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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (Figure 5) in the reply filed on April 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant also submits that claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 18-20 read on the elected species. However, the Office points out that Species III (Figure 5) does not include a Current Control Unit 161 within the Event Detection Unit 120, and no disclosure clearly supporting a teaching to the contrary has been found.
Per paragraphs [0119-120] of the original disclosure (Emphasis in paragraphs [0119-120] added by Examiner):
[0119] Referring to FIG. 5, the event detection unit 120 is configured as the event sensing module 121 and the DC-DC converter 122, and may further include a transmission power supply unit 170 and a transmission power conversion unit 180 described with reference to FIG. 1, without including the voltage control unit 151 or the current control unit 161.
[0120] In this case, the transmission power supply unit 170 may be configured to output the transmission power to the main body connector according to the preset value in the parking recording mode, and the transmission power conversion unit 180 may be configured to change the cycle or amplitude of the transmission power.
Claim 11, with claim 12 depending therefrom, alludes to structure associated with Species III, and discussed in paragraphs [0119-120], i.e., “wherein the current control unit is configured as a transmission power supply unit that outputs transmission power to the main body connector according to a preset value in the parking recording mode, and a transmission power conversion unit that changes a cycle or amplitude of the transmission power, and the control unit controls to generate a peak current in the parking recording mode by increasing or decreasing the cycle or amplitude of the transmission power through the transmission power conversion unit when the occurrence of the impact or motion is detected.”
However, previous claim 7, with claims 8-12 depending therefrom, defines structure associated with Species II, i.e., Current Control Unit 161, and conflicting in function with that of Species III as provided by at least figure 5 and paragraphs [0119-120], by establishing “wherein the event detection unit further includes a current control unit that converts a current transmitted to the main body based on an interrupt signal generated from at least one of the impact event detection sensor and the motion event detection sensor, and the current control unit operates to increase or decrease the current when the occurrence of an impact or motion is detected through at least one of the impact event detection sensor and the motion event detection sensor”, and thus reciting structure that has not been included within disclosure relating to Species III, and removing claims 11 and 12, which depend on claim 7, from consideration.
The Office encourages Applicant to consider amending both the language and the dependency of claims 11 and 12 to avoid the recitations and restrictions presented by the material and language of claim 7, in order to recapture the material disclosed in relation to paragraphs [0119-120]. The Office further notes that, absent amendment to both language and dependency, the material distinctions of claims 7 and 11 would result in both 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections due to the obvious conflicts, if considered as currently presented.
In light of at least the above, and in light of Applicant’s election of Species III without traverse, the Office has determined that claims 1, 2, 16 and 18-20 read on the elected species. Applicant is highly encouraged to review the individual teachings of the FIVE priority documents and their disclosures are they relate to the materials of figure 5 and the claim material as recited in the instant application.
Claims 3-15 and 17 are therefore withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 9, 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies of Korean patent application numbers 10-2023-0148566, 10-2023-0148542, and 10-2023-0148562, filed on October 31, 2023, Korean patent application number 10-2023-0158595, filed on November 15, 2023, and Korean patent application number 10-2024-0151183, filed on October 30, 2024, have been received and made of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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:
“event detection unit” in claim 1;
“image processing unit” in claim 1;
“power supply unit” in claim 1;
“control unit” in claim 1;
“voltage control unit” in claim 3 (currently withdrawn);
“voltage detection unit” in claim 4 (currently withdrawn);
“current control unit” in claim 7 (currently withdrawn);
“current detection unit” in claim 8 (currently withdrawn);
“transmission power supply unit” in claim 11 (currently withdrawn);
“current detection unit” in claim 12 (currently withdrawn);
“voltage/current control unit” in claim 13 (currently withdrawn);
“event detection unit” in claim 16;
“image processing unit” in claim 16;
“power supply unit” in claim 16; and
“control unit” in claim 16.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 Feb. 23, 2010, regarding Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, provides:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claims 19 and 20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims recite, inter alia, "computer-readable recording medium” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not clearly and unequivocally identify what may be included as a computer-readable recording medium and what is not to be included as a computer-readable recording medium.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable recording medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the ambiguity or silence of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer-readable recording medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to computer-readable recording medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 16 and 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom, recites the limitation "the parking recording mode" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Absent clarity as to an actual or an intended antecedent basis, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In view of this, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom, recites the limitation “among the components of the camera to be turned off” in line 11, and then recites the limitation once again in lines 13-14. It is unclear which components are intended to be included in this grouping, possibly including components included in the original disclosure but not properly recited in the claim or components recited earlier, but not clearly indicated as part of the intended group of components, but still intended to be turned off all the same. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In view of this, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom, introduces the limitation "a main body" in line 4, and then once again introduces “a main body” in line 5. Because the language introducing the element(s) is identical, it is unclear from the claim as currently written whether the second instance of “a main body” is intended to be the same element as the first instance of “a main body” or if the second instance of “a main body” is intended to be a new element different form the first instance of “a main body”. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In view of this, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, independent claim 16, from which claims 18-20 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites the limitation "the parking recording mode" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Absent clarity as to an actual or an intended antecedent basis, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In view of this, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, independent claim 16, from which claims 18-20 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, introduces the limitation "a main body" in line 5, and then once again introduces “a main body” in lines 5-6. Because the language introducing the element(s) is identical, it is unclear from the claim as currently written whether the second instance of “a main body” is intended to be the same element as the first instance of “a main body” or if the second instance of “a main body” is intended to be a new element different form the first instance of “a main body”. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In view of this, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2009-166737 to Tsuzuki (machine translation provide), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0391404 to Dorsey et al. (hereinafter “Dorsey”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuzuki teaches a similar driving video recording system, comprising a camera that includes a capturing unit configured to capture a video (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 16; [0021], [0026]), an event detection unit configured to detect an event (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 14; [0021-22]), and a camera connector configured to interface with a main body (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, one end of the connection of camera including elements 14 and 16 with at least element 20), and a main body that includes an image processing unit configured to receive and process an image captured by the capturing unit (e.g., [0027-28], element of ECU 20 that records the object), a power supply unit configured to supply power for an operation of the driving video recording system (e.g., [0045], means to control power supply to element 16, and [0046], means to control power supply to element 14), a control unit configured to control an operation of the power supply unit (e.g. fig. 1, element 20 and 22; [0045-48]), and a main body connector configured to interface with the camera (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, other end of the connection of camera including elements 14 and 16 with at least element 20), wherein, in the parking recording mode, the control unit controls a power supply to the capturing unit among the components of the camera to be turned off (e.g., [0045-48], power supply to camera 16 turned off), and the power supply to the event detection unit to be turned on (e.g., [0046], power to sensor 14 turned on). Tsuzuki, although clearly teaching the concept of controlling the power supply to elements of the system as a means of power conservation/reduced power consumption (e.g., [0007]), has not been found to expressly disclose wherein the control unit controls the power supply to the image processing unit among the components of the main body to be turned off and the power supply to the power supply unit to be turned on.
Nevertheless, Dorsey teaches a similar driving video recording system that includes a power supply unit in which a power supply to can be turned on (e.g., fig. 1, element 40; [0033], [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Dorsey into the control unit of the driving video recording system as taught by Tsuzuki, incorporating the power control functionality for a power supply unit into the control unit, so that heat generation can also be better minimized through specific power supply control.
Further to this, Tsuzuki provides a basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, to recognize that that elements other than just elements like the capturing unit or event detection unit, elements which do not need to operate other than at the time of their actual use/required functionality, could similarly have their power supply turned-on coincident with times in which their use/required functionality was needed and have their power supply turned-off coincident with times in which their use/required functionality was not needed; resulting in an obvious and anticipated power conservation by not just limiting the power supply to certain circuitry (preserving power), but by also further limiting the power supply to only times coincident with periods when the circuitry operation is needed (enhancing efficiency of power use).
Therefore, as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, it would have been obvious to extend the power conservation concept, with its related power supply control to the control unit controlling the power supply to the image processing unit to be turned off when not specifically needed, as a way to increase power conservation, because, similar to the capturing unit, the functionality of the image processing unit is also not needed until an image has been captured and in need of processing, adding to the obvious and anticipated result of power conservation.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuzuki and Dorsey teach all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the event detection unit includes at least one of an impact event detection sensor (e.g., ‘737 – figs. 1 and 2, element 14; [0021]; [0066-67]) and a motion event detection sensor (e.g., ‘737 – figs. 1 and 2, element 14; [0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0217258 to Morita teaches a similar video recording system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0108654 to McRea teaches a similar video recording system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0369319 to Tabata teaches a similar video recording system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0066867 to Yoshikawa provides another teaching of the concept of power conservation based controlling the on/off state of elements.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0353859 to Kang teaches a similar video recording system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0188836 to Yuasa et al. teaches a similar video recording system.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights