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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Iwasaki and ONVIF does not teach in response to a change request, creating a new recording job and recording video data using the new recording job. Applicant additionally argues that Iwasaki teaches generating an error message if a VideoSourceMode switching cannot be performed as described in Figure 24.
The examiner disagrees.
Iwasaki teaches a system in which video recording is performed using a recording job, and various settings may be changed in response to a change request to record video using new settings (e.g. Figures 5, 21 and 23). However, Iwasaki does not disclose creation of new recording jobs.
The ONVIF specification describes a system for changing recording jobs in which a new job is created with new settings, a first recording job is stopped and a second recording job is started (e.g. Annex A).
While Figure 24 of Iwasaki shows a system by which an error message is created if a recording is attempted while an already existing recording is being performed, the system of ONVIF specifically idles active jobs when a new recording job is started. Thus, even if the system of Figure 24 were used, only simultaneous recording would be prevented, not the switching of one job to another.
The stopping of a first recording job and starting of a second recording job is not excluded by the system of Figure 24 or Iwasaki in general. Furthermore, the creation of multiple recording jobs according to desired recording settings allows for multiple recording jobs to be queued and processed according to priorities so that videos of multiple different settings can be recorded in succession.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejections based on Iwasaki and ONVIF are maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2014/0376875 A1) in view of ONVIF Recording Control Service Specification Version 17.12 (hereinafter ONVIF RCSS).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses an image pickup signal processing apparatus (e.g. Figure 3) comprising: one or more processors (Figure 3; Paragraphs 0051-0057); and
a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors (Figure 3, 1002; Paragraph 0052), 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 (Figure 3, 1004; Paragraph 0055);
perform recording of the video data by a first recording job that corresponds to the video setting (Figure 3, Item 1001; Figure 23; setting recording job according to configuration and recording video); and
receive a change request to change the video setting (Figure 3, Item 1005; Figure 23; receiving new recording job mode/configuration and setting new recording job with the set configuration and recording video using the recording job). See also Figures 5 and 21 and note that the system of Iwasaki discloses changing settings for recordings including changes in resolution and encoding settings.
However, Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to in response to the change request, create a second recording job that corresponds to the a video setting based on the change request,
wherein after receiving the change request, the recording of the video data is performed by using 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 recording job in a similar manner as described so that the recording configuration may be changed and video with different settings may be recorded in accordance with the ONVIF specification.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the change request includes a request to change an encoding method included in the video setting to another encoding method (Iwasaki - Figures 5 and 21; encoder settings including H.264, MPEG4, JPEG).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the video setting includes a setting related to at least one of an encoding method, a frame rate, and a resolution (Iwasaki - Figures 5 and 21; encoder settings, frame rate limit and resolution).[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the video setting is set by using a VideoEncorderConfiguration of a Profile conforming to the ONVIF standard (Iwasaki - Paragraphs 0040-0042).[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the video recording setting includes a description related to an encoding method that can be used in video recording (Iwasaki - Figures 5 and 21; note that as broadly as claimed, any of the various encoder settings may be considered “a description related to an encoding method” as claimed since the claim is not specific as to the format, contents or usage of the “description”).
[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki discloses the image signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the video recording setting is set by using a RecordingConfiguration conforming to the ONVIF standard (Iwasaki – Paragraphs 0040-0042; ONVIF RCSS – pp. 14; note that since Iwasaki discloses control conforming the ONVIF standard it would be obvious to implement other ONVIF commands such as SetRecordingConfiguraiton).[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses image pickup signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first recording job and the second recording job are RecordingJobs conforming to the ONVIF standard (e.g. ONVIF RCSS – pp. 11-12; see also rejection of claim 6 above).[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image pickup signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the recording of the video data by using the second recording job after stopping the recording based on the first recording job is performed (ONVIF RCSS – Annex A; note that the first recording job is idled while the second is activated).[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image pickup signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein second recording job is created before stopping the recording based on the first recording job (ONVIF RCSS – Example 1; note that a job may be created and later activated which would idle a currently running recording job similar to the steps described in Annex A).[claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image pickup signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second recording job is created by associating the video setting based on the change request with the video recording setting that is consistent with the video setting based on the change request (e.g. Iwasaki – Figure 23; ONVIF RCSS – pp. 14, 19-21; note that in the ONVIF standard, recording jobs are created according to specified settings).[claim 11]
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS discloses the image signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second recording job is created by associating a second video setting that is changed from a first video setting in response to the change request with the video recording setting that is consistent with the second video setting (ONVIF RCSS – pp. 19-20; changing recording job configuration).[claim 14]
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore claim 14 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2014/0376875 A1) in view of ONVIF Recording Control Service Specification Version 17.12 (hereinafter ONVIF RCSS) in view of Official Notice.[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above. While Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS does not explicitly disclose that the storage medium is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to use non-transitory computer-readable storage media to store programs, e.g. a hard drive, SD card, RAM, ROM, etc. The use of such non-transitory computer-readable storage media are commonly available and commonly used to store programs for easy access by a processor for execution for control of the image signal processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to store the program of Iwasaki in view of ONVIF RCSS so that the program may be stored in a commonly available storage medium for easy access by the processor.
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,
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.[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 12 and 13 are 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. However, these claims cannot be considered allowable due to the above double patenting rejections.[claims 12]
Regarding claims 12, while Iwasaki in view of ONVIFF RCSS discloses the creation of recording jobs, the combination does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein in a case where the second recording job that corresponds to the video recording setting that is consistent with the video setting has been stored and the video setting that is included in the second recording job is different from the video setting based on the change request and is not consistent with the video recording setting, the recording of the video data based on the second recording job is performed by combining the second recoding job with the video setting that is consistent with the video recording setting.
[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, while Iwasaki in view of ONVIFF RCSS discloses the creation of recording jobs, the combination does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein in a case the change request for the video setting is performed during the recording of the video data based on the first recording job that has been created and the recording cannot be continued due to an inconsistency between the video recording setting in the first recording job and the video setting based on the change request, a second recording job that is different from the first recording job is created to continue the recording.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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