Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant argues that there is no teaching of a photochromatic cover overlapping the camera to hide the camera from view. The examiner believes that Acheff teaches this cover in pars. 15, 37 and 40. Here Acheff teaches a photochromic lens to shield the hardware and to conceal the underlying components. Acheff state that the surface turns fully opaque and appears hidden. Haas teaches an EVSE structure with a camera in par. 6. Accordingly, the combination does teach the limitation.
Second, the applicant argues that the combination would just improve appearance and not keep the passerby unaware. The claim language states “to hide the camera from view.” The examiner believes that the reason to combine, or obviousness, does not require the purpose to be same. Further, Acheff does teach that the cover will shields the hardware (see pars. 15-16) and it creates the appearance of hideaway headlights. Also see par. 34 of Haas that states the importance of making the device tamper resistant.
Third, the applicant argues the rationale requires hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, we are just applying a headlight lens coating to an existing camera lens.
Next the applicant argues that this is like a chest press vs rowing machine and that a headlamp is not a kiosk camera. The examiner believes that Acheff is not cited for headlamp functioning but for concealment technique. A camera lens assembly is an optical component mounted on an exterior surface. Similarity a headlamp is a exterior optical hardware. Meaning, the coatings or finishes of optical components are from the same field of endeavor.
As such, this rejection is made final.
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) 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (20180249129) in view of Acheff (20170363787).
Regarding claim 1, Haas teaches A kiosk, comprising: at least one display; a camera (pars. 65-71);
Acheff teaches a photochromic cover overlapping the camera to hide the camera from view (pars. 6-11, 30 and 33-37. Also see pars. 15 and 40).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Haas the ability to conceal the lens using a photochromic cover as taught by Acheff in order to conceal the optics from view to improve the appearance of the device.
Regarding claim 2, see the abstract of Haas.
Regarding claim 5, see pars. 44-45 of Haas for multiple sensors. The ability to conceal is discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, see pars. 61-65 of Haas.
Regarding claims 10-11, see the rejection of claims 1-2.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (20180249129) in view of Acheff (20170363787) in further view of Uken (20210155160).
Regarding claim 3, Acheff teaches blending the surrounding with the lens in pars. 9, 12-13.
Uken teaches wherein the photochromic cover is placed within a bezel adjacent to a display of the kiosk, wherein, under ambient daylight conditions, the photochromic cover matches a tint of the bezel (pars. 181 and 189-191, teach the bezel matching the lens).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Acheff and Haas the ability to match the bezel to the lens as taught by Uken. The reason is to conceal the lens area.
Regarding claim 4, see pars. 189-191 of Uken.
Regarding claims 6, see Uken pars. 165-166 and pars. 5 of Haas.
Regarding claims 12-13, see the rejection of claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 6.
Claim(s) 8- 9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (20180249129) in view of Acheff (20170363787) in further view of Niemela (20170227841).
Regarding claim 8, Neimela teache a 360 degree camera to capture a wide area in par. 48.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Haas and Acheff the ability to include a 360 degree camera as taught by Niemela in order to improve the capturing field of view.
Regarding claim 9, Haas teaches multiple sensors in pars. 44-45 and the second camera can be the second sensor like the camera in Niemela.
Regarding claims 17-18, see the rejection of claims 8-9.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (20180249129) in view of Acheff (20170363787) in further view of Burry (20180181995).
Burry teaches using using the camera the individual passing by the kiosk, modifying content displayed on the display (see par. 14 and 19-23 and 30).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Haas and Acheff the ability to have a display that changes its signage based on information from the camera as taught by Burry. The reason is to have advertisements.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676