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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 15-16 were intended to be rejected using Wereski and is corrected below.
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 1 recites the limitation “a tracking system” more than once in the claim. This leave doubt as to the definiteness of the claim limitation.
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) 1,2,4,5,10,12,14,17,18,20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes US 20230401849 in view of Shen US 20180352253.
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] and
Shen do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
a portable enclosure capable of shielding the camera from environmental hazards; and a translucent section of the enclosure.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shen discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
a portable enclosure capable of shielding the camera from environmental hazards; and a translucent section of the enclosure (i.e. portable enclosure 202 of video capturing device with a lens 208 (translucent section)) [fig. 2].
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 Shen to have a portable enclosure capable of shielding the camera from environmental hazards; and a translucent section of the enclosure.
It would be advantageous because an enclosure is a well-known element used to protect the sensitive components inside.
Combining known elements yields predictable results [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)].
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 Shen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
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 3, Shen meets the 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 to identify a user (i.e. camera and a user device can be connected by scanning a QR code on a user device) [78,90].
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 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 21 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes and Shen in view of Sevostianov US 20200134839.
Regarding claim 6, Imes and Shen 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 Sevostianov 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 (i.e. color reflecting markers used to track) [21].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes and Shen 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 and Shen with Sevostianov to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
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 and Shen in view of Inutsuka US 20160203369.
Regarding claim 7, Imes and Shen 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 Inutsuka 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 [76].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Imes and Shen with Inutsuka 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 “This is because the method of recognizing by detecting a blinking pattern of an LED or the like does not impair the appearance of an object while recognition processing is not performed. In addition, the method is flexible since a light emission pattern can be controlled by software. Another advantage of the method is low additional cost because almost all electronic apparatuses are equipped with an LED as an indicator device.” [76].
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 and Shen with Inutsuka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 23 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes and Shen in view of Jansson US 20230199295.
Regarding claim 9, Imes and Shen 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 and Shen 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 and Shen with Jansson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim(s) 11, 13,15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imes and Shen in view of Wereski US 20170300890.
Regarding claim 11, Imes and Shen 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 and Shen 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 and Shen 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].
Regarding claim 15, Wereski 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, Wereski 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].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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: 7:00 - 3:00 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
Prosecution Insights