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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: line 1 reads "A bicycle has a bicycle frame (12), and front and rear wheels are mounted rotatably on the bicycle frame (12)" which appears to be a punctuation error and is difficult to understand as written and thus should read "A bicycle has a bicycle frame (12) and front and rear wheels which are mounted rotatably on the bicycle frame (12)" to improve clarity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶ 0011 line 3 reads "handbar" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "handlebar" to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is kindly reminded that, according to CFR § 1.121(c)(2), “The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters” (emphasis added). For the purpose of compact prosecution, a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment has not been mailed before this Office Action. Applicant is kindly reminded that further failures to maintain compliancy with CFR § 1.121 may result in reception of a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
Claim Interpretation
“Ring memory” is being interpreted to mean a circular buffer (aka circular queue, cyclic buffer or ring buffer) as well known in the art (see “Circular buffer” from Wikipedia for more information) as at least ¶ 0020 describes a ring memory in accordance with the definition of a circular buffer.
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:
In claim(s) 1, the “sensor device” in the limitation “a sensor device (42) for recording riding data” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the recording of data.
In claim(s) 1, the “permanent memory module” in the limitation “the permanent memory module (50) stores recordings recorded by the camera device” invokes 112(f) as “module” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the storage of data.
In claim(s) 1, the “selection memory module” in the limitation “the selection memory module (52) at least temporally storing the riding data recorded by the sensor device” invokes 112(f) as “module” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the storage of data.
In claim(s) 2, the “trigger module” in the limitation “trigger module (54) that stores predefined riding scenarios... and [outputs] the trigger signal"” invokes 112(f) as “module” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables storage of scenarios and outputting of a signal.
In claim(s) 3, the “trigger element” in the limitation “a trigger element (44) arranged on the bicycle frame (12) and configured for generating the trigger signal” invokes 112(f) as “element” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the generation of a signal.
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.
Regarding the sensor device, a review of the specification (¶ 0019) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"Furthermore, a sensor device 42 is attached to the bicycle frame 12 and comprises a location sensor, i.e. a GPS sensor, and an acceleration sensor. In addition, the sensor device 42 may further comprise a speed sensor or other sensor suitable for recording riding data."
Regarding the permanent memory module, a review of the specification (¶ 0020) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"The recording memory device 46 comprises a permanent memory module 50 configured as a ring memory. In the ring memory, the recordings of the camera device 40 and the associated riding data of the sensor device 42 are stored continuously in a plurality of recording sections following one another in time. As soon as the ring memory is full, i.e. after twenty recording sections, for example, the existing recording sections are overwritten by later recording sections of the camera device 40 and the riding data of the sensor device 42."
Regarding the selection memory module, a review of the specification does not appear to show the corresponding structure to these claim limitations. See 112(b) rejection below.
Regarding the trigger module, a review of the specification does not appear to show the corresponding structure to these claim limitations. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Regarding the trigger element, a review of the specification (¶ 0011) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"The trigger element is, for example, a switch or button arranged on the [handlebar]."
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As detailed in the claim interpretation section above, the “trigger module” recited in claim 2 requires interpretation under 112(f); however, there is no supporting structure within the disclosure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the trigger module. The disclosure provides no direction as to how the trigger module is meant to be constructed. It is not even clear if the module is meant to be hardware or software. As different hardware or software modules capable or storage or signal output functions may not be one-for-one substitutable for each other, there is not sufficient predictability within the art to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to perform undue experimentation to invent their own trigger module that is capable of performing the claimed limitation. Therefore, the disclosure of record is not enabling.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation "a camera device (40) for recording the bicycle environment during a ride" has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear if "camera" is meant to be merely descriptive of the device (i.e. the device is a specific configuration able to perform the functions of a camera) or if "camera" is meant to be structural (i.e. the device is merely a camera and nothing more. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the camera device will be interpreted as a camera.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Further regarding claim 1, claim limitation “the selection memory module (52) at least temporally storing the riding data recorded by the sensor device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed above, no structure exists within the specification for the selection memory module. It is unclear if the module is a software module or a hardware module. If it is hardware, it is unclear if the module can be any memory type (e.g. RAM, ROM, EPROM, etc.) or if the module must be a specific memory type. If the module is a software module, it is unclear the algorithmic structure performed by the software module to execute storage instructions as required by the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the selection memory module will be understood as a memory.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “trigger module (54) that stores predefined riding scenarios” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed in the 112(a) rejection above, the specification does not disclose the corresponding structure for the trigger module and does not provide details about whether the module is hardware or software. It is unclear the overall composition of this module. If it is hardware, it is unclear what components are meant to comprise the module. If it is software, it is unclear the algorithmic structure of the module to enable performance of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the trigger module will be understood as any computer (processor and memory) capable of performing the claimed limitations.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel et al. US 20140375807 A1 (hereinafter Muetzel) in view of Iwaasa US 20180286152 A1 (hereinafter Iwaasa) and Denholm et al. US 20190256162 A1 (hereinafter Denholm).
Regarding claim 1,
Muetzel teaches
A vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”) comprising:
a camera device (40) (¶ 0015 “camera”) for recording the vehicle environment during a ride, the camera device recording continuously during the ride (¶ 0017 “Each camera may be continuously capturing images”; see also Figure 2 where cameras 220-270 are directed at the vehicle environment);
a sensor device (42) comprising a GPS sensor (¶ 0009 “GPS receiver”), acceleration sensor (¶ 0023 “Telemetry device 124 may function to capture measurements or records of… acceleration”), and speed sensor (¶ 0023 “Telemetry device 124 may function to capture measurements or records of speed”) for recording riding data (¶ 0023 “collect any type of vehicle data”), and;
a recording memory device (46) with a permanent memory module (50) (¶ 0017 “buffer”) and a selection memory module (52) (Abstract “storage medium”), the permanent memory module (50) stores recordings recorded by the camera device (40) (¶ 0017 “Each camera may be continuously capturing images and storing images in a buffer”) and the selection memory module (52) at least temporally storing the riding data recorded by the sensor device (42) (¶ 0023 discloses collecting vehicle data implying it must be stored somewhere at least temporarily; see also ¶ 0043 “Additional information may be stored with the image, including time, date, and location”),
wherein the recording memory device (46) is configured in such a way that, based on a trigger signal (Figure 3 shows triggers 335-345 to cause image storage), a recording sequence of the camera device (40) that was stored in the permanent memory module (50) during a time immediately prior to the trigger signal further is stored (¶ 0043 discloses that images captured in a buffer can be stored in a storage medium upon detection of a trigger) with the associated ride data in the selection memory module (52) of the recording memory device (46) (¶ 0043 “Additional information may be stored with the image, including time, date, and location”; see also ¶ 0023 regarding other data that may be collected).
Muetzel does not explicitly teach that
the permanent memory module (50) comprises a ring memory.
Iwaasa teaches that
the permanent memory module (50) comprises a ring memory (¶ 0121 “ring buffer”; see also at least ¶ 0184-0190 regarding details on how the ring buffer stores data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Muetzel to incorporate the teachings of Iwaasa. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the ring buffer of Iwaasa for the generic buffer of Muetzel. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of temporarily storing images for a set time period renders the claim obvious.
Muetzel does not teach
A bicycle comprising:
a bicycle frame (12);
a rear wheel (18) and a front wheel (20), mounted rotatably on the bicycle frame (12).
Denholm teaches
A bicycle (Figure 5 shows a conventional bike) comprising:
a bicycle frame (12) (Figure 5 shows the bike frame);
a rear wheel (18) (Figure 6 shows the rear wheel in a bird’s eye view) and a front wheel (20) (Figure 6 shows the front wheel in a bird’s eye view), mounted rotatably on the bicycle frame (12) (Figure 5 shows the rear wheel mounted on a central pivot; Figure 8 appears to show the rider pedaling indicating that both wheels are rotatable);
a camera device (40) (¶ 0060 “camera”);
a sensor device (42) (¶ 0111 “speed sensor” and ¶ 0133 “GPS”); and
a recording memory device (46) (¶ 0012 “data storage device”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Muetzel to incorporate the teachings of Denholm. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the generic vehicle of Muetzel for the bicycle of Denholm. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of providing a transportation device that can be equipped with a computer and sensors renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Muetzel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Muetzel further teaches
a trigger module (54) (¶ 0045 “processor” and “memory”) that stores predefined riding scenarios (Figure 3 335-345 discloses predefined events that may trigger image storage; see also ¶ 0045 where the method is performed by a processor executing instructions stored in memory), the trigger module (54) being configured so that, based on the riding data, a predefined riding scenario is detected during the ride and the trigger signal is output (Figure 3 shows triggering storing image data 315 in response to detection of an accident 340 or determination that a location has been reached 345; see also ¶ 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Muetzel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Muetzel further teaches
a trigger element (44) comprising a switch (¶ 0016 “switch”) or button (¶ 0016 “button”) configured for generating the trigger signal (¶ 0016 discloses user input may be a trigger; see also Figure 3 335).
Muetzel does not teach
a trigger element (44) arranged on the bicycle frame (12).
Denholm further teaches
a trigger element (44) arranged on the bicycle frame (12) (¶ 0299 discloses a button for activating a device is mounted on a bike’s frame).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Muetzel to incorporate the further teachings of Denholm such that the button/switch to trigger image storage as taught by Muetzel can be arranged on a bike frame as taught by Denholm since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Muetzel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Muetzel does not teach that
the recording memory device (46) further comprises a ring memory in which a plurality of temporally successive recording sections can be stored, wherein the recording sequence can be composed of one or more of the recording sections.
Iwaasa further teaches that
the recording memory device (46) further comprises a ring memory (¶ 0121 “ring buffer”) in which a plurality of temporally successive recording sections can be stored, wherein the recording sequence can be composed of one or more of the recording sections (¶ 0184-0190 discloses how data is stored in the ring buffer for set sampling periods with the ring buffer able to hold a set number of sampling periods wherein data from the oldest sampling period is replaced with data from the newest sampling period when the buffer is full; see also ¶ 0195 that discloses that all data related to an event for a past set number of seconds is retrieved from the ring buffer upon event detection).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Muetzel to incorporate the further teachings of Iwaasa. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the ring buffer of Iwaasa for the generic buffer of Muetzel. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of temporarily storing images for a set time period renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Muetzel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Muetzel further teaches that
the sensor device (42) comprises a location sensor (¶ 0009 “GPS receiver”), a speed sensor (¶ 0023 “Telemetry device 124 may function to capture measurements or records of speed”) and/or an acceleration sensor (¶ 0023 “Telemetry device 124 may function to capture measurements or records of… acceleration”).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Angel et al. US 20170054948 A1 discloses storing video data in a circular buffer wherein when an event is detected, a section of video is transmitted to an external server.
Nagata US 20210229552 A1 discloses storing camera data in memory upon an operator hitting a record button wherein the system can be placed on a bike or other vehicle.
Sato US 20240087380 A1 discloses transferring any vehicle data from volatile to non-volatile memory upon detection of an event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
