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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I including claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 28 is missing. Misnumbered claim 29 has been renumbered as claim 28.
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 [0038]).
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
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