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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 16, 2024. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0075], the Cross-Reference section is repeated from the prior application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “clips a first video in a first area from a video frame captured by the camera and outputs the first video to the display”. A “video frame” is understood to mean a still image that is part of the video. This is shown in Figure 11, frame F1, showing a single frame acquired from the imaging unit 10L. It is impossible to clip a video from a video frame and output a video.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “video frame” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a video section,” while the accepted meaning is “a still image from the video.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Capturing a video from a video frame is not supported in the Specification. At [0056] – [0057], the Specification describes how a range is clipped from the frame of a video. Video may be obtained from each frame of the video, as described at [0020] and [0056]. Claim 1 describes capturing video from a video frame.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasoning as the rejection of claim 1. The video is clipped from a video frame. This is not possible with the understanding of a video frame, and not supported in the Specification.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “towards outside of the vehicle relative to the first area”. The term “outside of the vehicle” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “towards outside of the vehicle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Outside of the vehicle” may be intended as “away from the vehicle”. This is not described in the Specification.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Additional prior art cited is issued patents from IDS references to publications. A references is cited from the Applicant showing similar technology. The publication from the present application is made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights