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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant argues that,
“Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US2005/0271355A1 to Gilor. The rejection is traversed. The Office Action interprets the claimed "trigger module" under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and identifies the corresponding structure as "a device interacted with by a user to indicate an action or an input by a user to start a record command (see at least paragraph [0038])." (Office Action, pg. 4). The Examiner then maps Gilor's alarm port 215, user interface 224, and remote control 218 to the claimed trigger module. This interpretation is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the disclosure of the present application and the construction of the term "trigger module" as applied by the Examiner.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, paragraph [0037] of the specification states:
[0037] The trigger command may be set according to actions performed in the OR. For example, the trigger command may comprise an action occurring in the OR. This may be an interaction by a user with a device in the OR. The trigger command may comprise an input from a user, for example including a command to begin recording, or a command with an instruction as to when to begin recording. (emphases added)
As such, paragraph [0038] of the specification of current invention clearly indicates the trigger module is at least a device via which the user can interact with to provide an input.
There is no further description of the trigger module’s structure that can be found in the specification. Fig. 9 of the specification only shows a trigger module as block without any detailed description of what it is.
Therefore, Examiner’s interpretation of the recited trigger module as a device via which the user can interact with to provide an input is clearly compliant with the description of the specification.
As such, an alarm port 215 described at least in [0014], [0074]-[0075], and further illustrated in Fig. 2, clearly corresponds to the recited “trigger module”.
On pages 6-7, Applicant further argues that,
“The specification of the present application explicitly discloses that a key innovation is "the need to be able to provide continuous recording within an OR without necessarily requiring a user trigger." (Application, ¶[0013]). The specification further explains: "The trigger command may comprise the encoder receiving a video feed. For example, the trigger module of the encoder may be configured to trigger the recording module to begin recording the received video stream when the encoder receives the video stream. That is, as soon as a video stream or video signal is detected by the encoder, recording may be started. In such an embodiment, no user interaction is necessary to begin recording." (Application, ¶[0036]) (emphasis added). This is not merely one of several equally-supported embodiments; it is the expressly-stated technical contribution of the disclosure: eliminating user triggers to prevent inadvertent missed recordings in operating room environments.
The Examiner's interpretation that the trigger module is limited to "a device interacted with by a user to indicate an action or an input by a user to start a record command" directly contradicts the specification's teaching that "no user interaction is necessary to begin recording." If the trigger module were limited to user-activated devices, the specification's express teaching of automatic, user-free triggering upon video signal detection would be excluded from claim scope. This cannot be the correct interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which requires interpreting a means-plus- function limitation to cover "the corresponding structure ... described in the specification and equivalents thereof."
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that paragraph [0013] clearly states “… within an OR without … ” Further, as described above, paragraph [0037] of the current application clearly states “trigger command may comprise an input from a user, for example including a command to begin recording, or a command with an instruction as to when to begin recording”.
Further, Examiner respectfully submits that while the trigger module is not limited to user-activated devices, the specification does not exclude user-activated devices as a trigger module, but indeed, includes those devices.
In addition, besides a user-activated device, Examiner does not find any description of a structure of the trigger module via which no user interactions are required.
On page 7, Applicant argues,
“Properly construed, the claimed trigger module encompasses the structure disclosed in the specification for triggering recording in response to a trigger command, which expressly includes automatic triggering upon detection of a video signal without user interaction. (Application, ¶¶[0036], [0131]-[0132]) ("In this example, the trigger command comprises the receipt, by the encoder 900, of a video stream. When the encoder 900 receives a video stream from the video stream source, the encoder automatically begins to record the video stream."). Under this proper construction, Gilor's alarm-triggered and user-triggered recording mechanisms do not anticipate the claimed trigger module because Gilor does not disclose automatic triggering upon receipt of a video stream.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits, without acquiescing to any characterization of Gilor’s teachings by Applicant, that while supporting “the trigger command is not user activated,” the paragraphs do not disclose any structure to perform the function of “triggering the recording module in response to such a command”. Examiner also asserts that Gilor also teaches the trigger command is not user activated (see Gilor: [0074] – triggering a recording automatically upon detection of movement).
Examiner also submits that claim 1 and claim 7 do not recite “automatic triggering upon receipt of a video stream.”
Further even in claim 27, the trigger command is recited as “comprises an input from a user”. As such, Applicant contradicts himself in interpretation of the “trigger module”.
On pages 7-8, Applicant further argues,
“Gilor paragraph [0014] discloses recording in response to "a triggering signal received from an external device through an alarm port 215," such as a signal from "an alarm system, which may send a triggering signal upon detection of a pre-defined movement or any movement." (Gilor, ¶[0014]). Gilor paragraphs [0074]-[0077] disclose recording "in response to an instruction provided by a user of recorder 200, for example, through a user interface 224 which may include one or more buttons or switches" or "through a remote control 218." (Gilor, ¶¶[0074]-[0077]). Neither an external alarm signal nor a user instruction constitutes automatic triggering upon receipt of a video stream as disclosed in the present application. Gilor's triggering mechanisms require either (1) an external alarm system to detect movement and send a signal, or (2) user intervention through buttons, switches, or a remote control. The claimed system, by contrast, automatically begins recording simply upon receiving the video stream itself, which is a hands-free operation critical in an operating room environment where medical personnel may be engaged in sterile procedures.
Because Gilor does not disclose a trigger module that triggers recording upon receipt of a video stream, the structure expressly disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed function, Gilor fails to anticipate claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 16-18. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is respectfully requested on at least this basis.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant’s arguments are moot as discussed above. On page 8, Applicant argues that,
“Claims 2 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gilor in view of US20100008649A1 by Watanabe et al. Regarding claims 2 and 26, the Examiner relies on Watanabe paragraph [0033] to disclose "a trigger command comprises receipt of a video feed." (Office Action, pg. 6). However, Watanabe does not disclose triggering recording upon the receipt of a video feed. Rather, Watanabe discloses beginning a particular image processing approach based on a characteristic of the image content and specifically, the detection of a face. Watanabe paragraph [0033] states that "face detector 9 detects faces of respective subjects in an input image acquired by AV sensor 1" and that the system "outputs detection result information indicative of the number of detected faces and further the positions thereof in each frame image." (Watanabe, ¶[0033]). This is a fundamentally different triggering mechanism from the claimed approach, which automatically begins recording upon receipt of the video stream itself, without requiring any analysis of the video content.
Claim 2 recites that "the trigger command comprises the receipt of the video feed." The specification explains that this means "as soon as a video stream or video signal is detected by the encoder, recording may be started. In such an embodiment, no user interaction is necessary to begin recording." (Application, ¶[0036]). The claimed triggering is unconditional upon receipt of the video stream. It does not depend on the content of the video, such as whether a face is detected. Watanabe's face-detection-based triggering requires analyzing the video content before a triggering event occurs, which is inconsistent with the claimed automatic triggering upon video receipt.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Wang at least in [0033] teaches: …[u]pon receipt of an input video signal from DSP 103, the codec 104 applies compression processing thereto. This compression is performed while using the SDRAM 106 as a work buffer. A resultant video signal that was compressed by the codec 104 is passed via ATA/ATAPI controller 107 to either HDD 108 or a recording medium being presently loaded in BD drive 109 and then recorded thereto … (emphasis added). As such, Wang clearly teaches receipt of an input video signal triggers compression and recording of the video signal into an HDD or a recording medium presently loaded in a drive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant further argues that,
“Additionally, even if Watanabe could be read to disclose triggering upon receipt of a video feed, the combination of Gilor and Watanabe still fails to render claims 2 and 26 obvious. Watanabe discloses a hybrid digital video camera that records video from an AV sensor to an HDD and later dubs the recorded video to removable media such as optical disks. (Watanabe, ¶¶[0030]- [0033]). Watanabe's face detection functionality is used for scene splitting during dubbing-not for triggering recording upon receipt of a video feed. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Gilor's alarm-triggered or user-triggered recording with Watanabe's face-detection-based scene splitting to arrive at the claimed trigger module that triggers recording upon receipt of the video feed.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that incorporating triggering recording upon receipt of an input stream is simple by: (1) detecting an input stream, and (2) sending out a command to start recording.
As such, the proposed combination does not require any other unnecessary processing taught by Wang to be incorporated. For example, “face detection” does not affect any (1) and (2), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have not avoided incorporating triggering recording upon receipt of an input stream just because “facial detection” is involved in unrelated processing.
On page 9, Applicant further argues that,
“Regarding claims 5-6, 19-25, and 27-28, the Examiner relies on Meardi to disclose "determining a region of interest in a video image, then providing at least a buffered version of the image that is encoded at higher quality to an external device." (Office Action, pg. 8). However, Meardi teaches determining a spatial "region of interest" within a video frame for quality enhancement purposes by allowing a user to select a spatial portion of the image (such as a surgeon's hands during an operation) for higher resolution streaming. (Meardi, ¶¶[0045]-[0046], [0075]). This is fundamentally different from the claimed system. The claimed system involves the encoder buffering the entire video stream to local storage and then selectively providing temporal portions of the buffered video (i.e., video recorded over a period of time) to the media asset manager only when it is later determined that the video content is of interest for archiving.
Meardi's spatial region-of-interest selection by zooming in on a particular area of a video frame does not teach or suggest an encoder that continuously buffers video locally and selectively transfers temporal portions of the buffered video stream to a media asset manager based on a subsequent determination of interest.
As disclosed in the present application, the claimed system addresses a specific technical problem: preventing a server from being flooded with unnecessary data by locally buffering video at the encoder and only providing video to the media asset manager when it is determined that the video is of interest. (Application, ¶¶[0039]-[0043]). This allows for efficient management of operating room video data without requiring real-time transmission of all recorded video to the server. None of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests this selective transfer architecture.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim recite “the encoder is configured to provide the at least some of the buffered video stream to the media asset manager when it is determined that the at least some of the buffered video stream is of interest.” (emphases added)
Meardi teaches in response to detecting a region of interest within the video stream, encoding the region with high-quality resolution, and transmits the stream with the region of interest encoded in high-quality resolution to a device. Because the stream with the region of interest is provided, at least some of it is provided. As such, the claim’s limitations are met.
In other words, the claims recite neither (i) only portions of the stream that includes the region of interest are provided, nor (ii) only when it is later determined that the video content is of interest for archiving.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
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: “input configured to receive a video stream of medical data” and “trigger module configured to, in response to a trigger command, trigger the recording module to begin recording the video stream” in claims 1-7 and 16-28.
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.
Upon thorough examining the specification of current application, Examiner finds the structure of the corresponding limitations above as follows:
Input configured to … as cameras, endoscopes etc. (paragraph [0089]),
Trigger module configured to … as a device interacted with by a user to indicate an action or an input by a user to start a record command (see at least paragraph [0037]).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilor (US 2005/0271355 A1 – hereinafter Gilor).
Regarding claim 1, Gilor discloses a system for obtaining medical data in an operating room (Fig. 2 – a system comprising a recorder 200 and remote control 218 and a camera as described in at least [0051] for obtaining any video data including medical data in an operating room), the system comprising: an encoder (Fig. 4 – recorder 200) having: an input configured to receive a video stream of medical data (Fig. 4 – A/V input port 201 configured to receive the video stream of medical data, e.g. when the system is used to record medical data in an operating room, from one or more cameras); a recording module (Fig. 4 – a recording module configured to record video data into buffer 205 or from the buffer 205 to storage unit 209); and a trigger module configured to, in response to a trigger command, trigger the recording module to begin recording the video stream ([0014]; [0074]-[0075] – a trigger module, in response to a received trigger signal, triggers the recording module to start recording of the video stream); and a video stream source configured to provide the video stream to the encoder ([0051] – a camera provides the video stream to the recorder 200 for encoding and recording).
Regarding claim 3, Gilor also discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein the encoder further comprises a local storage, the encoder being configured to buffer the video stream to the local storage (Fig. 4 – the encoder configured to buffer the video stream to buffer 205).
Regarding claim 4, Gilor also discloses a system according to claim 3, further comprising a media asset manager configured to receive at least some of the buffered video stream from the encoder (Fig. 4 – processor 206 as a media asset manager configured to receive at least some of the buffered video stream).
Regarding claim 7, Gilor discloses an encoder (Fig. 4 – recorder 200) for obtaining medical data in an operating room (Fig. 4 – recorder 200 via a camera as described in at least [0051] for obtaining any video data including medical data in an operating room), the encoder comprising: an input configured to receive a video stream of medical data (Fig. 4 – A/V input port 201 configured to receive the video stream of medical data, e.g. when the system is used to record medical data in an operating room, from one or more cameras); a recording module (Fig. 4 – a recording module configured to record video data into buffer 205 or from the buffer 205 to storage unit 209); and a trigger module configured to, in response to a trigger command, trigger the recording module to begin recording the video stream ([0014]; [0074] – a trigger module, in response to a received trigger signal, triggers the recording module to start recording of the video stream).
Regarding claim 16, Gilor also discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the trigger command comprises an input from a user ([0011]; [0075]; [0077] - an instruction provided by a user, for example, through a user interface which may include one or more buttons or switches or through a remote control).
Regarding claim 17, Gilor also discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the trigger command comprises an action occurring in the operating room ([0011]; [0075]; [0077] – when the system is used in an operating room, a user performs an act of operating the remote control or pressing one or more buttons or switches through a user interface).
Regarding claim 18, Gilor also discloses a system according to claim 17, wherein the encoder is configured to buffer at least some of the video stream (Fig. 4 – the encoder configured to buffer the video stream to buffer 205) and wherein the system further comprises a media asset manager configured to receive at least some of the buffered video stream from the encoder (Fig. 4 – processor 206 as a media asset manager configured to receive at least some of the buffered video stream).
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.
Claims 2 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilor as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2010/0008649 A1 – hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 2, see the teachings of Gilor as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Gilor does not disclose the trigger command comprises the receipt of the video feed.
Watanabe discloses a trigger command comprises receipt of a video feed (Fig. 1; [0033] – upon receipt of a video feed from a camera, an encoder starts encoding and recording the video stream).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe into the system taught by Gilor to automatically record the video stream when the video stream is provided, thus enhancing the control interface of the system.
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claims 5-6, 19-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilor as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Meardi et al. (US 2021/0168389 A1 – hereinafter Meardi).
Regarding claim 5, see the teachings of Gilor as discussed in claim 4 above.
However, Gilor does not disclose the encoder is configured to provide the at least some of the buffered video stream to the media asset manager when it is determined that the at least some of the buffered video stream is of interest.
Meardi discloses an encoder is configured to provide the at least some of a buffered video stream to a media asset manager when it is determined that the at least some of the buffered video stream is of interest ([0045]-[0046] – determining a region of interest in a video image, then providing at least a buffered version of the image that is encoded at higher quality to an external device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Meardi into the system taught by Gilor to allow for viewing a portion of the video stream that is determined to be of interest to a user in high quality while saving the bandwidth of the network.
Regarding claim 6, see the teachings of Gilor and Meardi as discussed in claim 5 above, in which Meardi also discloses the media asset manager is configured to receive a user input indicating that the at least some of the buffered video stream is of interest ([0075] - a user uses a quickly delivered low-resolution layer or layers to select a region of interest (e.g., including for panning or zooming), so that higher resolution layers, which may take up more data, are delivered for only the region of interest).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Meardi has been discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 21, see the teachings of Gilor as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Gilor does not disclose the system comprising a plurality of the encoders.
Meardi discloses a system comprising a plurality of encoders ([0147]; Fig. 14 – a plurality of recorders 1410, each of which is interpreted as an encoder).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Meardi into the system taught by Gilor to enhance processing capability of the system.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 16 above.
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 17 above.
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights