DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 9/19/2024. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending and are examined.
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/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of JAPAN 2023-171446 10/02/2023, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 9/19/2024 and 12/6/2024 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 overcomes the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests the following corrections:Claim 5:
GOP should be presented in unabbreviated form at least once.
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 of this title, 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) 1-3, 6, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahara (US 2024/0056310 A1), in view of Kaneko (US 2022/0237305 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Mahara teaches:
“An imaging device comprising at least one processor or circuit (Mahara, ¶ 61, 83, 123, and 138 teach a processor, memory and medium to execute method steps for a camera) configured to function as: an imaging unit configured to capture a video (Mahara, Fig. 3A ¶ 65 camera generating mpeg video); and an electronic signature generation unit configured to generate an electronic signature based on the video data (Mahara, ¶ 63 teaches generating signatures for video frames), wherein the video setting unit changes the setting of the video data based on a time required to generate the electronic signature (Mahara, ¶ 72 teaches reducing the frame rate to match the rate that the signatures can be generated)”.
Mahara does not, but in related art, Kaneko teaches:
“a video setting unit configured to perform setting for video data captured by the imaging unit (Kaneko, ¶ 139-140 teaches control unit 81 sets the frame rate in the camera)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mahara and Kaneko, to modify the camera system of Mahara to include the method to set the frame rate as taught in Kaneko. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 1 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a hash generation unit configured to generate a hash value of the video data captured by the imaging unit (Mahara, ¶ 141 teaches hashing and encrypting the signature values), and the electronic signature generation unit encrypts the hash value generated by the hash generation unit to generate the electronic signature (Mahara, ¶ 141 teaches hashing and encrypting the signature values)”.
Regarding claim 3, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 1 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a measurement unit configured to measure a time required to generate an electronic signature (Mahara, Fig. 18, ¶ 161-162 teaches measuring the time for signature generation)”.
Regarding claim 6, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 1 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the video setting unit sets frame rate as the setting of the video data (Kaneko, ¶ 139-140 teaches control unit 81 sets the frame rate in the camera)”.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahara in view of Kaneko in view of Otsuki (US 2019/0104251 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 3 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the measurement unit measures a time required to generate the electronic signature by the electronic signature generation unit (Mahara, Fig. 18, ¶ 161-162 teaches measuring the time for signature generation)”.
Mahara in view of Kaneko does not, but in related art, Otsuki teaches:
“when the number of streams output by a camera is changed (Otsuki ¶ 180 teaches determining the frame rate and changing the number of streams from zero, off state, to one, on state)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mahara, Otsuki and Kaneko, to modify the camera system of Mahara and Kakeko to include the method to set the frame rate as taught in Otsuki. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahara in view of Kaneko in view of Axis (“Axis Zipstream Technology” 2023, already on the IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 1 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Mahara and Kaneko does not, but in related art Axis teaches:
“wherein the video setting unit sets the validation or invalidation of dynamic GOP setting (Axis, Pg. 6 Ln. 19 – Pg. 7 Ln. 18, teaches managing the dynamic GOP settings with valid and invalid settings)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mahara, Axis and Kaneko, to modify the camera system of Mahara and Kakeko to include the method to manage the dynamic GOP settings as taught in Axis. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 1 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Mahara and Kaneko does not, but in related art Axis teaches:
“wherein the video setting unit sets a GOP interval in a case where dynamic GOP setting is invalid (Axis, Pg. 6 Ln. 19 – Pg. 7 Ln. 18, teaches managing the dynamic GOP settings with valid and invalid settings)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mahara, Axis and Kaneko, to modify the camera system of Mahara and Kakeko to include the method to manage the dynamic GOP settings as taught in Axis. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Mahara and Kaneko teaches:
“The imaging device according to claim 1 (Mahara and Kaneko teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Mahara and Kaneko does not, but in related art Axis teaches:
“wherein the video setting unit sets a lower limit value of a GOP interval in a case where dynamic GOP setting is valid (Axis, Pg. 6 Ln. 19 – Pg. 7 Ln. 18, teaches managing the dynamic GOP settings with valid and invalid settings)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mahara, Axis and Kaneko, to modify the camera system of Mahara and Kakeko to include the method to manage the dynamic GOP settings as taught in Axis. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST).
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached on (571) 272-3685. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights