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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Therefore claims 2-16 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the digital storage device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,10,12,14,17,18,20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Imes US 20230401849.
Regarding claim 1, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A system for capturing and displaying images comprising:
a camera (i.e. remote camera 102,104,106,108 captures images) [118; fig. 1];
a tracking system (i.e. processor can detect position of a user) [13,122-123];
a control system in communication with the camera and the tracking system (i.e. control module communicates with cameras, processors and storage) [132; fig. 2]; and
a display interface in communication with the digital storage device and the tracking system (i.e. display interface communicates with the video and processor used to track and displays the video. Video can be stored) [30,67,203; fig. 5].
Regarding claim 2, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1 further comprising a motion detection system capable of signaling the camera to take a photograph when a person passes in view of the camera (i.e. motion detection used to detect a presence 305 and then initiate recording 307) [182; fig. 3b].
Regarding claim 4, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1 where the tracking system further comprises: a radio frequency identification tag; and a radio frequency identification reader (i.e. RFID used to identify a person. This would involve a tag and reader) [13,203; fig. 5].
Regarding claim 5, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1 where the tracking system further comprises: a GPS-enabled smartphone device; and a software application in cellular communication with the smartphone device (i.e. GPS used for detection. Display interface (app 500) communicates with the video and processor used to track) [13,182,203; fig. 5].
Regarding claim 10, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
10. The system of Claim 1 where the control system is capable of identifying a subject of a photograph taken by the camera (i.e. AI used to identify one or more users in the video frame) [14].
Regarding claim 12, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1 where the display interface is a software application running on a mobile device [203,204; fig. 5].
Regarding claim 14, Imes meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 12 where the display interface is capable of displaying photographs to a user [203,204,206; fig. 5].
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1,2, and 10.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 21 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes in view of Meganath US 10855728.
Regarding claim 3, Imes do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
where the tracking system further comprises: a QR code; and software capable of reading and decoding the QR code from images taken by the camera
However, in the same field of endeavor Meganath discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
where the tracking system further comprises: a QR code; and software capable of reading and decoding the QR code from images taken by the camera (i.e. The camera of the mobile device can capture the QR code, and the mobile device can match the QR code to the third device and, responsive to the matching, directly transmit the video data stream to the third device.) [2-3: 61-8].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes with Meganath to have the tracking system further comprises: a QR code; and software capable of reading and decoding the QR code from images taken by the camera.
It would be advantageous because video of the subject can be sent directly to the subject thus enabling a more convenient method of obtaining a video for the subject.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Imes with Meganath to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim(s) 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes in view of Kim US 20190029561.
Regarding claim 6, Imes do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
where the tracking system further comprises: a colored reflective marker; and software capable of detecting the colored reflective marker from images taken by the camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
where the tracking system further comprises: a colored reflective marker; and software capable of detecting the colored reflective marker from images taken by the camera [49].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes with Kim to have the tracking system further comprises: a colored reflective marker; and software capable of detecting the colored reflective marker from images taken by the camera.
It would be advantageous because using a colored reflective marker for detection is a well-known type of marker used for tracking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Imes with Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Kim meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The display interface of Claim 11 where the display interface is capable of displaying a user’s tracking data within a specified time frame (i.e. display of image in real time (within a specified time frame)) [5].
Regarding claim 16, Kim meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The display interface of Claim 12 where the display interface is capable of displaying a user’s tracking data within a specified time frame (i.e. display of image in real time (within a specified time frame)) [5].
Claim 22 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes in view of Densham US 20210141520.
Regarding claim 7, Imes do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
where the tracking system further comprises: a blinking light; and software capable of detecting a pattern of the blinking light from images taken by the camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor Densham discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
where the tracking system further comprises: a blinking light; and software capable of detecting a pattern of the blinking light from images taken by the camera [30].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes with Densham to have the tracking system further comprises: a blinking light; and software capable of detecting a pattern of the blinking light from images taken by the camera.
It would be advantageous because “In this way, the tracking server can track the position and movement of multiple light sources simultaneously.” [30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Imes with Densham to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 23 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes in view of Payan US 9525805.
Regarding claim 8, Imes do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
an enclosure capable of shielding the camera from environmental hazards; and a translucent section of the enclosure.
However, in the same field of endeavor Payan discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
an enclosure capable of shielding the camera from environmental hazards; and a translucent section of the enclosure (i.e. enclosure 12 has translucent section 22) [fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes with Payan to have an enclosure capable of shielding the camera from environmental hazards; and a translucent section of the enclosure.
It would be advantageous because a housing would protect the system from environmental hazards.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Imes with Payan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes in view of Jansson US 20230199295.
Regarding claim 9, Imes do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
where the camera is mounted on a gimbal.
However, in the same field of endeavor Jansson discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
where the camera is mounted on a gimbal [3].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes with Jansson to have where the camera is mounted on a gimbal.
It would be advantageous because gimbal are able to accurately track objects in real time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Imes with Jansson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes in view of Wereski US 20170300890.
Regarding claim 11, Imes do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
where the display interface is a website.
However, in the same field of endeavor Wereski discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
where the display interface is a website [28].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes with Wereski to have the display interface is a website.
It would be advantageous because a website is well known interface for display objects digitally.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Imes with Wereski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Wereski meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 11 where the display interface is capable of displaying photographs to a user [28].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426