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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12075197. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claim 1 recites a broader version of the method/system recited in claim 1 of the patent.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent application 11/324,650 are similar in scope to claim 1-10 of the US patent application 11/708,406 with obvious wording variations.
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(s) 21-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lemberger et al (US 11115630 B1).
As per claim 21, Lemberger discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first camera (a first device from 1102 in fig. 11) of a system, first data from a second camera of the system (another device in 1102, either when they are working in concert to identify an object per (para 164: the hub 1112 receives data from the cameras to identify objects) (para 165: the hub device can be part of one of the cameras, where, the first camera with the hub device must receive the video data from the second camera, as well as its own camera in order to identify the objects as per para 164), the first data being indicative of an event detected by a second camera of the system (the video from both cameras used to identify the object );
using/comparing, by the first camera, the first data (the hub when integrated with one of the AV devices/camera 1102 will receive its own data from its own camera) to process second data acquired by the first camera to determine that the second data corresponds to the event (para. 167, the processes figs. 16-20 can be performed by any or all of the AV cameras, hub or client devices) (any of the processing steps of para 107-111 are read as comparing, noting the multiple images from multiple image sensors in para 107 are used/compared to identify an object, also the combining step in 111 is a comparison of the views); and
causing the first camera to perform at least a first operation based at least in part on the second data corresponding to/representing the event (the hub described above identifying an object in combination with other images from other cameras, receives the images from the other cameras, then performs any of the steps in para 110,111) (again noting: the multiple images from multiple image sensors in para 107 are used/compared to identify an object, also the combining step in 111 is a comparison of the views ).
As per claim 31, a system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (required for the system and method of the claim 21 rejection), cause the system to:
receive, by a first camera, first data from a second camera of the system, the first data being indicative of a an event detected by the second camera of the system (per claim 21 rejection);
use/compare, by the first camera, the first data to process second data acquired by the first camera to determine that the second data corresponds to the event (per claim 21 rejection); and
cause the first camera to perform an first operation/operation based at least in part on the second data representing the event (per claim 21 rejection).
As per claim 22,32, the method of claim 21, wherein the first data represents first audio captured by the second camera (per claim 21 rejection).
As per claim 23,33, the method of claim 22, wherein the second data represents second audio captured by the first camera (per claim 21 rejection).
As per claim 24,34, the method of claim 23, wherein using the first data to process the second data includes comparing the second data to the first data to determine that the second audio corresponds to the first audio (the time interval determined based on the first data per the claim 21 rejection is a comparison of the first data to the second data which determines that the second data corresponds to the event because it is based on the timespan specified by the first data).
As per claim 25,35, Lemberger discloses recording audio of an event with an A/V device which includes recording video with the audio (para 43, the AV devices record audio as well).
As per claim 26,36, it is rejected per the claim 25 rejection, wherein the first operation comprises capturing video within a field of view of the first camera (per the cited A/V device).
As per claim 27,37 the method of claim 21,
A method comprising
receiving by a first camera of a system data indicative of an object detected by the second camera of the system (per claim 21 rejection).
Using, by the first camera, the data to detect the object in video acquired by the first camera (comparing, per the claim 21 rejection), and
Causing the first camera to perform an operation based at least in part on detection of the object in the video (per claim 21 rejection) .
As per claim 28,38 the method of claim 27, wherein the data is determined based on second video captured by the second camera (per claim 21 rejection).
As per claim 29,39, the method of claim 28, wherein using the data to detect the object includes performing object recognition processing on the video to identify the object in the video (the object identification per claim 21 rejection).
As per claim 30,40, the operation includes outputting indications that the object was detected in the video (the video data as received from the cameras is an indication of object detection, additionally, the hub functions per para 64: the hub device 1112 may identify objects within the image data 460 using the object/facial recognizer 490, and transmit the identification of the objects to the backend server(s) 1122; in view of the disclosure above that the client devices can implement the functions of the hub or servers, para 167)
Response to Arguments
The submitted arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights