, Vallstrom discloses a tracking system comprising:
a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (10E, Fig. 1) [where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device];
a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
a transmitting circuit (10B, Fig, 1; ¶29, line 21); and
a processor (10A, Fig. 1; ¶29, line 20) and a computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the processor (10G, Fig. 1) and including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transmit the location to a receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶11; ¶43);
after transmitting the location to the receiving device, receive the insignificant movement indication from the first monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmit the location to the receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶13).
Vallstrom fails to explicitly disclose the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another; and the first monitor device is a user detached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user attached monitor device.
Vasavada teaches:
a first monitor device (104, Fig. 1B; 304, Fig. 3) with a location determination circuit (316, Fig. 3), a transmitting circuit (318, Fig. 3), and a controller circuit (326, Fig. 3) is a user detached monitor device (watch body 104, Fig. 1A and 1B) [where the watch body can be used detached from the watch band (¶49; ¶62)];
a second monitor device (112, Fig. 1B; 312, Fig. 3) with a movement determination circuit (342, Fig. 3) is a user attached monitor device (watch band 112, Fig. 1A and 1B),
where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another (Fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, and 2C) [where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another/ physically engaged with one another].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the watch body device of Vasavada by using the movement determination circuit in the watch band to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the watch body.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the watch band will last longer since it will expend less power.
In regard to claims 6 and 15, Vallstrom further discloses the movement determination circuit comprises: an accelerometer (¶29, lines 26-27).
In regard to claims 9 and 18, Vallstrom further discloses the location determination circuit is selected from a group consisting of: a satellite-based position circuit (10F, Fig. 1); and a WiFi-based position circuit.
In regard to claim 14, Vasavada further teaches the user detached monitor device is a cellular communication enabled device associated with a monitored individual (316 in 304, Fig. 3), and wherein the user attached monitor device is configured for attachment to the monitored individual (212, Fig. 1A, 1B, and 2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom and Vasavada, as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Williams (US 2023/0179955 A1).
Vasavada further discloses the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment (¶33; ¶46).
Vallstrom and Vasavada fail to disclose the user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual.
Williams teaches a user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual (Fig. 4 (Cont.)/Sheet 10); ¶85; ¶104; ¶313) [where one way to detect tampering is by determine if no movement occurs for X hours, i.e., using the movement detector].
Williams further teaches the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment, e.g., to obstruct the user from viewing things that may trigger/tempt the user (¶96; ¶126; ¶147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to help a user to avoid being triggered/tempted, whether by modifying an augmented-reality device that the user already owns, or by providing a known augmented-reality device to implement the method of Williams. Additionally, tamper detection will help prevent the user from performing an undesired action by alerting authorities to intercede with the user.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user is aided in being triggered/tempted and with not performing an undesired action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom in view of Woodman (US 2019/0369402 A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 3, Vallstrom discloses a tracking system comprising:
a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (10E, Fig. 1) [where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device];
a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
a transmitting circuit (10B, Fig, 1; ¶29, line 21); and
a controller circuit (10A, Fig. 1; ¶29, line 20) configured to:
transmit the location to a receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶11; ¶43);
after transmitting the location to the receiving device, receive the insignificant movement indication from the first monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmit the location to the receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶13).
Vallstrom further discloses that a cellular phone comprises a movement determination circuit (10A, Fig. 1).
Vallstrom fails to explicitly disclose the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another; and the first monitor device is a user detached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user attached monitor device.
Woodman teaches:
a first monitor device is a user detached monitor device (¶52-53) [where a cellular phone is a user detached device];
a second monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) with a location determination circuit (1012, Fig. 10; ¶91), a transmitting circuit (1018, Fig. 10; ¶104-105; ¶118) [where GSM/cellular communication is encompassed], and a controller circuit (1002, Fig. 10) is a user attached monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) [where in one embodiment the second monitor device may not have an IMU/accelerometer (¶91-92)];
where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10; ¶52-53) [where the cellular phone and the glasses are not physically associated with one another/ physically engaged with one another].
In the combination, the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone is used to determine when the user of the wearable imaging device and cellular phone is stationary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the wearable imaging device of Woodman by using the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the wearable imaging device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the wearable imaging device will last longer since it will expend less power.
In regard to claim 5, Woodman further teaches the user detached monitor device is a cellular communication enabled device associated with a monitored individual (1018, Fig. 10; ¶104-105; ¶118) [where GSM/cellular communication is encompassed], and wherein the user attached monitor device is configured for attachment to the monitored individual (108, 110, Fig. 1).
In regard to claims 10-11, Vallstrom discloses receiving a location of a first monitor device from a location determination circuit in the first monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
transmitting the location to a receiving device (10B, Fig, 1; ¶11; ¶29, line 21; ¶43);
after transmitting the location, receiving an insignificant movement indication from a movement determination circuit in a second monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reducing power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmitting the location to the receiving device (¶13) [where the first monitor device is 10, Fig. 1 and the second monitor device is 10E, Fig. 1, where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device].
Vallstrom fails to explicitly disclose the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another; and the first monitor device is a user attached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user detached monitor device.
Woodman teaches:
a first monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) with a location determination circuit (1012, Fig. 10; ¶91), a transmitting circuit (1018, Fig. 10; ¶104-105; ¶118) [where GSM/cellular communication is encompassed], and a controller circuit (1002, Fig. 10) is a user attached monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) [where in one embodiment the second monitor device may not have an IMU/accelerometer (¶91-92);
a second monitor device is a user detached monitor device (¶52-53) [where a cellular phone is a user detached device];
where the first monitor device and the second monitor device are not physically associated with one another (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10; ¶52-53) [where the cellular phone and the glasses are not physically associated with one another/ physically engaged with one another].
In the combination, the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone is used to determine when the user of the wearable imaging device and cellular phone is stationary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the wearable imaging device of Woodman by using the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the wearable imaging device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the wearable imaging device will last longer since it will expend less power.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom and Woodman, as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of Williams (US 2023/0179955 A1).
Woodman further discloses the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment (¶27).
Vallstrom and Woodman fail to disclose the user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual.
Williams teaches a user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual (Fig. 4 (Cont.)/Sheet 10); ¶85; ¶104; ¶313) [where one way to detect tampering is by determine if no movement occurs for X hours, i.e., using the movement detector].
Williams further teaches the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment, e.g., to obstruct the user from viewing things that may trigger/tempt the user (¶96; ¶126; ¶147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to help a user to avoid being triggered/tempted, whether by modifying an augmented-reality device that the user already owns, or by providing a known augmented-reality device to implement the method of Williams. Additionally, tamper detection will help prevent the user from performing an undesired action by alerting authorities to intercede with the user.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user is aided in being triggered/tempted and with not performing an undesired action.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom either one of Vasavada or Williams, as applied to claims 1 and 10, above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 106324630 B).
In regard to claim 7, Vallstrom further discloses the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device is stationary in a time period (¶44).
Vallstrom fails to disclose that being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in the time period.
Zhang teaches being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period (p. 15, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the first monitor device is stationary.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the system determines when the first monitor device is stationary.
In the combination, the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period.
In regard to claim 8, Zhang further teaches the defined distance is less than fifty feet (p. 15, ¶6) [where five meters is less than fifty feet].
In regard to claim 16, Vallstrom further discloses the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device is stationary in a time period (¶44).
Vallstrom fails to disclose that being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in the time period.
Zhang teaches being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period (p. 15, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the first monitor device is stationary.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the system determines when the first monitor device is stationary.
In the combination, the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period.
In regard to claim 17, Zhang further teaches the defined distance is less than fifty feet (p. 15, ¶6) [where five meters is less than fifty feet].
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Garmin (Garmin Mobile 10 for smartphones), which teaches a GPS receiver module that is external to and physically detached from a smartphone with which it communicates.
Syrjarinne (US 2005/0113124 A1), which teaches a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (14, Fig. 1) [where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device]; and a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising: a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (12, Fig. 1)]; a transmitting circuit (11, Fig. 1); and a controller circuit (15, Fig. 1) configured to, based at least in part upon an insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (21-22, Fig. 2)
Bradley (US 2018/0279086 A1), which teaches a first monitor device with a movement determination circuit (30, 31, Fig. 1; ¶41) is a user attached monitor device (11, 12, Fig. 1) and the second monitor device with a location determination circuit (¶35) [where it is well known for a mobile telephone to have a location determination circuit] is a user detached monitor device (10, Fig. 1)
Buck (US 2020/0359172 A1), which teaches the first monitor device with a movement determination circuit (111, Fig. 1b) is a user detached monitor device (Fig. 1b) and the second monitor device with a location determination circuit (162, Fig. 1c) is a user attached monitor device (Fig. 1c) [where the Motion/Proximity Sensor 152 in Fig. 1c may be only implemented as a sensor to sense proximity (¶48, particularly the "or" at the end of p. 7, line 1)].
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6, with respect to the objection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-15, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments with regard to the 35 USC 102 rejection over Vallstrom are moot in that all the claims are now rejected under 35 USC 103.
Applicant argues with respect to Vasavada fails that "A coupling mechanism on the watch band and/or the watch body allows a user to attach (i.e., physically associate) and detach the watch body from the watch band.". However, when the watch body is detached from the watch band, the watch body is not physically associated with the watch band. In other words, if attach means physically associated, detach means physically dissociated (i.e. not or no longer physically associated).
Applicant argues with respect to Williams that Williams fails to teach certain features. However, none of these features are features the rejection alleges Williams teaches. These are all features the rejection points to Vallstrom or Vasavada as teaching. Thus, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues with respect to Woodman that Woodman provides both location data of the imaging device via a GPS sensor and motion information of the imaging device via an accelerometer. However, both ¶91 and ¶92 make clear that there are embodiments in which an accelerometer is not present in the imaging device of Woodman. ¶91 states "The metadata sources 1012 may include sensors such as an inertial measurement unit (IMU) including one or more accelerometers and/or gyroscopes, a magnetometer, a compass, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, an altimeter, an ambient light sensor, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a heart rate sensor, and/or other sensors." (emphasis added), as pointed out in the original rejection. Applicant is encouraged to read the Office Action provided to applicant for applicant's benefit, and to address points that the Office Action makes that are related to applicant's arguments, in order to expedite prosecution of the application. ¶92 states " By way of a non-limiting example, the accelerometer may provide device motion information comprising velocity and/or acceleration vectors representative of motion of the imaging device 1000; the gyroscope may provide orientation information describing the orientation of the imaging device 1000; the GPS sensor may provide GPS coordinates, time, and identifying location of the imaging device 1000; and the altimeter may obtain the altitude of the imaging device 1000. In some implementations, the metadata sources 1012 may be rigidly coupled to the imaging device 1000 such that any motion, orientation, or change in location experienced by the imaging device 1000 is also experienced by the metadata sources 1012. " (emphasis added). In such embodiments, in the combination, movement data is provided by the cellular telephone. With regard to applicant's other arguments, none of these are with respect to features the rejection alleges Woodman teaches. These are all features the rejection points to Vallstrom as teaching. Thus, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues with respect to Zhang that Zhang fails to teach certain features. However, none of these features are features the rejection alleges Zhang teaches. These are all features the rejection points to Vallstrom or Vasavada or Williams as teaching. Thus, this argument is moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment of 6-16-2026 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, e.g., claim(s) 1 was/were amended, necessitating the new grounds of rejection. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights