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 with traverse of claims 37-43 in the reply filed on 9/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the two identified groups would not impose a serious search or examination burden”. This is not found persuasive because the two identified groups are mutually exclusive in scope and directed to divergent subject matter that is separately classified. Accordingly, they would require separate, divergent searches and separate consideration for statutory compliance.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 21-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/17/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
1. Claims 37-40, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson et al. (US 20090271257 A1, hereinafter Sorenson) in view of Meek et al. (US 20150026156 A1, hereinafter Meek).
Regarding Claim 37
Sorenson discloses a system comprising:
a mounting kit adapted to be attached to a person (Sorenson: see at least abstract); and
a video device attached to the mounting kit, in communication with a communication device via a network, (Sorenson: see at least fig. 3, ¶31) and configured to:
capture video of an area around the person (Sorenson: see at least ¶31)
transmit the video to the communication device (Sorenson: see at least ¶31).
Sorenson does not explicitly disclose that the video is captured in response to detecting a trigger. Meek teaches that it is known to initiate image capturing by a camera in response to detecting a trigger (Meek: see at least ¶54) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sorenson with the features of Meek, since such a modification would have provided an effective way to market stores by giving users a much better idea of what the stores are like, and whether or not the stores are interesting. (Meek: see ¶41)
Regarding Claim 38
Sorenson further discloses:
the communication device in communication with the video device via the network and configured to receive the video from the video device (Sorenson: see at least fig. 3, ¶31)
Regarding Claims 39
Sorenson further discloses:
wherein the video depicts interactions or feedback of the person with one or more products. (Sorenson: see at least ¶35, 46: camera captures video that depicts customer reaching for product)
Regarding Claim 40
Sorenson discloses:
a computing device configured to receive a corresponding video from each of one or more cameras and, wherein the system is configured to transmit the video to the communication device (Sorenson: see at least ¶31)
Sorenson does not explicitly disclose that the video is a combined video created using the corresponding videos. Meek teaches that it was known to include combine video into a combined image data (Meek: see at least ¶98) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sorenson with the features of Meek, since such a modification would have provided an effective way to market stores by giving users a much better idea of what the stores are like, and whether or not the stores are interesting. (Meek: see ¶41)
Regarding Claim 42
Sorenson further discloses:
wherein the mounting kit comprises any one of: a shoulder mount, a clip, a hat, or eyewear. (Sorenson: see at least abstract: eye camera)
2. Claims 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson in view of Meek as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of McBrian (US 20140267539 A1).
Sorenson in view of Meek discloses the claimed invention except for:
wherein the mounting kit comprises a necklace mount
McBrian teaches that it is known to include a necklace mounting kit for a camera (McBrian: see at least ¶14-16) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sorenson in view of Meek, with the necklace mount of McBrian, since such a modification would have merely substituted one know element (necklace mount) for another (head mount in Sorenson) and would have yielded predictable results.
3. Claims 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson in view of Meek as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Robinson (US 20080173681 A1).
Sorenson in view of Meek discloses the claimed invention except for:
wherein the mounting kit is adapted to be connected to a shoulder harness worn by the person.
Robinson teaches that it is known to include a necklace mounting kit for a camera (Robinson: see at least abstract, ¶25, 28) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Sorenson in view of Meek, with the necklace mount of McBrian, since such a modification would have merely substituted one know element (shoulder harness mount) for another (head mount in Sorenson) and would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Velazquez (US 20040212778 A1) disclose a vision system and method for observing use of a product by a consumer, including a camera system mounted to the body of a shopper configured to capture video of the shopper interacting with products.
Bell (US 20080086386 A1) discloses a system and method for conducting a remote shopping event, including providing a camera to capture video of product-related interactions.
Barron et al. (US 20120303488 A1) discloses a system and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods, including capturing video of product reviews.
Sharing the unsharable: distributed product review using tangibles. (PTO-892 Reference U) describes a scheme for providing a remote POV experience of interacting with products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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 MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights