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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on 6/3/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, based upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is entered in view of MENDIOLA et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019-0245917) and in light of Applicant’s newly amended language.
Regarding pages 7-9 of Applicants amendment and remarks filed on 6/3/26, Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on 6/3/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, based upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is entered in view of MENDIOLA et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019-0245917) and in light of Applicant’s newly amended language whereby Examiner as provided additional citation to the prior art disclosure MENDIOLA to read upon the newly amended language (See rejection contained herein). Examiner respectfully submits Applicant has incorporated some, but not all of the allowable subject matter from allowable Claim 17. Accordingly, Claims 1-16 stand rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS et al. (US Patent No: 8,781,292) in view of MENDIOLA et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019-0245917)
As per Claim 1 ROSS discloses A method for capturing video data by a recording device, the method comprising (Fig. 1 officer 20 wears device for video capture [Abstract] [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32]):
capturing the video data by the recording device worn by a user (Fig. 1 officer 20 wears device for video capture [Abstract] [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] worn specifically [col. 8 lines 29-30]); receiving an input to end video data capture (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive stop recording signal [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]); analyzing the input to determine one or more input attributes (at least one attribute as the state of change - signaled input recording device signaled [col. 15 lines 5-19]);
determining, based on the one more input attributes associates with receipt of the input to end the video data capture (at least one attribute for signaled input recording device signaled the attribute of a state change for data capture [col. 15 lines 5-19]), that the input to end the video data capture comprises an abnormal input (Figs. 1-6 [col. 11 lines 45-48] recording device signaled to stop but not desirable [col. 15 lines 5-19]);
responsive to the abnormal input, transmitting a request for confirmation to end the video data capture (Figs. 1-6 [col. 11 lines 45-48] continue to record until permission is granted to officer 20 to stop recording [col. 15 lines 5-19]); and responsive to determining the request is unconfirmed and while the request is unconfirmed (Figs. 1-6 [col. 11 lines 45-48] recording device commanded to stop but should continue to record until permission is granted to officer 20 to stop recording [col. 15 lines 5-19]), continuing to capture the video data by the recording device (Figs. 1-6 [col. 11 lines 45-48] continue to record until permission is granted to officer 20 to stop recording thereby waiting to cease the recording and continues to record to prevent prematurely ending recording [col. 15 lines 5-19]).
ROSS does not disclose but MENDIOLA discloses determining, based at least on a set of thresholds being satisfied by the one more input attributes (Figs. 1-5 several thresholds available for testing/analysis – input reception of data [0265-0266])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining, based at least on a set of thresholds being satisfied by the one more input attributes taught by MENDIOLA into the system of ROSS because of the benefit taught by MENDIOLA to include specifics on abnormal input conditions that may occur during a user-interaction whereby ROSS is concerned with abnormal inputs from a user during critical system operations and would benefit from specific user-input actions to detect and trap for further analysis with regards to legitimate user input actions as well as multiple threshold considerations.
As per Claim 2 ROSS discloses The method of claim 1, wherein
ROSS does not disclose but MENDIOLA discloses the abnormal input comprises a button press hold lasting more than a threshold amount of time of the set of thresholds (Figs. 1-5 abnormal repeatably-pressed basis for threshold amount of time – several thresholds available [0265-0266]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 2).
As per Claim 3 ROSS discloses The method of claim 2, wherein
ROSS does not disclose but MENDIOLA discloses the threshold amount of time is N seconds or M seconds (Figs. 1-5 abnormal repeatably-pressed basis for threshold amount of time [0266]) (Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify MENDIOLA to teach specific threshold of seconds because Applicant has not disclosed that the threshold amount of time is 3 seconds or 5.5 seconds provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with other amounts of seconds because performance of said invention is not tied to a distinct amount of seconds) (The motivation that applied in Claim 2 applies equally to Claim 3).
As per Claim 4 ROSS discloses The method of claim 1, wherein
button presses are received prior to the input to end the video data capture (Figs. 1-6 presses occurring may include during capture [col. 9 lines 25-29, col. 12 lines 48-51] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19])
ROSS does not disclose but MENDIOLA discloses the abnormal input comprises a plurality of button presses, each button press of the plurality of button presses lasting less than a threshold amount of time of the set of thresholds, and the plurality of button presses (Figs. 1-5 abnormal repeatably-pressed basis for threshold amount of time [0265-0266]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 2 applies equally to Claim 4).
As per Claim 5 ROSS discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second input to end the video data capture (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive each/subsequent start/stop recording signals [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]); determining that the second input to end the video data capture comprises a normal input (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive each/subsequent start/stop recording signals [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] [col. 11 lines 45-48] recording device commanded to stop and permission granted to officer 20 to stop recording [col. 15 lines 5-19]); and responsive to the second input, ending the video data capture by the recording device (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive each/subsequent start/stop recording signals [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]).
As per Claim 6 ROSS discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second input to end the video data capture (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive each/subsequent start/stop recording signals [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]); determining that the second input to end the video data capture comprises a second abnormal input (Figs. 1-6 [col. 11 lines 45-48] recording device successively commanded to stop but should continue to record until permission is granted – see said analysis for Claim 1 [col. 15 lines 5-19]); responsive to the second abnormal input, transmitting a second request for confirmation to end the video data capture (Figs. 1-6 [col. 11 lines 45-48] successively continue to record until permission is granted to officer 20 to stop recording [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]); receiving confirmation to end the video data capture (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive each/subsequent start/stop recording signals [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]); and responsive to receiving the confirmation, ending the video data capture by the recording device (Figs. 1-6 device 18 may receive each/subsequent start/stop recording signals [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]).
As per Claim 7 ROSS discloses The method of claim 6, wherein the confirmation to end the video data capture comprises one or more of (See said analysis for Claim 6): a button press (Figs. 1-6 [col. 9 lines 25-29, col. 12 lines 48-51] and see [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19]), a verbal input (one of), an interaction with a screen (one of), or an indication provided via a user interface (one of).
As per Claim 11 ROSS discloses A recording device, comprising (Figs. 1-6 officer 20 wears device for video capture [Abstract] [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32]):
an image sensor configured to capture video data (Figs. 1-6 recording device 18 [Abstract] [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32]); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (Figs. 1-6 [col. 10 lines 25-40]); and a processor communicatively coupled to the image sensor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the processor further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions (Figs. 1-6 [col. 10 lines 25-40]), wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (Figs. 1-6 [col. 10 lines 25-40]):
capturing, via the image sensor (Figs. 1-6 recording device 18 [Abstract] [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32]), the video data (Fig. 1 officer 20 wears device for video capture [Abstract] [col. 2 lines 35-37] [col. 3 lines 28-32] worn specifically [col. 8 lines 29-30]); analyzing the input to determine one or more input attributes (See said analysis for Claim 1); determining, based at least on the one more input attributes associates with receipt of the input to end the video data capture, that the input to end the video data capture comprises an abnormal input (See said analysis for Claim 1); responsive to the abnormal input, providing a request for confirmation to end the video data capture (See said analysis for Claim 1); and responsive to determining the request is unconfirmed and while the request is unconfirmed, continuing to capture the video data by the recording device (See said analysis for Claim 1).
ROSS does not disclose but MENDIOLA discloses determining, based at least on a set of thresholds being satisfied by the one more input attributes (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 12 ROSS discloses The recording device of claim 11, wherein the processor further performs operations comprising (See said analysis for Claim 11): receiving a second input to end the video data capture (See said analysis for Claim 5); determining that the second input to end the video data capture comprises a normal input (See said analysis for Claim 5); and responsive to the second input, ending the video data capture by the recording device (See said analysis for Claim 5).
As per Claim 13 ROSS discloses The recording device of claim 12, wherein the normal input comprises a button press having a length in a predetermined range of time (Figs. 1-6 button pressing at request of user [col. 9 lines 25-29, col. 12 lines 48-51] [col. 11 lines 45-48]).
As per Claim 14 ROSS discloses The recording device of claim 13, wherein the predetermined range of time comprises between N seconds and M seconds (Figs. 1-6 button pressing at request of user [col. 9 lines 25-29, col. 12 lines 48-51] [col. 11 lines 45-48]) (Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ROSS to teach a specific range of seconds because Applicant has not disclosed that between three seconds and five seconds provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with other ranges of seconds because performance of said invention is not tied to a distinct range of seconds.)
As per Claim 15 ROSS discloses The recording device of claim 11, wherein the processor further performs operations comprising (See said analysis for Claim 11): receiving a second input to end the video data capture (See said analysis for Claim 6); determining that the second input to end the video data capture comprises a second abnormal input (See said analysis for Claim 6); responsive to the second abnormal input, transmitting a second request for confirmation to end the video data capture (See said analysis for Claim 6); receiving confirmation to end the video data capture (See said analysis for Claim 6); and responsive to receiving the confirmation, ending the video data capture by the recording device (See said analysis for Claim 6).
Claims 8-10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS et al. (US Patent No: 8,781,292) in view of MENDIOLA et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019-0245917) as applied in Claims 1-7, 11-15, and further in view of WANG et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024-0103695).
As per Claim 8 ROSS discloses The method of claim 6, further comprising establishing a communications channel with a remote entity and transmitting, via the communications channel (Figs. 1-6 [col. 3 lines 25-30] [col. 14 lines 11-17]),
ROSS and MENDIOLA do not disclose but WANG discloses transmitting a notification, the notification indicating the ending the video data capture by the recording device (Figs. 1-19 prompt notification [0011-0012] [0216-0217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting a notification, the notification indicating the ending the video data capture by the recording device taught by WANG into the system of ROSS and MENDIOLA because of the benefit taught by WANG to include additional UI features to include prompting the user for ending of video capture which is a crucial test for said systems which are concerned with proper ending instructions for ending video recording and would benefit from the ability to send a visual cue to assist a user with proper termination of video recording which is a vital goal of said included systems.
As per Claim 9 ROSS discloses The method of claim 6, further comprising
responsive to receiving the confirmation indicating the ending video data capture by the recording device (Figs. 1-6 presses to end capture [col. 9 lines 25-29, col. 12 lines 48-51] [col. 11 lines 45-48] [col. 15 lines 5-19])
ROSS and MENDIOLA do not disclose but WANG discloses transmitting an alert to the user of the recording device, the alert indicating the ending the video data capture by the recording device (Figs. 1-19 prompt notification [0011-0012] [0216-0217]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 8 applies equally to Claim 9).
As per Claim 10 ROSS discloses The method of claim 9, wherein
ROSS and MENDIOLA do not disclose but WANG discloses the alert comprises one or more of a visual alert (Figs. 1-19 prompt notification [0011-0012] [0216-0217]), an audio alert (one of), or a haptic alert (one of) (The motivation that applied in Claim 8 applies equally to Claim 10).
As per Claim 16 ROSS discloses The recording device of claim 11, wherein transmitting the request for confirmation comprises (See said analysis for Claim 11)
ROSS and MENDIOLA do not disclose but WANG discloses displaying, via a user interface of the recording device, a confirmation prompt (Figs. 1-19 prompt notification on a display [0011-0012] [0216-0217]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 8 applies equally to Claim 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
As per Claim 17, the following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (ROSS, US Patent No: 8,781,292; MENDIOLA, US Pub. No.: 2019-0245917; WANG, US Pub. No.: 2024-0103695) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
“A method for receiving a user input for a recording device, the method comprising: receiving the user input via a user interface, the user interface associated with a recording device state and configured to execute a recording device action to modify the recording device state; determining a set of input attributes associated with the user input; determining, based at least on the recording device action, a set of thresholds configured to determine whether the user input is permitted to modify the recording device state; determining that the set of input attributes associated with the user input satisfies the set of thresholds; determining, based at least on the set of thresholds being satisfied by the set of input attributes, that the user input is an abnormal input; providing a request for confirmation to a user of the recording device, the request for confirmation requesting a confirmation input from the user; and suppressing the recording device action from modifying the recording device state while the request for confirmation is unconfirmed”
as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification.
The closest prior art of record ROSS does not teach or suggest in detail at least determining a set of input attributes associated with a user input or teach determining based at least on the recording device action, a set of thresholds configured to determine whether the user input is permitted to modify the recording device state. The prior art is also silent as to determining that the set of input attributes associated with the user input satisfies the set of thresholds as well as silent to determining based at least on the set of thresholds being satisfied by the set of input attributes as amended and presented by the Applicant.
ROSS discloses a method for capturing video data by a recording device worn by a user. The prior art also discloses receiving an input to end video data capture, analyzing the input to determine an input attribute and determining based on the input attribute associated with receipt of the input to end the video data capture, that the input to end the video data capture comprises an abnormal input. The prior art also discloses responsive to that abnormal input, transmitting a request for confirmation to end the video data capture and responsive to determining the request is unconfirmed and while the request is unconfirmed, continuing to capture the video data by the recording device.
Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites a method for receiving a user input for a recording device via a user interface, the user interface associated with a recording device state and configured to execute a recording device action to modify the recording device state. The claims further recite determining a set of input attributes associated with the user input, as well as determining, based at least on the recording device action, a set of thresholds configured to determine whether the user input is permitted to modify the recording device state. The invention then claims determining that the set of input attributes associated with the user input satisfies the set of thresholds as well as determining, based at least on the set of thresholds being satisfied by the set of input attributes, that the user input is an abnormal input; providing a request for confirmation to a user of the recording device, the request for confirmation requesting a confirmation input from the user. Finally, the invention claims suppressing the recording device action from modifying the recording device state while the request for confirmation is unconfirmed.
So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights