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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meiyin et al. (“Meiyin”, CN111654096).
Regarding claim 14, Meiyin discloses a new energy camera device, comprising:
a camera assembly, a battery assembly, and a new energy charging assembly configured to charge the battery assembly (Meiyin: see fig. 1 and page 8, 3rd paragraph and 4th paragraph, wherein a system 100 is an outdoor surveillance camera including a battery 102, a solar charging board 101 configured to charge the battery 102);
a memory (Meiyin: a memory 201, see page 8, first paragraph); and
a processor (Meiyin: a processor 104, see page 8, first paragraph), wherein an application program executable by the processor is stored in the memory for causing the processor to:
determine a current electric quantity of the battery assembly and a predicted duration for full charging the battery assembly by the new energy charging assembly (Meiyin: see page 10 and 2th to 3rd paragraph, wherein the remaining battery information is obtained and a predicted duration for full charging the battery 102 by the solar charging board 101);
determine an operation mode to be adopted from N preset operation modes of the new energy camera device based on the current electric quantity and the predicted duration for full charging the battery assembly, wherein N is a positive integer of at least 2 (Meiyin: see page 10 , step 102 and 6th – 7th paragraph, determine an operation mode to be performed from the 3 preset operation modes of the solar charging board 101 based on the remaining battery information and the predicted duration for full charring the battery 102, wherein N is a positive integer as 3); and
control the new energy camera device to operate in the determined operation mode (Meiyin: see step 402, control the solar charging board 101 to operate in the determined operation mode).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claim 14. Claim 1 is similar scope to claim 14, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claim 1. In addition, a computer readable storage medium can be found in page 8, first paragraph of Meiyin.
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 2-3, 17-18 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiyin et al. (“Meiyin”, CN111654096) in view of Cella (US 2021/0272394).
Regarding claim 17, Meiyin discloses the device according to claim 14, wherein any two of the N operation modes are not identical (Meiyin: see page 10 and 7th paragraph, wherein the N operation modes are not identical).
Meiyin does not explicitly disclose that having a computer vision intelligent algorithm.
However, Cella teaches that having a computer vision intelligent algorithm (Cella: see par. [0157], wherein algorithms 849 may include object detection algorithms 876).
One would have been modified to include a computer vision intelligent algorithm as taught by Cella in the apparatus of Meiyin to obtain more functions for the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cella with the Meiyin’s system to include a computer vision intelligent algorithm.
Regarding claim 18, Meiyin in the combination with Cella discloses the device according to claim 17.
Cella further teaches that the computer vision intelligent algorithm comprises an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm (Cella: see par. [0157]).
One would have been modified to include an artificial intelligence algorithm as taught by Cella in the apparatus of Meiyin and Cella to increase efficiency, automation of repetitive tasks and reduced human error and enhanced decision making through deep data analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cella with the Meiyin and Cella’s system to include an artificial intelligence algorithm.
Regarding claims 2-3, claims 2-3 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 17-18, respectively. Claims 2-3 are similar scope to claims 17-18, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 23-24, claims 23-24 recite the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claims 17-18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 19-22 and 25-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN T H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/CHAN T NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638