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, see pgs. 6 and 7 of Remarks, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8, 9, and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7 and 8 of Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 12, 13, and 15 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.
The official notice statement, taken in previous office actions, is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant has failed to traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP Pub. No. 2009123165). In view of Di Bernardo et al. (US Pat. No. 7,239,760).
Consider claim 1. Goto discloses a video recording method for a vehicle, the method comprising: setting an activation state of video recording for each of the at least two classified areas (para. 0009 describes causing the photographing unit and the image recording unit to start recording); acquiring location information of the vehicle based on global positioning system (GPS) location information (para. 0021 describes a GPS receiver to acquire location information of the vehicle); determining whether the acquired location information corresponds to a location in one of the at least two classified areas based on geographic navigation information (para. 0021 describes receiving information related to the location and length of congestion occurring in real time, accident information related to the location of an accident occurring in real time, and accident-prone area information related to an area where an accident has frequently occurred based on past statistics); and according to a determination that the location is in one of the at least two classified areas, performing video recording according to the set activation state (para. 0009 describes performing video recording when the vehicle approaches within the predetermined distance to the accident-prone area).
Goto does not disclose setting, based on an input by a user, at least two classified areas based on geographic navigation information.
However, Di Bernardo et al. teaches setting, based on an input by a user, at least two classified areas based on geographic navigation information (claim 38 describes receiving a user input specifying a first location in the geographic and receiving a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location in the geographic area; determining a second location based on the user specified navigation direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, setting, based on an input by a user, at least two classified areas based on geographic navigation information, in order to synthesize images of a locale to generate a composite image that provide a panoramic view of the locale as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 2. Goto discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least two classified areas include a dangerous area based on the geographic navigation information (para. 0021 describes receiving information related to the location and length of congestion occurring in real time, accident information related to the location of an accident occurring in real time, and accident-prone area information related to an area where an accident has frequently occurred based on past statistics).
Consider claim 3. Goto discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the dangerous area comprises at least one of an area where accidents frequently occur, an animal appearance area, a rockfall area, or a slippery area based on the geographic navigation information (para. 0009 describes an accident-prone area).
Consider claim 6. Goto discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least two classified areas include a user-specified area which is set by a user (para. 0029 describes identifying a user-registered point).
Claims 12, 13, and 15 rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP Pub. No. 2009123165) in view of Official Notice.
Consider claim 7. Goto discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the user-specified area comprises at least one of a home address area which is related to a home address, a work address area which is related to a work address, or a parking lot address area which is related to a parking lot address.
However, it is well known in the art for a user to specify a home address area which is related to a home address, a work address area which is related to a work address, or a parking lot address area which is related to a parking lot address.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the user-specified area comprises at least one of a home address area which is related to a home address, a work address area which is related to a work address, or a parking lot address area which is related to a parking lot address, in order to allow the user to store addresses that they frequent.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8-11, 14, 16, 18, and 19 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484