DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim to a continuation under US APP 15/269144 filed on 9/19/2016.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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, 140F.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 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ761 (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 non-statutory 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)(l) - 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.Thefiling date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AI A/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-l.jsp.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 17-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,345. Although the claims at issue are not identical because the present invention is claims separate embodiments with a broader scope than that claimed in the US Patent. However, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim recording video data based on predefined standard recording attributes; detecting a visual marking within the video data; adjusting a value of at least one recording attribute of the video recording device within a scan range for the at least one recording attribute; and recording updated video data using the value, as adjusted, of the at least one recording attribute such that a legible indication of the visual marking has been captured within the updated video data.
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 (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 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, 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, 2, 8, 9, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al, US 2007/0222859 A1 (Chang), in view of Cho et al, US 2015/0358549 A1 (Cho).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang discloses a method of video recording by a video recording device, the method comprising: detecting a visual marking within the video data; and recording, using the video recording device, updated video data using the value, as adjusted, of the at least one recording attribute such that a legible indication of the visual marking has been captured within the updated video data (Chang [0025] – After an object has been selected on the touch screen, the user may zoom in on the selected object of interest while the scene is being recorded. As shown in FIG. 3A, a user may hold his finger on the selected object (i.e., license plate 220), or he may stroke the object on the touch screen (e.g., in a downward direction) in order to zoom in on the object. In response, the digital video recording device may zoom in and focus on the selected object while changing the backlight compensation settings based on the lighting conditions of the surrounding area in order to provide for a clear and recognizable image of the object while the scene is being recorded. The user also has the option of zooming out of the scene by stroking the object on the screen (e.g., using an upward direction) as shown in FIG. 3B. In response, the digital video recording device may zoom out and change the backlight compensation settings based on the lighting conditions of the surrounding area in order to provide a clear image of a larger screen area; [0035] – By automatically performing backlight compensation for a license plate to generate a clear image, the digital video recording device may allow an officer to automatically retrieve useful information based on a license plate number that may have otherwise been unreadable).
However, Chang does not explicitly disclose recording, using the video recording device, video data based on predefined standard recording attributes; and adjusting a value of at least one recording attribute of the video recording device within a scan range for the at least one recording attribute.
Cho teaches recording, using the video recording device, video data based on predefined standard recording attributes and adjusting a value of at least one recording attribute of the video recording device within a scan range for the at least one recording attribute (Cho [0023] – A plurality of image capturing parameters may be set to a set of predetermined initial values suitable for capturing text in an image. For example, a set of image capturing parameters for the image sensor 130 may include a focus parameter, an exposure parameter, a white balance parameter, a contrast enhancement parameter, a zoom parameter, a sensitivity to light parameter, etc; [0057] – The target focus region detection unit 244 in the processor 240 may select a target focus region from the plurality of text regions, at 540. Based on the target focus region, the image sensor control unit 246 in the processor 240 may adjust at least one image capturing parameter for the image sensor 130, at 550. According to the at least one image capturing parameter as adjusted, the image sensor 130 may capture an image including the at least one text object, at 560).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Chang to have predefined recording attributes and modify at least one of the predefined attributes, as taught by Cho. One would be motivated as a change would be to find more optimal parameters to capture a scene.
Regarding Claim 2, Chang and Cho teach the method of video recording of claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Chang does not teach storing the updated video data including the legible indication.
Cho teaches storing the updated video data including the legible indication (Cho [0030] – The storage unit 220 may also store a character information database that may be used for recognizing a plurality of characters associated with the languages).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Chang to store the updated video data to include the legible indication of the visual marking within the memory of the recording device manager, as taught by Cho. One would be motivated as storing allows for said image to be used for future use.
With regard to claim 8, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 8.
With regard to claim 9, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 3 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 3 is applied to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 13, Chang, in combination, further discloses the recording device manager of claim 8, wherein the recording device manager is integrated into a computing device (Chang Fig. 1- 106 recording device is connected to and in communication with 107 computer).
With regard to claim 15, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 15.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Cho, in view of Pajak et al, US 2014/0176750 A1 (Pajak).
Regarding Claim 5, Chang and Cho teach the method of video recording of claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Chang does not teach determining an upper limit and a lower limit for the scan range of the at least one recording attribute based at least in part on a sensed parameter.
Pajak teaches determining an upper limit and a lower limit for the scan range of the at least one recording attribute based at least in part on a sensed parameter (Pajak Fig.4b 322, fig.4c 323; [0061] – The real-time editor device 322 displays various edit options. The edit options include brightness, saturation, contrast, and hue. Other examples of edit options (not shown) may include without limitation white balance, color, tone, focus, exposure, gain, and grey scale. The camera control system 302 is configured to receive a selection of one of the edit options from the user 410; [0062] – The user interface device 306 has received from the user 410 a selection of the saturation edit option on the real-time editor device 323. The real-time editor device 323 displays on the user interface 306 a slider that enables the camera control system 302 to receive from the user 410 a selection of saturation magnitude. In this example, the real-time editor device 323 updates accordingly as the camera control system 302 receives a stroke gesture from the user 410 to indicate a saturation magnitude [The bounds of the slider indicate the upper and lower limits of the different recording attributes]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention toa person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Cho to have the scan range comprises a predefined scan range including a predefined upper limit and a predefined lower limit for the at least one recording attribute, as taught by Pajak. One would be motivated the ranges illustrate how the adjusted parameter has deviated from the originally set parameter and the user’s selection allows for a desired image quality output
Regarding Claim 7, Chang and Cho teach the method of video recording of claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Chang does not teach at least one recording attribute includes a gain.
Pajak teaches at least one recording attribute includes a gain (Pajak Fig.4b 322, fig.4c 323; [0061] – The real-time editor device 322 displays various edit options. The edit options include brightness, saturation, contrast, and hue. Other examples of edit options (not shown) may include without limitation white balance, color, tone, focus, exposure, gain, and grey scale. The camera control system 302 is configured to receive a selection of one of the edit options from the user 410).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention toa person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Cho to have one of the recording attributes be a gain, as taught by Pajak. One would be motivated the ranges and change in brightness, which may assist the system in better determining the captured scene.
With regard to claim 17, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 7 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 7 is applied to claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Chang and Cho teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, as outlined above.
However, Chang does not teach at least one recording attribute includes a white balance.
Pajak teaches at least one recording attribute includes a white balance (Pajak Fig.4b 322, fig.4c 323; [0061] – The real-time editor device 322 displays various edit options. The edit options include brightness, saturation, contrast, and hue. Other examples of edit options (not shown) may include without limitation white balance, color, tone, focus, exposure, gain, and grey scale).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention toa person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Cho to have one of the recording attributes be a white balance, as taught by Pajak. One would be motivated the ranges and change in lighting conditions in an image, which may assist the system in better determining the captured scene.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if it overcame the double patent rejection provided and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483