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 Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “a video-data acquiring unit that controls a camera, a biometric-information detecting unit that detects biometric information, an imaging-data processing unit that generates an imaging file, thumbnail-image generating unit that generates, an event detecting unit that detects an event, a recording control unit that stores,” recited in claims 1 and 7, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder, “unit” coupled with functional language configured to without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-4 and 7 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: control device 100, as described in [0025], “The control device 100 includes the imaging-data acquiring unit 111, a buffer memory 112, an imaging-data processing unit 113, a biometric-information detecting unit 114, the operation control unit 116, an event detecting unit 117, a position-information acquiring unit 118, a display control unit 119, a thumbnail-image generating unit 120, a reproduction control unit 121, and a recording control unit 122.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 4/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, and 7 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner is persuaded that neither Chung, nor the other previously cited prior art discloses:
wherein the thumbnail-image generating unit generates, when a fluctuation in the biometric information of the occupant of the vehicle is not detected during an event recording period before event detection, a thumbnail image of the event data from a first image in the event data, and
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly found prior art, Meganathan, US 10,176,683 B2.
However, the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s arguments regarding the other claimed features. For instance, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Sakai discloses “an event detecting unit” as previously claimed in claim 6, and as now claimed in claim 1, in the form of “event detector 127” which can receive input from an acceleration sensor 250, as disclosed in Sakai [0055].
The Applicant appears to argue on pages 8 and 9, that because certain functions which depend on data from an “event detecting unit” for which Sakai is cited previously in claim 6, and presently in claims 1 and 7, are not necessarily found in Sakai, such as functions of the “thumbnail-image generating unit”, that the reference is deficient. The Examiner respectfully submits that thumbnail image generation is adequately disclosed in the primary reference and is further disclosed by the secondary reference Meganathan; Sakai’s teachings on thumbnail generation are therefore moot for the current rejection.
Where Applicant argues on page 8, for instance, that
in Sakai, a thumbnail image of event data is generally generated from the first frame of the event data. The event data of Sakai is generated when an event is detected due to an impact on the vehicle. For this reason, the thumbnail image of event data generated by Sakai does not necessarily correspond to the moment that is easily remembered by the user, and users are thus unable to search for relevant event data appropriately by using the thumbnail images. Sakai therefore would not have motivated one skilled in the art to make a thumbnail-image generating unit that generates, when a fluctuation in the biometric information of the occupant of the vehicle is not detected during an event recording period before event detection, a thumbnail image of the event data from a first image in the event data, and that generates, when a fluctuation in the biometric information of the occupant of the vehicle is detected during the event recording period before event detection, a thumbnail image of the event data from video of a predetermined range including a point of time when the fluctuation in the biometric information is detected.
it is moot what content Sakai discloses placing in a thumbnail images; what is relevant is that Sakai discloses using an acceleration sensor signal as a trigger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate acceleration sensor output to Chung, simply because acceleration sensors were well known as a way of detecting a motor vehicle accident. The downstream uses of that sensor output are the concern of Chung in the present rejection.
The Applicant further argues on pages 9-10, in connection with Chung and Sakai that the claimed invention:
enables the thumbnail image to be assigned to the moment that is likely to remain in the user's memory, making it significantly easier to identify the circumstances in which the event data was recorded based on the thumbnail image and enabling users to reliably search for event data appropriately by using the thumbnail images. This achieves benefits that cannot simply be obtained by combining the teachings of Chung and Sakai.
The Examiner respectfully submits that, while this argument elucidates that motivation behind Applicant’s invention is directed to an intended result, not to a claim limitation with patentable weight. The claim elements relevant to this intended result of facilitating identification of “the event data was recorded based on the thumbnail image” appear to be elements directed to biometric information change detection, and generation of thumbnail images using image data proximate to these detected biometric changes. Chung is cited for these limitations. For instance, [0252]-[0253] in Chung, which disclose detecting user state changes in the form, for instance, a change in voice input, a shaking change, corresponding to an excited state of a user, heart rate change, or the like, and [0259]-[0267], which discloses, “the at least one thumbnail image 940 can indicate user's state change sensed point in the video.” This section discloses generating a thumbnail preview image of a video, the thumbnail image corresponding to a time point at which state change is sensed in a user, i.e. a biometric state change.” The Examiner therefore respectfully submits that the selection of thumbnails based on the detected biometric changes disclosed in Chung performs the functions relevant to achieving the intended result of producing thumbnails that connect to a user’s memory intuitively based on their experience of an event.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, US 2017/0154477 A1, in view of Sakai, US 2021/0319224 A1, in further view of Meganathan, US 2016/0086462 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses: a video-recording control device comprising:
a video-data acquiring unit that controls a camera used in a vehicle, and that acquires imaging data captured by the camera (Mobile terminal 10, in figure 6, is connected to vehicle accident recording device 20, as disclosed in [0232].);
a biometric-information detecting unit that detects biometric information of an occupant of the vehicle, and a fluctuation in the biometric information ([0055] in Chung discloses various types of biometric sensing.);
an imaging-data processing unit that generates an imaging file to which a thumbnail image is associated, from the imaging data (See [0267], disclosing a thumbnail image 940 with respect to figure 9 is generated by a mobile terminal.);
a thumbnail-image generating unit that generates, when the biometric-information detecting unit detects a fluctuation in the biometric information, a thumbnail image from video of a predetermined range including before and after a point of time of detection (As disclosed in [0267], “Moreover, the at least one thumbnail image 940 can indicate user's state change sensed point in the video.” This section discloses generating a thumbnail preview image of a video, the thumbnail image corresponding to a time point at which state change is sensed in a user, i.e. a biometric state change.); and
a recording control unit that stores, when an event is detected by the event detecting unit, event data that is imaging data corresponding to detection of the event, and that records the imaging file generated by the imaging-data processing unit and the thumbnail image generated by the thumbnail-image generating unit in a recording unit, associating with each other (Recording device 20.).
wherein the thumbnail-image generating unit generates, when a fluctuation in the biometric information is detected during a recording period of the imaging file, generates a thumbnail image of the imaging file from video of a predetermined range including a point of time of detection when the fluctuation in the biometric information is detected. (Chung discloses in [0257] generating a thumbnail (still image) “signal for requesting at least one of a moving image and a still image taken during a preset period before and after a time point of sensing the state change of the user 50.).
Chung does not disclose: an event detecting unit that detects an event based on acceleration applied to the vehicle; and
However, Sakai discloses this limitation in analogous art. See [0032], lines 1-4, “The acceleration sensor 250 detects acceleration applied to the vehicle. The acceleration sensor 250 outputs a detection result to an event detector 127 of the record and-replay control device 100.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate an acceleration sensor for detecting vehicle acceleration, of the kind disclosed in Sakai, in order to supplement the event detection techniques disclosed in Chung, and in particular to facilitate detecting a possible accident/vehicle impact event, when the acceleration exceeds a threshold value. See Sakai [0054].
The combination of Chung in view of Sakai does not disclose: wherein the thumbnail-image generating unit generates, when a fluctuation in the biometric information of the occupant of the vehicle is not detected during an event recording period before event detection, a thumbnail image of the event data from a first image in the event data, and
However, the suggestion to generate a thumbnail image merely using the first frame of a segment of video data is disclosed in an analogous art by Meganathan. See [0034], “0034] Most of these clips are displayed as thumbnail images so that the user can pick the intended clip. The thumbnail is typically the first frame of the clip.” Thus, Meganathan discloses that it was known in the art of event-based video recording systems to provide a thumbnail based on a first segment of a clip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature disclosed in Meganathan of using a first frame of a segment as the thumbnail. A first frame of a segment is particularly suited to segments which do not contain an event, since such clips are homogenous in terms of the relative importance of their frames; therefore, choosing the first frame as the thumbnail in the conventional manner best suits those segments not containing trigger events. See Meganathan [0033]-[0035].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chung, in view of Sakai, in view of Meganathan discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 2. This combination, specifically Chung, further discloses: the video-recording control device according to claim 1, wherein the biometric-information detecting unit detects that the biometric information has changed from a normal state to an abnormal state, as a fluctuation in the biometric information (See [0252]-[0253], which disclose detecting user state changes in the form, for instance, a change in voice input, a shaking change, corresponding to an excited state of a user, heart rate change, or the like.), and
the thumbnail-image generating unit generates, when the biometric-information detecting unit detects that the biometric information has changed from the normal state to the abnormal state, a thumbnail image from video at the time of detection (See [0267], which discloses producing a thumbnail image corresponding to a timepoint at which a user state change is detected; “the at least one thumbnail image 940 can indicate user's state change sensed point in the video.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chung, in view of Meganathan discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which depends claim 3. This combination, specifically Chung, further discloses: the video-recording control device according to claim 2, wherein the biometric-information detecting unit detects heart rate information of the occupant of the vehicle, and detects that a heart rate has risen from the heart rate in a normal state, as the abnormal state ([0275] discloses: “an indicator outputted before or after the state change sensed time point 1025 to the time line 1020 may correspond to a time point having a heart rate lower than that of the state change sensed time point but higher than user's normal heart rate.”)
Method claim 7 is directed to a video recording method performed by a video recording device that corresponds to a method implemented by the apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 7, corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Meganathan, in view of Sathyanarayana, US 10,268,909 B2.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chung in view of Meganathan discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 4 depends, but does not disclose: the video-recording control device according to claim 2, wherein the biometric-information detecting unit detects a facial expression of the occupant of the vehicle, and that detects that the facial expression has changed to a facial expression indicating surprise, as the abnormal state.
However, using facial monitoring to detect a collision event or near-collision event in the form of detecting a surprised expression, is disclosed in an analogous art by Sathyanarayana. See col. 18, lines 50-54, “the near-collision event can be detected when the deceleration spike is detected in the kinematic sensor measurements, when a surprised driver expression is detected from an interior-facing camera stream,…”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Sathyanarayana, of detecting a driver facial expression as an abnormal state indicator correlating with a near-collision event. The incorporation of a facial-expression-based event trigger would have complemented the other biometric indicators already disclosed in Chung, and combining these features would have merely entailed combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Chung, in view of Meganathan, and in Sathyanarayana, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
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 KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights