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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo et al. (2008/0316312) in view of Gigot (9,906,722).
Regarding claim 1, Castillo discloses a video recording device for a vehicle, comprising: a motion sensor (115) configured to detect a motion of an external object around the vehicle; an impact sensor (120) configured to detect an impact on the vehicle; a camera (105, 110) configured to record a video of surroundings of the vehicle; and a controller, wherein the controller (205) is configured to receive motion information of the external object from the motion sensor, and when the external object is detected within a first area among the first area and a second area which is defined as an area further from the vehicle than the first area (note step 310 and par. 21-22) or when the external object is determined to enter the first area from a second area within a set time (par. 32), transmit a wake-up command to the camera to prepare for event recording (320). However, Castillo does not disclose that the controller is configured to maintain the camera in a sleep mode or off as claimed.
Gigot, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a camera power down mode (254, 256, 258) when no object is detected. By using the power down mode, the energy consumption of the camera system is decreased, which prolong the operating life of the camera battery or power supply (note col. 1, lines 14-30).
Therefore, in view of Gigot and knowing the battery life in Castillo is limited, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gigot into Castillo so that the battery life in the camera system could be increased.
Regarding claim 2, Castillo discloses the event recording comprises performing recording when the impact is detected by the impact sensor (note step 335 and 345).
Regarding claim 3, Castillo discloses the controller is further configured to, when the impact is detected by the impact sensor, determine whether to start the event recording based on whether at least one of a distance of the external object, a speed of the external object, or a direction of the external object satisfies an impact condition of applying an impact to the vehicle (note par. 24 and 25).
Regarding claim 4, Castillo discloses the controller is further configured to, when the impact is detected by the impact sensor, determine whether the external object is in the first area to determine whether to start the event recording (note par. 36).
Regarding claim 5, Castillo discloses the controller is further configured to, when the external object is not detected by the motion sensor, but the impact is detected by the impact sensor, determine whether the impact is a side impact to determine whether to start the event recording (note par. 37). Castillo also shows a plurality of side impact sensors 120 on the doors of the vehicle as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, Castillo discloses configured to determine the side impact by a lateral component included in a signal detected by the impact sensor. That is, Castillo also shows a plurality of side impact sensors 120 on the doors of the vehicle as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, Castillo discloses the first area is set to exclude a false detection prevention area of the motion sensor (note par. 33 and 34). That is, the camera(s) is always activated with the corresponding areas when motion is detected.
Regarding claim 8, Castillo discloses the first area and the set time are variable according to parameter information set by a user (par. 33-35). That is, the area covered by the particular one of the cameras (105) can be adjusted by the user by tilting or rotating the angles of the camera; and the period of time, or set time, as described in par. 35 can be set by the user through programming of the microcontroller 205.
Regarding claim 9, Castillo discloses the parameter information comprises a detection distance parameter related to a range of the first area, a false detection distance parameter related to a false detection prevention area of the first area, and a time parameter related to the set time. That is, according to par. 33-35, the filed of view (FOV) or detection distance of each of the cameras, especially the rotating camera 110, can be adjusted by the user by adjusting the tilting angle and the rotating angle of the respective camera; and the period of time, or set time, can be set by the user through programming of the microcontroller 205.
Regarding claims 10-18, see the similar rejections as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/11/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under Castillo have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gigot.
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 MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights