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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/08/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of full statutory term of prior patent number 12,010,464 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that,
“[…]
Hatcher's determination of the presence or absence of the firearm based on changes in measured magnitude of inductance, impedance, or frequency does not disclose or suggest "determining that an object is removed from a holster if the plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). In particular, amended claim 1 recites "determining [based on] the plurality of sampled signal values," whereas Hatcher does not disclose "sampled signal values" as the basis for its determination, nor does Hatcher disclose any temporal threshold-based determination. Further, Hatcher's detection method is based on a differential measurement. As described in Hatcher, sensor circuit 128 detects a first magnitude when the firearm is not proximate to the coil and a second magnitude when the firearm is proximate to the coil, and may report the absolute or actual values of those magnitudes and/or a change in the magnitude. Hatcher ¶ [0111]. Thus, under the Office's characterization, Hatcher takes the magnitude of inductance when the firearm is present in the holster as a reference and reports removal based on whether the change in inductance exceeds zero. Applicants respectfully disagree with the Office's characterization. Even if Hatcher's disclosure of "change in the magnitude" can be viewed as a comparison (which Applicants do not concede), it would not necessarily be a comparison of the claimed plurality of sampled signal values against a fixed, predetermined threshold for a period of time, as required by amended claim 1.
The Office's characterization that the alleged change in the magnitude occurs "at least for a certain period of time" is not disclosed in Hatcher ¶¶ [0090] or [0111]. At most, such characterization refers to a physical condition-namely, the sustained physical absence of the firearm from the holster-not a disclosure that the determination of removal is made if the claimed plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time, as required by amended claim 1. In other words, Hatcher does not disclose using the claimed period of time as part of the determination that the object is removed from the holster. Hatcher therefore discloses no temporal-related threshold determination corresponding to amended claim 1.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Hatcher, in at least [0074], teaches:
[0074] In another example, a sensor may be implemented using an inductance-to-digital converter (“LDC”), such as the LDC1101 from Texas Instruments. An LDC performs the functions of a sensor circuit. The LDC couples to a coil, provides an alternating current to the coil to generate an electromagnetic field through the coil, measures the inductance and/or equivalent parallel impedance of the circuit that includes the coil, converts the measure inductance and/or impedance to a digital number and reports the number. The LDC may also detect a change in the measured inductance and/or impedance. A processing circuit may receive the digital numbers reported by an LDC. An LDC may provide a current to an LC tank circuit, measure the frequency of the oscillations of the LC tank circuit, and deduce the inductance of the LC tank circuit, and report the inductance of the LC tank circuit.
(emphasis added)
As such, Hatcher teaches the sensor reports measurements as digital numbers by converting inductance of a coil into digital values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an analog to digital converter must comprise a sampling process where the analog signal is sampled before quantization and coding.
As such, Hatcher clearly teaches the sensor data comprises a plurality of sampled signal values, which are the digital numbers reported by the sensor described by Hatcher above.
Further, Hatcher teaches,
[0111] Sensor circuit 128 cooperates with coil 130 to detect the presence or absence of firearm 142 in holster 150. Sensor circuit 128 may drive coil 130 with a signal (e.g., AC, DC, impulse), as discussed above, so that coil 130 generates an electromagnetic field. Sensor circuit 128 detects (e.g., senses, measures) the inductance, impedance, and/or frequency of oscillation of the circuit that includes coil 130. When metal from firearm 142 is not proximate to coil 130, sensor circuit 128 detects a first magnitude of inductance, impedance, and/or frequency. When metal from firearm 142 is proximate to coil 130, sensor circuit 128 detects a second magnitude of inductance, impedance, and/or frequency. Sensor circuit 128 may report the values (e.g., absolute, actual) of the first magnitude and the second magnitude and/or a change in the magnitude.
(emphasis added)
Thus, Hatcher clearly teaches a removal of the weapon from the holster is detected if absolute values of change in the magnitude exceed zero, i.e. if they are zero, there is no change, if they are non-zero, their absolute values are greater than zero, there is a change. And the detection of the removal of weapon is detected in response to detection of absolute values of change of magnitude.
Further, since each sample is associated with a sampling period, assuming for the sake of argument that the sensor reports two consecutive digital values representing absolute change of magnitude greater than zero, then two of sampled values are greater than zero for a period of time equal to two sampling periods. In this case the condition of “if the plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time” is met. Apparently, according to Hatcher, when this condition occurs, the removal of the weapon from the holster is detected.
As such, Hatcher clearly teaches determining that an object is removed from a holster if the plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that,
“[…]
In particular, with respect to dependent claims 3 and 16, Bernstein at most discloses MQTT as an implementation of a publish-subscribe messaging protocol, but fails to disclose or suggest using such MQTT to provide an event to a subscriber device in the context of any object monitoring, let alone a determination that an object is removed from a holster. Moreover, the Office has not shown sufficient reasoning for modifying Hatcher with the teachings of Bernst[a]in, as suggested by the Office, other than to reconstruct the claimed invention. See Office Action at pp. 17-18. The Office asserts that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bernstein into the publish-subscribe messaging protocol taught by Hatcher because using a message queuing telemetry transport protocol would have been advantageous in providing resource-constrained network clients with a simple way to distribute information in low- bandwidth environments." Id. Applicants understand the Office to be paraphrasing the language of Berst[a]in. Berst[a]in, p. 1. While these may be goals of Berst[a]in, the Office has offered no articulated reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to modify Hatcher, based on Berst[a]in, to meet these goals. See MPEP § 2143 ("Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.") (emphasis added). See also MPEP § 2143.01 ("Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so.") (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Bernstein does not cure the deficiencies of Hatcher, and the Office has not provided sufficient evidentiary support for combining Hatcher with Bernstein to arrive at claims 3 and 16.”
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the Office Action has clearly stated why the combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. specifically because using a message queuing telemetry transport protocol would have been advantageous in providing resource-constrained network clients with a simple way to distribute information in low-bandwidth environments. In other words, when the system taught by Hatcher is employed in an environment which has a low-bandwidth, e.g. in remote areas where network condition is poor, using MQTT would make the system of Hatcher still reliable and effective in this environment.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that,
“Moreover, with respect to claims 4-5 and 9-13, Raghunath at most discloses a video camera for recording video data, but fails to disclose or suggest event-driven recording of video data by a video sensor based on an event subscribed to by the video sensor and related to the detection sensor. The Office argues that Hatcher discloses that "the sensor [is] configured to subscribe to the event related to the detection," Office Action at pp. 18-19, yet there is no disclosure that a sensor in Hatcher is subscribed to an event, further weakening the already conclusory motivation to combine Hatcher with Raghunath's video camera, other than to reconstruct Applicants' claims. Even if "using a video sensor would have been advantageous in capturing moving images, thus providing captured data with more context than still images," id. at p. 18, this does not provide a rationale as to why it would be obvious to modify Hatcher to "provid[e] the recording instruction to a video sensor" where the same video sensor is "configured to subscribe to the event related to the detection sensor," as claimed. See MPEP § 2143 ("Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.") (emphasis added). Accordingly, Raghunath does not cure the deficiencies of Hatcher, and the Office has not provided sufficient evidentiary support for combining Hatcher with Raghunath to arrive at claims 4-5 and 9-13.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Hatcher teaches a sensor in the camera starts the recording in response to an event message sent by a detection sensor. As such, the sensor has been designed to be able to receive and respond to this message regularly. Therefore, the sensor is configured to subscribe to the event by definition. Raghunath is relied upon to teach a video sensor. Incorporating a video sensor into a camera to make the camera able to record video content would have been advantageous due to video content can provide better context in understanding the content.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 14-15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatcher.
Regarding claim 1, Hatcher discloses a computer-implemented system, comprising: at least one processor ([0042] – a digital signal processor, a microcontroller, or a microprocessor, etc.); and a memory including instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to perform operations ([0049] – a memory storing program instructions to be executed by the processor as further described at least in [0044]), the operations comprising: receiving sensor data from a detection sensor, the sensor data comprising a plurality of sampled signal values ([0111]-[0112] – receiving sensor reports as sensor data from a sensor circuit, the sensor data comprising a plurality of reported values); determining that an object is removed from a holster if the plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time ([0090]; [0111]-[0112] – taking the magnitude of inductance when the firearm is present in the holster as a reference, the absolute changes in magnitude reported by the sensor, in inductance are greater than zero when the firearm is removed at least for a certain period of time – also see “Response to Arguments above); generating an event indicating that the object is removed based on a determination that the object is removed from the holster ([0113] – generating a message indicating the firearm has been withdrawn from the holster); determining a recording instruction based on the event ([0114]-[0115] – analyzing the message and in response to the message indicating the firearm has been withdrawn, determining an instruction to record, by a camera, or any other video recording system as further described at least in [0030], the information); and recording video data based on the recording instruction ([0114]-[0115] – analyzing the message and in response to the message indicating the firearm has been withdrawn, determining an instruction to record, by a camera, or any other video recording system as further described at least in [0030], the information).
Regarding claim 2, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, after generating the event, providing the event to a subscriber device by at least one of an event publish service or a subscribe service via a publish-subscribe messaging protocol ([0113]-[0114] – after generating a message, transmitting the message to an electronic device or a recording system, which serves as a subscriber device by an event publish service or a subscribe service, e.g. a service in which the event is published to the electronic device, or a service which is subscribed with the electronic device or the recording system where the message is determined whether to trigger recording, e.g. permissive trigger, via a publish-subscribe messaging protocol, i.e. the event is published and transmitted to the electronic device, the electronic device or the recording system analyzing the message to determine whether a recording start instruction is subscribed for this message).
Regarding claim 7, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise determining that the object is not removed from the holster if the plurality of sampled signal values are less than the threshold for the period of time ([0090]; [0111]-[0112] – taking the magnitude of inductance when the firearm is present in the holster as a reference, determining the firearm is not removed from the holster if the absolute changes in magnitude reported by the sensor, are less than at least half the change values measured when the firearm is removed at least for a certain period of time).
Regarding claim 8, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data comprises a plurality of sampled signals with the plurality of sampled signal values ([0111]-[0112] – receiving sensor reports as sensor data from a sensor circuit, the sensor data comprising a plurality of reported values, which are a plurality of sampled signals with the plurality of sampled signal values).
Regarding claim 14, Hatcher discloses a computer-implemented system ([0042]-[0049] – a system comprising a processing circuit such as a processor, a microcontroller, or a microprocessor, and a memory storing program instructions to be executed by the processor as further described at least in [0044]), comprising: a sensor data analyzer implemented by at least one processor ([0112] – the processing circuit implementing a sensor data analyzer to receive sensor data to determine whether the firearm has been withdrawn from a holster), the sensor data analyzer configured to: receive sensor data from a detection sensor, the sensor data comprising a plurality of sampled signal values ([0111]-[0112] – receiving sensor reports as sensor data from a sensor circuit, the sensor data comprising a plurality of reported values); determine that an object is removed from a holster if the plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time ([0090]; [0111]-[0112] – taking the magnitude of inductance when the firearm is present in the holster as a reference, the absolute changes in magnitude reported by the sensor, in inductance are greater than zero when the firearm is removed at least for a certain period of time – also see “Response to Arguments above); generate an event indicating whether the object is removed based on a determination of whether the object is removed from the holster ([0113] – generating a message indicating the firearm has been withdrawn from the holster); and determine whether to record video data based on the event ([0114]-[0115] – analyzing the message and in response to the message indicating the firearm has been withdrawn, determining an instruction to record, by a camera, or any other video recording system as further described at least in [0030], the information).
Regarding claim 15, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 14, wherein the sensor data analyzer is further configured to: provide the event to a subscriber device by at least one of an event publish service or a subscribe service via a publish-subscribe messaging protocol ([0113]-[0114] – after generating a message, transmitting the message to an electronic device or a recording system, which serves as a subscriber device by an event publish service or a subscribe service, e.g. a service in which the event is published to the electronic device, or a service which is subscribed with the electronic device or the recording system where the message is determined whether to trigger recording, e.g. permissive trigger, via a publish-subscribe messaging protocol, i.e. the event is published and transmitted to the electronic device, the electronic device or the recording system analyzing the message to determine whether a recording start instruction is subscribed for this message), wherein the event publish service and the subscribe service are configured to provide the event to the subscriber device, the subscriber device subscribing the event ([0111]-[0115] – the event publish service and the subscribe service provided by the sensor to provide the event to an electronic device or a camera, which subscribes the event).
Regarding claim 17, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 14, wherein the sensor data analyzer is further configured to: generate a first instruction to store the video data if the event indicates that the object is removed from the holster ([0115] – generating recording instruction to record the video data, at least by a video recorder as further described at least in [0030] if the event indicates that the firearm has been withdrawn from a holster); or generate a second instruction to cease storing the video data if the event indicates that the object is not removed from the holster ([0115] – generating an instruction to stop recording of the video data, at least by a video recorder as further described at least in [0030] if the event indicates that the firearm has been placed to the holster).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 21, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sampled signal values are generated by sampling a signal at a plurality of sampling frequencies ([0074] – also see “Response to Arguments” above).
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 21 above.
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 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatcher as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 14-15, 17, and 19-22 above, and further in view of Bernstein.
Regarding claim 3, see the teachings of Hatcher as discussed in claim 2 above. However, Hatcher does not disclose the publish-subscribe messaging protocol comprises a message queuing telemetry transport protocol.
Bernstein discloses a publish-subscribe messaging protocol comprises a message queuing telemetry transport protocol (page 1- a publish-subscribe messaging protocol using MQTT (message queuing telemetry transport)).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bernstein into the publish-subscribe messaging protocol taught by Hatcher because using a message queuing telemetry transport protocol would have been advantageous in providing resource-constrained network clients with a simple way to distribute information in low-bandwidth environments (see Bernstein, page 1).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claims 4-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatcher as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 14-15, 17, and 19-22 above, and further in view of Raghunath (US 2006/0098088 A1 – hereinafter Raghunath).
Regarding claim 4, Hatcher also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise providing the recording instruction to a sensor for recording the data, the sensor configured to subscribe to the event related to the detection sensor ([0115] – providing the recording instruction to those body cameras, vehicle cameras which are used, thus subscribed to the event, to start recording in response to the event).
However, Hatcher does not explicitly disclose the sensor as a video sensor for recording video data.
Raghunath discloses a video sensor for recording video data (Fig. 3 – video camera 322).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the video sensor of Raghunath into the sensor of the system taught by Hatcher because using a video sensor would have been advantageous in capturing moving images, thus providing captured data with more context than still images.
Regarding claim 5, Hatcher in view of Raghunath also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 4, wherein: the event is a first event ([0115] – the event of firearm having withdrawn from the holster is a first event); and the operations further comprise, in response to a determination that the object is not removed from the holster: generating a second event indicating that the object is in the holster ([0116] – generating a message upon detecting the firearm has been placed into the holster); determining a ceasing instruction based on the second event ([0116] – determining an instruction to stop recording to be transmitted via communication circuit to a recording system); and ceasing recording the video data based on the ceasing instruction ([0116] – stopping the recording by the recording system upon receiving the instruction, and in view of Raghunath teachings the data as video data).
Regarding claim 9, Hatcher discloses a computer-implemented system ([0042]-[0052] – a system comprising a digital signal processor, a microcontroller, or a microprocessor, memory, and circuitry to perform the operations of the system), comprising: a video storage configured to store data ([0047] – a storage configured to store data captured by a camera as further described at least in [0115]); and a sensor configured to: receive an event indicating that an object is removed from a holster if the plurality of sampled signal values are greater than a threshold for a period of time ([0090]; [0111]-[0112]; [0114]-[0115] – taking the magnitude of inductance when the firearm is present in the holster as a reference, the absolute changes in magnitude reported by the sensor, in inductance are greater than zero when the firearm is removed at least for a certain period of time – also see “Response to Arguments above), the event subscribed to by the video sensor ([0114]-[0115] – the recording event is subscribed by the camera, i.e. the event indicating the camera to start recording); and determine whether to record video data based on the event ([0114]-[0115] – when the event indicating the camera to start recording, the camera starts recording).
However, Hatcher does not explicitly disclose the sensor as a video sensor.
Raghunath discloses a video sensor (Fig. 3 – video camera 322).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the video sensor of Raghunath into the sensor of the system taught by Hatcher because using a video sensor would have been advantageous in capturing moving images, thus providing captured data with more context than still images.
Regarding claim 10, Hatcher in view of Raghunath also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 9, wherein: the event is related to a detection sensor, and the detection sensor is configured to generate sensor data based on a movement of the object ([0111]-[0113] – the event is related to a sensor detecting movement of a firearm in or out of a holster)., the sensor comprising the plurality of sampled signal values ([0074]; [0111] – the sensor comprising the plurality of sampled signal values, which are digital values – also see Response to Arguments above).
Regarding claim 11, Hatcher in view of Raghunath also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 9, wherein the video sensor is further configured to: determine to record the video data based on the event, the event indicating that the object is not in the holster ([0111]-[0115] – the camera, which in view of Raghunath, is a video camera, receiving the message, analyzing the message, and determining an event indicating the firearm has been withdrawn from the holster); and begin recording the video data ([0115] – the camera starts recording in response to the event of the firearm having been withdrawn from the holster).
Regarding claim 12, Hatcher in view of Raghunath also discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 9, wherein the video sensor is further configured to: determine not to record the video data based on the event, the event indicating that the object is in the holster ([0116] – based on an event of the firearm having been placed into the holster, determining not to record the data);; and cease recording the video data ([0116] – stopping the recording by the recording system upon receiving the instruction).
Regarding claim 13, see the teachings of Hatcher and Raghunath as discussed in claim 9 above. Raghunath also discloses a video capturing device, the video capturing device comprising the video sensor and the video storage, wherein the video sensor is further configured to record the video data in the video storage of the video capturing device (Figs. 2-3 – a video capturing device comprising video camera 332 and the video storage 206, the video camera configured to record the video data in the video storage 206).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Raghunath into the system has been discussed in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights