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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 27 July 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant has not provided any specific arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections which are maintained below.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,148 B2 in view of ONVIF RCSS. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.[claim 1]
1. An image signal processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
process an image signal acquired from an image pickup unit based on a video setting to generate video data;
perform recording of the video data by a first recording job that corresponds to the video setting; and
receive a change request to change the video setting, and
in response to the change request, create a second recording job that corresponds to a video setting based on the change request, comprising
determining whether the second recording job that corresponds to the video recording setting that is consistent with the video setting has been stored; and setting the video setting of the second recording job based on the determination, wherein, after receiving the change request, the recording of the video data is performed by using the second recording job.
1. An image signal processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
process an image signal acquired from an image pickup unit based on a predetermined video setting to generate video data;
perform recording of the video data by a first recording job that corresponds to the video setting and a video recording setting; and
receive a change request to change the video setting,
wherein, in response to the change request, the recording of the video data is performed by using a second recording job that corresponds to a video setting based on the change request, the second recording job being different from the first recording job, and wherein, in a case where a recording job which is consistent with the video setting based on the change request has not been stored, the second recording job is created, and in a case where the recording job which is consistent with the video setting based on the change request has been stored, the recording of the video data is performed by using the stored recording job as the second recoding job.
While ‘148 claims using a second recording job that corresponds to the changed video setting, ‘148 does not claim creating the second recording job.
ONVIF RCSS describes the ONVIF specification for creating recording jobs and recording video. ONVIF RCSS further discloses that after a recording job is created and activated, a new recording job may be created and activated (e.g. Annex A). By creating a new recording job, the recording settings may be easily changed to record video in a different manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to create a new second recording job so that the recording configuration may be changed and video with different settings may be recorded in accordance with the ONVIF specification.
Note that in the case where the second recording job is created which corresponds to a stored recording job, ‘148 teaches recording using the stored recording job and in the case where the second recording job does not correspond to a stored recording job, a created second recording job is used. Thus, claim 1 of the present application is obvious over ‘148 in view of ONVIFF RCSS.[claims 2-11]
Regarding claims 2-11, see claims 2-11 of ‘148.[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, see claim 1 of ‘148.[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, see claim 15 of ‘148.[claims 14 and 15]
Claims 14 and 15 are similarly rejected over claims 16 and 17 of ‘148 in view of ONVIF RCSS for the same reasons discussed above in the double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Subject Matter Not Taught by the Prior Art
Claims 1-15 contain subject matter not taught by the prior art. However, these claims cannot be considered allowable due to the above double patenting rejections.
Since the Applicant’s arguments of record filed on 27 July 2026 (page(s) 10-12) are persuasive regarding the currently claimed subject matter which is/are not taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, the reasons for allowance have been fully addressed and complied according to MPEP 1302.14(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights