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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on August 4, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2023-127710 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on August 2, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “transmission unit”, “receiving unit”, “display control unit”, “intercom control unit”, “tally control unit”, and “attachment unit”, in claims 1-9.
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.
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 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiguchi (US Pub. 2013/0120633), in view of Saito et al. (US Pub. 2023/0362315).
In regard to claim 1, note Hashiguchi discloses a transmission device configured to receive a video signal from an external camera in a form of a baseband signal to transmit a video (paragraphs 0042, 0045-0048, and figures 1-5: 5), the transmission device comprising a transmission unit configured to transmit, to a predetermined external device, a camera video that is being captured and is received from the camera (paragraphs 0045-0048, and figure 5: 35), and a display provided in a housing of the transmission device (figures 1-5: 5, 51; display 51 is provided in the housing).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the transmission device is configured to convert the video signal into an IP signal to transmit the video.
In analogous art, Saito discloses the use of an imaging system that includes a transmission device configured to convert the video signal into an IP signal to transmit the video (paragraph 0212). The Examiner notes that the conversion of a video signal to an IP signal for transmission of the video is common in the art in order to utilize the internet for video transmission between remote locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the transmission device is configured to convert the video signal into an IP signal to transmit the video, in order to utilize the internet for video transmission between remote locations, as is common in the art.
In regard to claim 2, note Hashiguchi discloses that the transmission device includes a receiving unit configured to receive, from the external device, a return video that is on air on television broadcasting (paragraph 0044, and figure 5: 65; the return video is received), and a display control unit configured to display a screen including the return video on the display (paragraphs 0045-0048, and figure 5: 39, 50; the return video can be selectively displayed). As for the video being the in the form of an IP signal, this is considered to be disclosed by Saito (paragraph 0212).
In regard to claim 8, note Hashiguchi discloses a tally control unit having at least one of a function of turning on or blinking a tally lamp provided in a housing of the transmission device or a function of displaying an image based on a tally signal on the display when receiving the tally signal from the external device (paragraphs 0036-0039, 0045-0048, and figure 3: 49, 59; the tally signal is received by the viewfinder 5, and a tally lamp is activated based on this signal).
In regard to claim 9, note Hashiguchi discloses that the display is provided on a first surface widest of a plurality of side surfaces included in the housing (paragraph 0044, and figure 3: 5, 51), and an attachment unit for attaching the housing to the camera is provided on a second surface different from the first surface of the plurality of side surfaces (paragraph 0042, and figure 3).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiguchi (US Pub. 2013/0120633), in view of Saito et al. (US Pub. 2023/0362315), and further in view of Gay et al. (US Patent 10,484,579).
In regard to claim 3, note the primary reference of Hashiguchi in view of Saito discloses the transmission device, as discussed with respect to claim 2 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the display control unit displays a screen including the camera video and the return video on the display.
In analogous art, Gay discloses an imaging system that includes a display control unit that displays a screen including the camera video and a return video on the display (column 1, lines 20-33, column 1, line 65 – column 2, line 10, and figure 1). Wasada teaches that the use of a display control unit that displays a screen including the camera video and a return video on the display is known in the art in order to allow viewers to simultaneously view plural video sources (column 1, lines 20-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the display control unit displays a screen including the camera video and the return video on the display, as is known in the art in order to allow viewers to simultaneously view plural video sources.
In regard to claim 5, note the primary reference of Hashiguchi in view of Saito discloses the transmission device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose a receiving unit configured to receive, from the external device, at least one of a background video or a foreground video displayed on television broadcasting, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the camera video combined with at least one of the background video or the foreground video.
In analogous art, Wasada discloses an imaging system that includes a receiving unit configured to receive, from the external device, at least one of a background video or a foreground video displayed on television broadcasting, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the camera video combined with at least one of the background video or the foreground video (column 3, line 4 – column 4, line 2, and figures 3-4). Wasada teaches that the use of a receiving unit configured to receive, from the external device, at least one of a background video or a foreground video displayed on television broadcasting, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the camera video combined with at least one of the background video or the foreground video is preferred in order to blend the images to efficiently create the impression that the local subject and remote subject occupy a shared physical space (column 3, line 60 – column 4, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include a receiving unit configured to receive, from the external device, at least one of a background video or a foreground video displayed on television broadcasting, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the camera video combined with at least one of the background video or the foreground video, in order to blend the images to efficiently create the impression that the local subject and remote subject occupy a shared physical space, as suggested by Wasada.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiguchi (US Pub. 2013/0120633), in view of Saito et al. (US Pub. 2023/0362315), and further in view of Wasada (US Pub. 2002/0176012).
In regard to claim 4, note the primary reference of Hashiguchi in view of Saito discloses the transmission device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose a receiving unit configured to receive information indicating a telop to be displayed on television broadcasting from the external device, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the telop to be displayed superimposed on the camera video.
In analogous art, Wasada discloses the use of and imaging system that includes a receiving unit configured to receive information indicating a telop to be displayed on television broadcasting from the external device, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the telop to be displayed superimposed on the camera video (paragraphs 0040, 0043, 0047-0050, and figures 1-4: 32, 40). Wasada teaches that the use of a receiving unit configured to receive information indicating a telop to be displayed on television broadcasting from the external device, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the telop to be displayed superimposed on the camera video is preferred in order to allow the cameraman to read the script without turning his eyes away from the display (paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include a receiving unit configured to receive information indicating a telop to be displayed on television broadcasting from the external device, and a display control unit configured to display, on the display, a screen of the telop to be displayed superimposed on the camera video, in order to allow the cameraman to read the script without turning his eyes away from the display, as suggested by Wasada.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiguchi (US Pub. 2013/0120633), in view of Saito et al. (US Pub. 2023/0362315), and further in view of Lundgren et al. (US Pub. 2013/0278786).
In regard to claim 7, note Saito discloses that the transmission unit transmits the camera video and a non-intercom audio to the external device using a first protocol for multiplexing a compressed audio onto a video (paragraph 0131; the camera video and audio are multiplexed/compressed using MPEG-2 TS), and the transmission device further comprises an intercom control unit configured to transmit and receive, by using a second protocol for transmitting only an audio in a non-compressed manner, an intercom audio to and from the external device (paragraphs 0216-0218; the intercom audio is transmitted using VOIP).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the intercom audio is transmitted and received with a delay smaller than a delay of the first protocol.
In analogous art, Lundgren discloses the transmission of camera audio/video and intercom audio, wherein the intercom audio transmission is performed using a protocol having zero delay (paragraph 0049). Lundgren teaches that the transmission of intercom audio with a protocol having zero delay is preferred when the communication between operators/crew is urgent (paragraph 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that intercom audio is transmitted and received with a delay smaller than a delay of the first protocol, in order to reduce communication delays between operators/crew due to urgency, as suggested by Lundgren.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0201122: note the use of an imaging system that includes a transmission device that transmits and receives video signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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.
/CHRISS S YODER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2638