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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
3.) Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information processing device”, “a control unit”, in claims 1-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations “an information processing device”, “a control unit”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “an information processing device”, “a control unit”, coupled with functional language “that controls transmission”, “determines a timing to stop”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-5 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Support for the structure that performs the functions of “an information processing device” is shown as being implemented by a server (Paragraph 0033 and Figures 1-2 of the publication to the instant application). The “control unit” is shown as being implemented by a processor and a memory that stores a program which is used by the processor to execute the claimed functions along with the algorithm shown in Figures 3-6 and their corresponding descriptions in the specification (Paragraphs 0061-0063, 0107; Figures 1-2 and 3-6 of the publication to the instant application).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 (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 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.
4.) Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) (a2) as being anticipated by Carruthers et al. (US Pub No.: 2021/0097315A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Carruthers et al. disclose an information processing device (In-vehicle monitoring device and system, Paragraph 0038; Figures 1-6; Abstract) that controls transmission of captured data captured by an in-vehicle camera mounted on a vehicle from the vehicle to a predetermined device (mobile device 108) (The system 100 comprises an in-vehicle monitoring device 102 that can be mounted within a vehicle 104. The in-vehicle monitoring device 102 comprises a front camera 106a and a rear camera 106b, Paragraph 0038. The in-vehicle monitoring device 102 may capture and process the image data from the cameras to perform various actions, Paragraph 0039. The system 100 may further include a user's mobile device 108. The mobile device 108 may include an application, or other functionality, for connecting to the in-vehicle device 102 when the user is in the vehicle, or at least in close proximity to the vehicle, using a short range communication radio, such as a Wi-Fi radio and/or a Bluetooth radio. When connected, stored data on the in-vehicle device 102 may be transferred to the user's mobile device 108. Additionally, when connected to the user's mobile device 108, it may be possible for the in-vehicle monitoring device 102 to use the mobile device's cellular radio to transmit data over a cellular infrastructure 110 and networks 112 to a remote computing device 114. The mobile device 108 may include functionality for remotely connecting the in-vehicle monitoring device 102 either for viewing the camera data, which could be useful for example for a parent wishing to monitor a child's driving, Paragraphs 0042-0043)
the information processing device comprising a control unit that, when the transmission of the captured data is being performed during a parking operation (parking for prolonged periods) of the vehicle, determines a timing to stop the transmission of the captured data to the predetermined device according to remaining power of a driving battery mounted on the vehicle (If the engine is powered up or not (provided that the car battery has sufficient voltage). Battery backup Do not kill the It is necessary to be careful car battery not to drain the car battery while the vehicle is parked for prolonged periods. In-vehicle device should move into low power mode once the engine is switched off, only to awake when a sensor detects an abnormal situation. When in- vehicle device is connected, the user may request snaps from in-vehicle device's cameras from time to time. If the car battery voltage is too low software should notify the cloud that no further requests can be met., Paragraphs 0045, 0057; Figure 2; Table 1 on Pages 9-10).
With regard to Claim 2, Carruthers et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to further instruct the vehicle to perform the transmission of the captured data of the in-vehicle camera to the predetermined device in response to a viewing request sent from user equipment to view the captured data (As mentioned above, when in- vehicle device is connected, the user may request snaps from in-vehicle device's cameras from time to time. Snap view will be available upon user demand or as part of software's detection notification. i.e. software detects an abnormal situation and sends a notification to the user along with a snap of the dash and the rear facing cam, Table 1 on Pages 9-10), and
when a transmission duration or a transmitted data amount of the captured data (requested snaps) transmitted in response to the viewing request reaches a first time length or a first data amount (requested snaps), stop the transmission of the captured data to the predetermined device and notify the user equipment of end of viewing, the first time length or the first data amount being determined based on the remaining power of the driving battery (The requested images/snaps are transmitted for a time until it is detected that a car battery voltage is too low. In order to not drain the car battery while the vehicle is parked for a prolonged period, software should notify the cloud that no further requests can be met, Paragraphs 0045, 0057; Figures 1-6; Table 1 on Pages 9-10).
Regarding Claim 3, Carruthers et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the first time length or the first data amount based on an amount of power allocated for the transmission of the captured data out of the remaining power of the driving battery (The requested images/snaps are transmitted for a time until it is detected that a car battery voltage is too low. In order to not drain the car battery while the vehicle is parked for a prolonged period, software should notify the cloud that no further requests can be met, Paragraphs 0045, 0057; Figures 1-6; Table 1 on Pages 9-10).
In regard to Claim 4, Carruthers et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to, when a predetermined event is detected (detection of a gesture or event), increase the first time length or the first data amount by a predetermined amount compared to when the predetermined event is not detected (The image from the rear camera may be processed in order to detect gestures performed by a vehicle occupant, and trigger an action associated with the detected gesture. The triggered action may depend upon the detected gesture and may include for example, capturing a picture from the front and/or rear camera, capturing a short video from the front and/or rear camera, and/or flagging a portion of a video or short video captured from the front and/or rear camera for permanent storage or for transferring to another device. For example, if a thumbs up gesture is detected, the event processing may comprise capturing a still image from the camera, or capturing a short video from the forward facing camera and flagging the video to be transferred to a social network site for sharing. The capturing or flagging of the short video may flag the video for a configurable window of time on either side of the event. For example, if a hard braking event occurs, video may be flagged for storage a minute before and after the event occurred. In other words, when a thumbs up is detected a still image is captured vs when a hard brake even occurs, a video is captured (increase in data) Paragraphs 0039, 0045, 0052-53; Figures 1-5).
With regard to Claim 5, Carruthers et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to, when the transmission duration or the transmitted data amount in the transmission of the captured data to the predetermined device reaches a second time length or a second data amount (a portion within a larger video), notify the user equipment that the end of the viewing is near (end of viewing in relation to a particular gesture or a triggering event is at hand), the second time length being shorter than the first time length, and the second data amount being smaller than the first data amount (a portion within a larger video) (The detection of the features may be used as gestures or triggering events for performing certain actions. For example, when specific features, such as those associated with a particular gesture, are detected, the in-vehicle monitoring device may store a short portion of video, or flag a portion within a larger video, from the forward camera, the rear camera or both. The in-vehicle monitoring device may include various communication radios for transferring captured videos, or portions of the videos (second time length/data amount), and/or vehicle telematics data, to other computing devices such as network based servers, a user's phone, laptop or computer. The mobile device may allow the telematics data, short captured videos or flagged portions of videos to be easily shared across multiple network locations including social networking sites. Further, the in-vehicle monitoring device may provide other functionality such as detection and notification of break-ins or vandalism, towing detection and notification as well as tampering attempts such as powering off the device or disconnecting the device from a power source. Further, the in-vehicle monitoring device may allow remote notifications based on vehicle operating parameters or sensor values. Further the in-vehicle monitoring device may provide remote monitoring of vehicle information and/or streaming of audio and/or video from the in-vehicle monitoring device to remote devices such as a mobile phone or tablet, Paragraph 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRITHAM DAVID PRABHAKHER whose telephone number is (571)270-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Lin Ye can be reached at 5712727372. 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.
Pritham David Prabhakher
Patent Examiner
Pritham.Prabhakher@uspto.gov
/PRITHAM D PRABHAKHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638