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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0084166 to Tachikawa (“Tachikawa”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,965 to Oba et al. (“Oba”).
Regarding claim 1, Tachikawa teaches a video system, comprising:
a video display having a front surface and a rear surface spaced apart along a depth axis, and an upper surface and a lower surface spaced apart along a height axis (See Figure 4);
a camera compartment located proximate the upper surface of the video display, the camera compartment having a recess (camera 40 within recess 20c, as seen in Figure 3);
a dust cover that selectively covers the recess, the dust cover comprising a dust cover cam follower surface (the housing of 40a acts as a dust cover that covers the recess when the camera is inside); and
a video camera in a camera housing, wherein the camera housing defines a camera housing cam surface and is selectively retractable into and deployable from the recess (see Figure 1 showing the camera in a camera housing 40 and may be selectively retractable and deployable into the recess 20c);
Tachikawa is silent on wherein during a camera deployment operation, the camera housing cam surface engages the dust cover cam follower surface to displace the dust cover and allow the camera housing to exit the camera compartment. Other prior art references show other alternatives to a retractable camera. For example Oba teaches one example in Figure 2 where a dust cover follower surface displaces the dust cover 9 to allow the camera 2 to exit the compartment 100.
It 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 to modify the teaching of Tachikawa with that of Oba to engage the dust cover camera follower surface to displace the dust cover and allow the camera to exit the camera compartment so that the device and recess may be covered when the camera is not in use.
Regarding claim 2, Tachikawa in view of Oba teaches the video system of claim 1, wherein the dust cover is biased into a closed position such that during a camera deployment operation, disengagement of the camera housing cam surface from the dust cover cam follower surface causes the dust cover to close (see Figure 5 of Oba).
Regarding claim 3, Tachikawa in view of Oba the video system of claim 1, Oba further teaches wherein the camera housing is attached to a bracket that is operatively connected to a rotating shaft such that when the shaft rotates the camera housing is traversed along an arc path (Figure 5 shows the center of rotation 5 to open and close the camera).
Regarding claim 4, Tachikawa in view of Oba the video system of claim 3, wherein the camera housing has a camera housing center and is rotatable about the camera housing center to alter a viewing angle of the video camera when the video camera is at a fixed position along the arc path (See Figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Tachikawa in view of Oba the video system of claim 1, Oba further teaches wherein when the camera housing is in a deployed configuration, the camera housing is spaced apart from the video display upper surface along the height axis (see Figure 2 for the deployed configuration).
Regarding claim 6, Tachikawa in view of Oba the video system of claim 5, wherein when the camera housing is in the deployed configuration, the camera housing is spaced apart from the video display along the depth axis (see Figure 2 for the deployed configuration).
Regarding claim 9, Tachikawa teaches a video system, comprising:
a video display having an upper surface and a lower surface defining a height axis, and a front surface and a rear surface defining a depth axis (See Figure 1);
a video camera contained in a camera housing (Figure 3, reference number 40 camera unit); and
a camera compartment proximate the upper surface of the video display, the camera compartment comprising a recess selectively covered by a dust cover (see Figure 3 showing the recess 20c in the display device);
Tachikawa is silent on the camera is selectively covered by a dust cover; wherein the camera housing has a stowed configuration in which the camera housing is located in the recess and a deployed configuration in which the camera housing is located outside the recess, and the camera housing has a camera housing center and is rotatable about the camera housing center to alter a viewing angle of the camera when the camera is in a deployed configuration.
The prior art offers many alternative solutions to storing a camera inside a recess of a housing and one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that it would be obvious to substitute one solution in Tachikawa with another alternate solution.
Oba teaches a camera that is selectively covered by a dust cover (reference number 9, cover), wherein the camera housing has a stowed configuration in which the camera housing is located in the recess (Figure 12 shows the imaging unit 2 in a stored configuration in the recess) and a deployed configuration in which the camera housing is located outside the recess (the dotted line in Figure 12 represents the camera housing located outside the recess in a deployed configuration, see also Figure 2), and the camera housing has a camera housing center and is rotatable about the camera housing center to alter a viewing angle of the camera when the camera is in a deployed configuration (the camera is rotatable about the axial point 5a to rotate between at least the two positions shown in Figure 12. Further, it can be seen in Figure 12 that the viewing angle is different in the deployed configuration compared to the stored configuration or anywhere in between).
It 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 to modify the teaching of Tachikawa with that of Oba to use an alternatively known configuration of storing a camera inside a recess and apply it to the camera stored in the recess of a video display taught by Tachikawa to further allow the camera to view different viewing angles depending on its position and to increase protection of the camera device by the cover.
Regarding claim 10, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 9, wherein during a deployment operation, the camera housing traverses an arc path in a plane that is perpendicular to the video display front surface. Oba teaches the camera housing traverses an arc in a plane that is perpendicular to the direction of viewing of the camera. As stated above, it would be obvious to modify Tachikawa with that of Oba, and the viewing direction of the camera in Tachikawa is the same as the display front surface thus the arc in a plane in Oba would be a plane perpendicular to the display if it were substituted into Tachikawa.
Regarding claim 11, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 10, wherein the camera housing has a camera housing surface and during the deployment operation, the camera housing surface engages the dust cover to open the dust cover (See Oba Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 10, wherein the camera housing is attached to a bracket that is operatively connected to a rotating motor shaft such that when the shaft rotates the camera is traversed along the arc path (see Oba in Figure 7A for example).
Regarding claim 13, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 9, further comprising: a motor having a rotating shaft; and a bracket connected to the camera housing and to the rotating shaft, such that rotation of the rotating shaft causes the deployment of the camera housing from the camera compartment (See Figure 7A of Oba).
Regarding claim 14, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 9, wherein in the deployed configuration the dust cover is biased closed (See Figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach. The video system of claim 9, wherein when the camera housing is in a deployed configuration, the camera housing is spaced apart from the video display upper surface along the height axis (See Figure 2 showing deployed configuration).
Regarding claim 16, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 15, wherein when the camera housing is in a deployed configuration, the camera housing is spaced apart from the video display front surface along the depth axis. Tachikawa further teaches the camera housing spaced apart from the display front surface along the depth axis as seen in Figure 12. The front of the camera 40 is spaced further towards the rear of the video display than the front surface of the display.
Regarding claim 19, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 9, further comprising a motor enclosed in the recess and operatively connected to the camera housing to move the camera housing at least one of into the recess and out of the recess (see motor of the rotation shaft, reference number 22 of Oba).
Regarding claim 20, Tachikawa in view of Oba teach the video system of claim 9, wherein the camera housing is cylindrical and comprises a length axis and a radial axis, and the camera housing center lies along the camera housing length axis (see Oba Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same or similar video system comprising a video display, camera compartment having a recess, dust cover that selectively covers the recess, and dust cover cam follower surface where the camera is selectively retractable into and deployable from the recess.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R HSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3012. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at (571)272-7372. 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.
AMY R. HSU
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/AMY R HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights