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, see response, filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Horita (US 2013/0259441 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al. (US 2011/0058052 A1) in view of Hilla (US 9,369,635 B1) in view of Horita (US 2013/0259441 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Bolton discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations (Paragraphs 0074-0075) comprising:
executing a camera application on a client device comprising a camera and a graphical user interface (Figure 2, camera application 205 executed by processor 204 on device 200 including camera 207 and user interface 208 including output devices such as a video screen, see paragraphs 0027, 0030);
generating, by the camera application, a first recording by configuring the camera to execute a recording operation in accordance with instructions received from a controller device (Figures 1, 3-4 and 6-7; paragraphs 0019-0020, 0022, 0027-0028; recording video based on instructions from accessory);
storing, by the camera application, the first recording on a local storage component of the client device (Figure 2, 206; paragraphs 0018-0020, 0027-0028); and
storing the first recording on the local storage component of the client device: transmitting, by the camera application to the controller device, first recording (Figure 3, 305; Figure 4, 405; paragraph 0022),
wherein the controller device stores, on the controller device or a secondary storage device, a second recording based on the recording received from the camera application (Figure 2, 228; paragraph 0033).
However, Bolton does not explicitly disclose a director application executed on the controller device or a real-time live stream of the recording transmitted by the client device as claimed.
Hilla discloses a remote control device for a camera system which executes a director application on the remote controller, receives a real-time live stream of a camera recording and provides control commands to the camera (e.g. c. 6, l. 66 – c. 7, l. 50, c. 19, l. 52 – c. 20, l. 6). The controller of Hilla allows for smart phone devices to act as a remote control device providing a convenient and integrated solution which takes advantage of existing mobile devices (c. 7, ll. 5-9 and 26-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a remote control device such as the director device of Hilla to provide the remote control functions of Bolton so that existing mobile devices could act as the remote control without requiring separate remote control hardware to provide a convenient, compact and integrated solution.
While Bolton in view of Hilla discloses a system which streams in real-time, Bolton in view of Hilla does not explicitly disclose that the recording of the captured video by the camera application includes writing a frame contemporaneously with transmitting the frame to the director application or writing the frame contemporaneously with receiving the live stream by the director application.
Horita discloses a similar system including a camera device which simultaneously records and transfers video data to an external apparatus in real time, wherein the external apparatus receives, displays and records the video data as a file in real time (e.g. Paragraph 0187). The real-time recording/transmitting/receiving/recording system of Horita allows for video to be simultaneously recorded on a local storage of the camera as well as on a storage of an external apparatus in real time (Paragraphs 0118, 0187). Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform writing and transmitting operations contemporaneously by the camera application and to similarly perform receiving and writing operations contemporaneously by the director application in the system of Bolton in view of Hilla as taught by Horita so that real-time simultaneous recording/transmitting and receiving/recording may be achieved thereby reducing delays.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Bolton discloses wherein the first recording is identical to the second recording (Paragraph 0022; note that there is no disclosure of modifying the recording prior to transmitting the recording to the remote control device).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Bolton in view of Hilla discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
generating the live stream based on a set of instructions received from the director application executing on the controller device (e.g. Bolton, Figures 3-4, 6-7, entering video preview or video recording mode based on user instructions to change modes).[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, Bolton discloses wherein the operations further comprise: pairing the client device with the controller device (Figure 6, 601-602; Figure 7, 701-702),
wherein paring includes a direct wireless connection between the client device and the controller device (Figure 1A; Paragraphs 0022, 0038, 0060-0061, 0065-0066).[claims 8-10 and 14]
Claims 8-10 are 14 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-3 and 7. Therefore, claims 8-10 and 14 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1-3 and 7, wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor (e.g. Bolton, Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0031, 0033, 0074-0075).[claims 15-17]
Regarding claims 15-17, Bolton in view of Hilla in view of Horita discloses a system comprising one or more processors (e.g. Bolton, Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0031, 0033, 0074-0075) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations as claimed (see rejections of claims 1-3 above).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al. (US 2011/0058052 A1) in view of Hilla (US 9,369,635 B1) Horita (US 2013/0259441 A1 in view of Geissler (US 2025/0150713 A1).[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Bolton in view of Hilla does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
generating the live stream by modifying at least one attribute of the first recording,
wherein the second recording, that is based on the live stream, is different from the first recording.
Geissler discloses a similar system for streaming captured video from a camera (e.g. Figure 1) comprising: generating the stream by modifying at least one attribute of the first recording (e.g. Paragraph 0037). The system of Geissler allows for the video to be transmitted in a compressed form thereby reducing the amount of data being transmitted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify at least one attribute of the first recording as taught by Geissler prior to streaming the recording so that the video may be compressed and transmitted with a reduced amount of data.
Note that in the combined system, the second recording, that is based on the live stream, would be different from the first recording since the received second recording would be compressed.[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, the combined system discloses wherein the first recording is of a higher quality than the second recording (see rejection of claim 4 above and note that the quality would be reduced by reducing the bandwidth as described).[claims 11 and 12]
Claims 11 and 12 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 4 and 5. Therefore, claims 11 and 12 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 4 and 5.[claims 18 and 19]
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the combined system discloses a system comprising one or more processors (e.g. Bolton, Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0031, 0033, 0074-0075) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations as claimed (see rejections of claims 4 and 5 above).[claim 21]
Regarding claim 21, see the rejection of claim 4 above and note that compressing as taught by Geissler is a type of modification which is performed before the frame would be stored in the secondary storage device.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al. (US 2011/0058052 A1) in view of Hilla (US 9,369,635 B1) Horita (US 2013/0259441 A1 in view of Geissler (US 2025/0150713 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0073049 A1).[claim 6]
Regarding claim 7, Bolton in view of Hilla in view of Geissler discloses wherein one or more attributes of the first recording and the second recording are different (see rejection of claim 3 above), but does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise:
subsequent to completing the generation of the first recording, transmitting the first recording to (a) the director application or (b) a storage component that is accessible by the director application.
Li discloses an apparatus for backing up recorded video wherein after completing generation of a video recording, the camera device transmits the recording to a storage component in the system such as a local router over a wireless connection (e.g. Figure 1, 3) so that the video may be backed up in a secure and private manner while providing increased storage space (e.g. Paragraph 0038-0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to transmit the first recording to a backup system as taught by Li after completion of the recording to backup the video recording in a secure and private manner and increase the storage space of the system.
Note that since both the backup system Li and the remote control director application of Bolton in view of Hilla communicate over WiFi, it would additionally have been obvious to provide access to the backed up video files to the director application so that a user of the director application may view the backed up video files and to reduce the need for a large cache in the remote control device by relying on the increased storage available in the backup apparatus.[claim 13]
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6.[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, the combined system discloses a system comprising one or more processors (e.g. Bolton, Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0031, 0033, 0074-0075) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations as claimed (see rejections of claim 6 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights