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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2025 and 12/03/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11711496 in view of Cowherd et al. (US 20170214982) (hereinafter Cowherd).
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11711496 Claim 1
A camera, comprising:
A wireless camera system, comprising:
an input device; and
a remote control comprising one or more input devices and a display;
a transceiver operatively coupled to the input device,
wherein, after an input is received via the input device, the camera records images or video, and the transceiver wirelessly transmits a start signal to one or more other cameras to also start recording images or video and to also wirelessly transmit the start signal, and wherein the camera and the one or more other cameras form a wireless camera network.
a first subset of cameras for starting and a second subset from the presented list of cameras for not starting; wherein, in response to input received via the one or more input devices, the remote control is configured to wirelessly transmit a first start signal; and wherein, in response to receiving the first start signal from the remote control and being in the first subset of cameras for starting, the first camera and the second camera are configured to record images or video to a respective memory of the first camera and the second camera, and wirelessly transmit a second start signal so as to initiate recording images or video by a third camera of the first subset not in range of the remote control.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11711496 does not specify a wireless camera network and transceiver operatively coupled to a device with an input, Cowherd paragraph 41-42 teaches a wireless camera network and transceiver operatively coupled to a device with an input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11711496 with the a wireless camera network and transceiver operatively coupled to a device with an input of Cowherd in order to enhance transmission capabilities between cameras through network functionality.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 8,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11711496 Claim 1
A wireless camera network, comprising:
A wireless camera system, comprising:
a first camera; a second camera in wireless range of the first camera, wherein, after an input is received by the first camera, the first camera records images or video, and the first camera wirelessly transmits a start signal to the second camera to start recording images or video and to wirelessly transmit the start signal.
a first subset of cameras for starting and a second subset from the presented list of cameras for not starting; wherein, in response to input received via the one or more input devices, the remote control is configured to wirelessly transmit a first start signal; and wherein, in response to receiving the first start signal from the remote control and being in the first subset of cameras for starting, the first camera and the second camera are configured to record images or video to a respective memory of the first camera and the second camera, and wirelessly transmit a second start signal so as to initiate recording images or video by a third camera of the first subset not in range of the remote control.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11711496 does not specify a wireless camera network , Cowherd paragraph 41-42 teaches a wireless camera network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11711496 with the a wireless camera network coupled to a device with an input of Cowherd in order to enhance transmission capabilities between cameras through network functionality.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 8.
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 taught 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowherd et al. (US 20170214982) (hereinafter Cowherd) in view of Sakiewicz et al. (US 20160021329) (hereinafter Sakiewicz), further in view of Cuddeback et al. (US 20160295172) (hereinafter Cuddeback).
Regarding claim 1, Cowherd teaches A camera, comprising:
an input device (see Cowherd paragraph 50 regarding a start or stop signal sent by button on a device to transmit signal to other cameras- in combination with Sakiewicz below, the input device that causes a start signal may be functionally performed by an input button on Sakiewicz); and
wherein, after an input is received via the input device, the camera records images or video (see Cowherd paragraph 8 regarding a primary communication device connected to first camera that detects signal to start recording to memory, and then transmits the start signal to second cameras, and paragraph 27-28 regarding wireless network and devices in any type of network including a mesh network, which obviously includes a partial mesh network where a primary device is directly connected to a secondary device A, but not secondary device B, while secondary devices A and B are connected, indirectly connecting the primary device with secondary device B, for example.), and
wherein the camera and the one or more other cameras form a wireless camera network (see Cowherd paragraph 8 regarding a primary communication device connected to first camera that detects signal to start recording to memory, and then transmits the start signal to second cameras, and paragraph 27-28 regarding wireless network and devices in any type of network including a mesh network, which obviously includes a partial mesh network where a primary device is directly connected to a secondary device A, but not secondary device B, while secondary devices A and B are connected, indirectly connecting the primary device with secondary device B, for example.).
However, Cowherd does not explicitly teach the hardware as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Sakiewicz, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a transceiver operatively coupled to the input device (see Sakiewicz figure 1 and paragraph 49 regarding emergency device camera housing, paragraph 18 regarding emergency device camera with transceiver, paragraph 25 regarding emergency device with camera paragraph 29 regarding emergency device with processor and memory- all of these are obviously contained in the housing of the emergency device, and in combination with Cowherd, the camera and device may be integrated within the same housing),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Cowherd to include the teaching of Sakiewicz so that in combination with Cowherd, the camera and device may be integrated within the same housing with a transceiver.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to facilitate communication between cameras in a network (see Sakiewicz paragraph 18).
However, the combination of Cowherd and Sakiewicz does not explicitly teach the signaling flow as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Cuddeback, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the transceiver wirelessly transmits a start signal to one or more other cameras to also start recording images or video and to also wirelessly transmit the start signal (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54 regarding heartbeat and synchronization message signal that is transmitted by all nodes to each other, and figure 1 illustrating network layout, where a type of synchronization signal is successively transmitted from node to node. In combination with Cowherd, which already considers a partial network with similar topology to Cuddeback, it would be obvious to also be able to transmit a start signal from node to node, where cameras transmit the start signal to cameras in range, where therefore the cameras would be second, third, etc. cameras that are positively selected from a plurality of cameras. The second start signal is interpreted as a separate case from a first start signal, where the second signal is the case where the subject camera receives a start signal from a first object camera), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Cowherd and Sakiewicz to include the teaching of Cuddeback so that in combination with Cowherd, which already considers a partial network with similar topology to Cuddeback, it would be obvious to also be able to transmit a start signal from node to node, where cameras transmit the start signal to cameras in range, where therefore the cameras would be second, third, etc. cameras that are positively selected from a plurality of cameras. The second start signal is interpreted as a separate case from a first start signal, where the second signal is the case where the subject camera receives a start signal from a first object camera.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the camera is a first camera, wherein the one or more other cameras include a second camera, wherein the second camera wirelessly transmits the start signal to a third camera that is out of range of the first camera, but not out of range of the second camera, and wherein the first camera, the second camera, and the third camera form a wireless camera network (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54 regarding heartbeat and synchronization message signal that is transmitted by all nodes to each other, and figure 1 illustrating network layout, where a type of synchronization signal is successively transmitted from node to node. In combination with Cowherd, which already considers a partial network with similar topology to Cuddeback, it would be obvious to also be able to transmit a start signal from node to node, where cameras transmit the start signal to cameras in range, where therefore the cameras would be second, third, etc. cameras that are positively selected from a plurality of cameras. The second start signal is interpreted as a separate case from a first start signal, where the second signal is the case where the subject camera receives a start signal from a first object camera).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the start signal transmission is a periodic broadcast transmission (see Cuddeback paragraph 52 regarding periodic heartbeat message signal- in combination with Cowherd, which teaches an explicit start signal, the start signal can be periodically transmitted as a continual indication of recording status.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the input device includes a button that is depressed to cause the camera to record the images or video and to cause the transceiver to wirelessly transmit the start signal (see Cowherd paragraph 50 regarding a start or stop signal sent by button on a device to transmit signal to other cameras- in combination with Sakiewicz, the input device that causes a start signal may be functionally performed by an input button on Sakiewicz).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the start signal includes a time used to synchronize the other cameras (see Cuddeback paragraph 53 regarding propagating absolute local time to cameras in the network in order to correctly timestamp images- in combination with Cowherd, it is obvious that propagation would prove advantageous in assuring that the timestamps of video from multiple cameras are aligned, and in this process, the internal times of the cameras would be adjusted and then transmitted sequentially as the time is propagated with the start signal).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the time includes an internal time of the camera or a global time of a network (see Cuddeback paragraph 53 regarding propagating absolute local time to cameras in the network in order to correctly timestamp images- in combination with Cowherd, it is obvious that propagation would prove advantageous in assuring that the timestamps of video from multiple cameras are aligned, and in this process, the internal times of the cameras would be adjusted and then transmitted sequentially as the time is propagated with the start signal).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein at least one of the camera and the other cameras is mounted on a bow or a weapon (see Sakiewicz paragraph 25 regarding camera device and paragraph 61 regarding mounting device on a weapon including a bow).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to facilitate communication between cameras in a network (see Sakiewicz paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 8, Cowherd teaches A wireless camera network, comprising:
a second camera in wireless range of the first camera, wherein, after an input is received by the first camera, the first camera records images or video (see Cowherd paragraph 8 regarding a primary communication device connected to first camera that detects signal to start recording to memory, and then transmits the start signal to second cameras, and paragraph 27-28 regarding wireless network and devices in any type of network including a mesh network, which obviously includes a partial mesh network where a primary device is directly connected to a secondary device A, but not secondary device B, while secondary devices A and B are connected, indirectly connecting the primary device with secondary device B, for example.), and
However, Cowherd does not explicitly teach the hardware as needed for the limitations of claim 8.
Sakiewicz, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a first camera (see Sakiewicz figure 1 and paragraph 49 regarding emergency device camera housing, paragraph 18 regarding emergency device camera with transceiver, paragraph 25 regarding emergency device with camera paragraph 29 regarding emergency device with processor and memory- all of these are obviously contained in the housing of the emergency device, and in combination with Cowherd, the camera and device may be integrated within the same housing);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Cowherd to include the teaching of Sakiewicz so that in combination with Cowherd, the camera and device may be integrated within the same housing with a transceiver.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to facilitate communication between cameras in a network (see Sakiewicz paragraph 18).
However, the combination of Cowherd and Sakiewicz does not explicitly teach the signaling flow as needed for the limitations of claim 8.
Cuddeback, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first camera wirelessly transmits a start signal to the second camera to start recording images or video and to wirelessly transmit the start signal (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54 regarding heartbeat and synchronization message signal that is transmitted by all nodes to each other, and figure 1 illustrating network layout, where a type of synchronization signal is successively transmitted from node to node. In combination with Cowherd, which already considers a partial network with similar topology to Cuddeback, it would be obvious to also be able to transmit a start signal from node to node, where cameras transmit the start signal to cameras in range, where therefore the cameras would be second, third, etc. cameras that are positively selected from a plurality of cameras. The second start signal is interpreted as a separate case from a first start signal, where the second signal is the case where the subject camera receives a start signal from a first object camera).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Cowherd and Sakiewicz to include the teaching of Cuddeback so that in combination with Cowherd, which already considers a partial network with similar topology to Cuddeback, it would be obvious to also be able to transmit a start signal from node to node, where cameras transmit the start signal to cameras in range, where therefore the cameras would be second, third, etc. cameras that are positively selected from a plurality of cameras. The second start signal is interpreted as a separate case from a first start signal, where the second signal is the case where the subject camera receives a start signal from a first object camera.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the second camera wirelessly transmits the start signal to a third camera that is out of range of the first camera, but not out of range of the second camera, and wherein the third camera joins the wireless camera network (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54 regarding heartbeat and synchronization message signal that is transmitted by all nodes to each other, and figure 1 illustrating network layout, where a type of synchronization signal is successively transmitted from node to node. In combination with Cowherd, which already considers a partial network with similar topology to Cuddeback, it would be obvious to also be able to transmit a start signal from node to node, where cameras transmit the start signal to cameras in range, where therefore the cameras would be second, third, etc. cameras that are positively selected from a plurality of cameras. The second start signal is interpreted as a separate case from a first start signal, where the second signal is the case where the subject camera receives a start signal from a first object camera).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the start signal transmission is a periodic broadcast transmission (see Cuddeback paragraph 52 regarding periodic heartbeat message signal- in combination with Cowherd, which teaches an explicit start signal, the start signal can be periodically transmitted as a continual indication of recording status.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the first camera includes an input device that includes a button that is depressed to cause the first camera to record the images or video and to cause the first camera to wirelessly transmit the start signal (see Cowherd paragraph 50 regarding a start or stop signal sent by button on a device to transmit signal to other cameras- in combination with Sakiewicz, the input device that causes a start signal may be functionally performed by an input button on Sakiewicz).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the start signal includes a time used to synchronize the first camera and the second camera (see Cuddeback paragraph 53 regarding propagating absolute local time to cameras in the network in order to correctly timestamp images- in combination with Cowherd, it is obvious that propagation would prove advantageous in assuring that the timestamps of video from multiple cameras are aligned, and in this process, the internal times of the cameras would be adjusted and then transmitted sequentially as the time is propagated with the start signal).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the time includes an internal time of the first camera or a global time of a network (see Cuddeback paragraph 53 regarding propagating absolute local time to cameras in the network in order to correctly timestamp images- in combination with Cowherd, it is obvious that propagation would prove advantageous in assuring that the timestamps of video from multiple cameras are aligned, and in this process, the internal times of the cameras would be adjusted and then transmitted sequentially as the time is propagated with the start signal).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to reduce the need for cameras to extend their wireless range too far, conserving energy (see Cuddeback paragraphs 51-54).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Cowherd, Sakiewicz, and Cuddeback teaches wherein the first camera or the second camera is mounted on a bow or a weapon (see Sakiewicz paragraph 25 regarding camera device and paragraph 61 regarding mounting device on a weapon including a bow).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to facilitate communication between cameras in a network (see Sakiewicz paragraph 18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483