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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14-16, 19, and 19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,098. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the claims of the instant application are obvious variant of the corresponding ones of the US Patent No. 12,114,098. Furthermore, the scopes of the claims on the instant application are also met and encompassed by the corresponding ones of the Patent No. 12,114,098.
The apparent difference between the conflicting claims mainly arises from the style of limitation recitation and relative placement of conflicting elements within the claims’ body.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,098, in view of Guo et al (US 20170180589 A1, hereinafter Gou). Regarding claim 5 and 14 of the instant application, US Patent No. 12,114,098 discloses the respective base claims 1 and 10 as discussed and rejected above. However, US Patent No. 12,114,098 does not disclose within claims’ scope the limitation of, wherein generation of the time- lapse video frames based on the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate includes selection of images captured by the image capture device based on the dynamic time- lapse video frame rate.
Guo discloses that, while time lapse photographing is performed, to stabilize a plurality of frames selected by sampling the plurality of input frames using a window determined based on the sampling interval, and to compress the plurality of selected frames at an output frame rate to generate a time lapse image file, and a storage configured to store the time lapse image file (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify claims 1, and 10 U.S. Patent No. 12,114,098 to incorporate the teaching of selecting images based on time lapse video frame rate as disclosed by Guo, to obtain the missing teaching of claim 5 and 14 of the instant application, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,098 in view of Claims 4 and 14 of US Patent No. 11,050,972 respectively. Regarding claim 5 and 14, US Patent No. 12,114,098 discloses the respective base claims 1 and 10 as discussed and rejected above. However, US Patent No. 12,114,098 does not disclose within claims’ scope the limitation of, wherein the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate is determined further based on motion type of the image capture device.
However, claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,050,972 discloses, wherein the one or more physical processors are, to determine the time-lapse video frame rate based on the position information, further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: identify a motion type of the image capture device based on the position information; and determine the time-lapse video frame rate based on the motion type of the image capture device. Claim 14 US Patent No. 11,050,972 disclose substantively similar
feature like claim 4, although for a method claim’s scope.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teaching of claims 4 and 14 of US Patent No. 11,050,972 with claim 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,098, to reach to the subject matter claimed in claim 6 and 15 of the instant application, because, both patents 11,114,098 and 11,050,972 discloses same/similar subject matter and combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Drawings
Drawings submitted on 9/19/2024 has been accepted by Examiner.
Prior and Pertinent Arts
The prior and/or pertinent art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are –Derbanne et al. (US 10593363 B2), Margolis et al. (US 20170213388 A1), Cummings (US 20160370239 A1) – who disclose different algorithms of generating time lapse videos of interest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
[Terminal Disclaimer is required to obviate the Double Patenting rejection(s) made in this Office Action before a Notice of Allowance is issued]
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
Regarding claim 1, an image capture device for generating time-lapse videos, the image capture device comprising:
determine apparent motion between the visual content captured by the image capture device at different moments;
determine a dynamic time-lapse video frame rate based on the positions of the image capture device during the capture of the visual content and the apparent motion between the visual content captured by the image capture device at different moments, the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate defining a rate at which time-lapse video frames are generated based on the visual content; and generate the time-lapse video frames based on the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate.
Method claim 10 is substantively similar to calm 1, and thus allowable for same/similar reason(s) stated above for claim 1
Regarding claim 19,
determine apparent motion between the visual content captured by the image capture device at different moments;
determine a dynamic time-lapse video frame rate based on the positions of the image capture device during the capture of the visual content and the apparent motion between the visual content captured by the image capture device at different moments, the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate defining a rate at which time-lapse video frames are generated based on the visual content, wherein a value of the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate changes based on changes in periodic motion of the image capture device during the capture of the visual content and/or changes in the apparent motion between the visual content captured by the image capture device at different moments; and generate the time-lapse video frames based on the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate, wherein inclusion of the time-lapse video frames, generated based on the dynamic time-lapse video frame rate with a changing value, in a time-lapse video results in the time-lapse video including different portions with different perceived playback speeds
Claim 7-9, and 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-9 and 12-14 does not have any Double Patenting rejection. Therefore, these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If these claims remain as the independents along with potentially other claims being dependent on them, a Terminal Disclaimer would not be warranted.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHBAZ NAZRUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1467. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th: 9.30 am-3 pm, 6.30 pm-9 pm, F: 9.30 am-1.30 pm, 4 pm-8 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 on (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 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 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.
/SHAHBAZ NAZRUL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661