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 (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2025 and 12/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a video recording unit”, “a videorecording stop unit”, “a video-recorded image frame number setting unit“, “a determination unit” in claims 1-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the next segment" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the basis of input of a trigger signal” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the time when the trigger signal is inputted” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the basis of image frame information” in lines 32-33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 6167186 A) in view of Honjo et al. (US 2017/0257574 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki et al. (hereafter referred as Kawa) teaches a high-speed camera (Kawa, Fig. 1) comprising:
an imager unit that sequentially images a target video image (Kawa, Fig. 1, Camera 1);
a video recording memory that is divided into a plurality of segments, each of the segments consecutively shifting to the next segment in order so that writing is performed thereinto, the writing into each of the segments being performed and overwriting is performed in a ring buffer shape until the writing is stopped (Kawa, Figs. 1-2, successive recording unit 5. Column 3, Lines 20-39, Column 4, Lines 30-46);
a video recording unit (Kawa, Fig. 1, successive recording control unit 6) that sequentially video-records the video image imaged by the imager unit as an image frame of digital data into the video recording memory and stops, when video-recording a predetermined number of image frames set in a video recording stop unit (Kawa, Column 4, Lines 50-60, Column 5, Lines 14-34, The predetermined number of frames are set by the successive recording control unit 6.), the video recording in the video recording memory using the video recording stop unit on the basis of input of a trigger signal, to leave the predetermined number of image frames in the video recording memory (Kawa, Figs. 4-5 Column 4, Lines 47 to Column 6, Line 7, The predetermined number of images to be left in the memory after a trigger signal (event) are dictated by the recording tables.);
a video-recorded image frame number setting unit in which predetermined numbers of image frames, respectively preceding and succeeding the image frame at the time when the trigger signal is inputted, to be recorded on the basis of the input of the trigger signal are previously set (Kawa, Column 4, Lines 50-60, Column 5, Lines 14-34, The predetermined number of frames for a trigger signal occur preceding and succeeding the event.);
region information management means for storing segment information about in which of the segments the image frames are recorded and image frame information about in which of positions of each of the segments each of the image frames is recorded (Kawa, Figs. 1 and 4-5, endless recording table 61, event recording table 62 and event management table 63, Column 4, Lines 30-67)
image frame management means for acquiring predetermined numbers of image frames respectively preceding and succeeding the image frame at the time when the trigger signal is inputted in the certain segment, which are previously set by the video recorded image frame number setting unit, on the basis of image frame information of the segment into which the trigger signal is inputted and image frame information of the other segment that are stored by the region information management means (Kawa, Figs. 1 and 4-5, endless recording table 61, event recording table 62 and event management table 63, Column 4, Lines 30-67).
However, Kawa does not explicitly teach the imager unit that sequentially images a target video image at a set exposure timing.
In reference to Honjo et al. (hereafter referred as Honjo), Honjo teaches an imager unit that sequentially images a target video image at a set exposure timing (Honjo, Paragraph 0147).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kawa with the explicit teaching of capturing video with a set exposure timing as seen in Honjo to capture image frames at a consistent rate and since it is a well-known method for capturing video frames and would provide similar and expected results.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kawa and Honjo teaches the high-speed camera according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the image frame information is a position of each of the image frames in each of the segments (Kawa, Figs. 4-5, Image frame information may be considered to be the index and pointer of the frames.),
the region information management means is configured to store, for each of the segments, a position in the segment of each of the image frames recorded in the segment after the stop of the video recording (Kawa, Figs. 4-5, A position of a segment is the index of a first frame of an event.), and
the image frame management means is configured, in order to acquire the predetermined numbers of image frames respectively preceding and succeeding the trigger frame at the time when the trigger signal is inputted, which are previously set by the video-recorded image frame number setting unit, to supplement, in addition to a position of each of the image frames in the segment into which the trigger signal is inputted, which are stored by the region information management means, a position of the image frame that cannot be video-recorded in the segment including the trigger frame with a position of each of image frames in the other segment (Kawa, Fig. 5(b), Ex. B, Column 5, Lines 37-59, Block 6 is interpreted as an image frame that cannot be video-recorded in the segment including the trigger frame since it is recorded in the previous segment (event 1). Event 2 is considered to be supplementing block 6 from Event 1.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kawa and Honjo teaches the high-speed camera according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising sequence number management means for assigning a sequence number in order to each of the image frames sequentially video-recorded in each of the segments that consecutively shifts to the next segment so that video recording is sequentially performed therein, wherein the image frame information is a sequence number assigned for each of the segments by the sequence number management means (Kawa, Figs. 4-5, The index and pointers are sequence numbers.),
the region information management means is configured to store, for each of the segments, a sequence number assigned to each of the image frames recorded in the segment after the stop of the video recording (Kawa, Figs. 4-5, Event recording table stores a sequence number for the image frames for each event.), and
the image frame management means is configured, in order to acquire the predetermined numbers of image frames respectively preceding and succeeding the trigger frame at the time when the trigger signal is inputted, which are previously set by the video-recorded image frame number setting unit, to supplement, in addition to a sequence number assigned to each of the image frames in the segment into which the trigger signal is inputted, which are stored by the region information management means, a sequence number assigned to the image frame that cannot be video- recorded in the segment including the trigger frame with a sequence number assigned to each of image frames in the other segment (Kawa, Fig. 5(b), Ex. B, Column 5, Lines 37-59, Block 6 is interpreted as an image frame that cannot be video-recorded in the segment including the trigger frame since it is recorded in the previous segment (event 1). Event 2 is considered to be supplementing block 6 from Event 1.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kawa and Honjo teaches the high-speed camera according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising pseudo trigger signal input means for issuing, when trigger signals are inputted in an overlapping manner and each of the segments consecutively shifts to the next segment, a pseudo trigger signal to the video recording unit (Kawa, Fig. 5(b), Ex. B, Column 5, Lines 37-59, The trigger signal for Event 2 is considered to be a pseudo trigger signal since it is issued when overlapping consecutive events occur.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kawa and Honjo teaches the high-speed camera according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the predetermined number of image frames set in the video recording stop unit are set to a required number of image frames succeeding the image frame at the time when the trigger signal is inputted, which are previously set by the video-recorded image frame number setting unit (Kawa, Column 4, Lines 50-60, Column 5, Lines 14-34, The predetermined number of frames are set by the successive recording control unit 6.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights