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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: camera module in claims 1, 9, and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. US 2023/0202406.
As to claim 1, Jeong teaches a video recording device, comprising: a camera module configured to obtain a video of surroundings of a vehicle; [abstract; fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0046] a motion detection sensor configured to detect a motion of a nearby object; [fig. 1; abstract; ¶ 0047-0048] a first memory configured to store the video; [abstract; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0057] and a controller configured to control the storing of the video, wherein the controller comprises a second memory storing instructions for storing the video, [Fig. 1; fig. 18; ¶ 0056-0058; ¶ 0142-0144] and a processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the processor, the controller to determine whether to store the video according to a set condition for motion detection within a set distance. [fig. 1; fig. 18; ¶ 0012; ¶ 0047-0048; ¶ 0056-0058; ¶ 0142-0144]
As to claim 2, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jeong teaches wherein the determining whether to store the video comprises, when the set condition for motion detection within the set distance is satisfied, determining to store the video. [¶ 0056-0057]
As to claim 3, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 2. Jeong teaches wherein the determining whether to store the video comprises, when the set condition for motion detection within the set distance is not satisfied, determining not to store the video. [¶ 0056-0057]
As to claim 4, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 3. Jeong teaches wherein the determining whether to store the video further comprises determining to store the video without applying the set condition to a motion detected outside the set distance. [¶ 0056-0057]
As to claim 8, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jeong teaches wherein the motion detection sensor comprises a radar installed inside the vehicle. [¶ 0047-0049]
As to claim 11, Jeong teaches a method of controlling a video recording device comprising a camera module configured to obtain a video of surroundings of a vehicle, [abstract; fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0046] a motion detection sensor configured to detect a motion of a nearby object, [fig. 1; abstract; ¶ 0047-0048] a first memory configured to store the video, [abstract; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0057] and a controller comprising a second memory storing instructions for storing the video [Fig. 1; fig. 18; ¶ 0056-0058; ¶ 0142-0144] and a processor configured to execute the instructions, the method comprising: determining, by the processor executing the instructions, whether to store the video according to a set condition for motion detection within a set distance. [fig. 1; fig. 18; ¶ 0012; ¶ 0047-0048; ¶ 0056-0058; ¶ 0142-0144]
As to claim 12, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 11. Jeong teaches wherein the determining whether to store the video comprises, when the set condition for motion detection within the set distance is satisfied, determining to store the video. [¶ 0056-0057]
As to claim 13, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 12. Jeong teaches wherein the determining whether to store the video comprises, when the set condition for motion detection within the set distance is not satisfied, determining not to store the video. [¶ 0056-0057]
As to claim 14, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 13. Jeong teaches wherein the determining whether to store the video further comprises determining to store the video without applying the set condition to a motion detected outside the set distance. [¶ 0056-0057]
As to claim 18, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 11. Jeong teaches wherein the motion detection sensor comprises a radar installed inside the vehicle. [¶ 0047-0049]
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) 5-7, 9-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. US 2023/0202406 in view of Hehl DE 102023120134.
As to claim 5, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the set condition comprises an occupant absence condition related to an absence of an occupant in the vehicle.
Hehl teaches wherein the set condition comprises an occupant absence condition related to an absence of an occupant in the vehicle. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Hehl with the teachings of Jeong allowing for improved targeted monitoring.
As to claim 6, Jeong (modified by Hehl ) teaches the limitations of claim 5. Hehl teaches wherein the instructions further cause the controller to determine the occupant absence condition using at least one of a door open/close signal, a seat occupancy sensor signal, and a rear occupant alert (ROA) signal of the vehicle. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
As to claim 7, Jeong (modified by Hehl ) teaches the limitations of claim 6. Hehl teaches wherein the instructions further cause the controller to determine the occupant absence condition using at least one of the seat occupancy sensor signal or the ROA signal, along with the door open/close signal. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
As to claim 9, Jeong teaches a video recording device, comprising: a camera module configured to obtain a video of surroundings of a vehicle; [abstract; fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0046] a motion detection sensor configured to detect a motion of a nearby object; [fig. 1; abstract; ¶ 0047-0048] a first memory configured to store the video; [abstract; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0057] and a controller configured to control the storing of the video, wherein the controller comprises a second memory storing instructions for storing the video, [Fig. 1; fig. 18; ¶ 0056-0058; ¶ 0142-0144] and a processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to, when the motion is detected outside a set distance, store the video, and when the motion is detected within the set distance, [fig. 1; fig. 18; ¶ 0012; ¶ 0047-0048; ¶ 0056-0058; ¶ 0142-0144]
Jeong does not explicitly teach store the video based on an occupant absence condition related to the absence of an occupant in the vehicle.
Hehl teaches store the video based on an occupant absence condition related to the absence of an occupant in the vehicle. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Hehl with the teachings of Jeong allowing for improved targeted monitoring.
As to claim 10, Jeong (modified by Hehl ) teaches the limitations of claim 9. Hehl teaches wherein the instructions further cause the controller to determine the occupant absence condition using at least one of a door open/close signal, a seat occupancy sensor signal, and a rear occupant alert (ROA) signal of the vehicle. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
As to claim 15, Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the set condition comprises an occupant absence condition related to an absence of an occupant in the vehicle.
Hehl teaches wherein the set condition comprises an occupant absence condition related to an absence of an occupant in the vehicle. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Hehl with the teachings of Jeong allowing for improved targeted monitoring.
As to claim 16, Jeong (modified by Hehl ) teaches the limitations of claim 15. Hehl teaches further comprising determining the occupant absence condition using at least one of a door open/close signal, a seat occupancy sensor signal, and a rear occupant alert (ROA) signal of the vehicle. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
As to claim 17, Jeong (modified by Hehl ) teaches the limitations of claim 16. Hehl teaches wherein determining the occupant absence condition comprises determining the occupant absence condition using at least one of the seat occupancy sensor signal or the ROA signal, along with the door open/close signal. [pg. 3 lines 34-47; pg. 5 line 45 - pg. 6 line 14; pg. 8 lines 36-43]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483