DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
A. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
B. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) as well as of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
III. Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The claims recite the functional limitations, pre-roll module, camera module, means of at least one of local or cloud storage, and user equipment. None, however, invoke 112(f) interpretation because, in the case of the camera module and means of at least one of local or cloud storage, the generic placeholders (module, means) are modified by sufficient structure for performing their associated functions (camera, local storage/cloud storage). In the case of pre-roll module, the claims recite the associated function of capturing image data, which is necessarily associated with physical structure as physical structure is necessary to capture light corresponding to the image data, and in the case of equipment/user equipment, the examiner does not read that term/phrase as a generic placeholder.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 7,10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the scope of claim 7 encompasses any of the recited causing or determining steps. Yet, the second, third, and fourth causing steps each recite limitations established in the first causing step (i.e., third state). That is, the second, third, and fourth causing steps cannot exist without reference to the first causing step. Therefore, they cannot individually establish the limits of the claim’s scope. The determining step, however, can. Claim 12 is rejected because it depends on claim 7 and fails to remedy its indefiniteness. As to claim 10, it fails to establish antecedent basis for “the second operation mode.” To overcome the rejection to claim 10, the examiner suggests amending “the second operation mode” to “a second operation mode.”
V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
A. Claims 1-3,5,7,8,12,24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff et al. (US 2018/0165933 A1) in view of Wakeyama et al. (US 2019/0104283 A1)
As to claim 1, Siminoff et al. teaches a method of operating an electronic device (e.g., Fig. 17 or Fig. 21), the electronic device (Fig. 15 or Fig. 20, dual-camera A/V recording and communication device “300/400”) comprising a battery ([0116], lines 10-16), a camera module (Fig. 15/20, second camera “306”), and a pre-roll module (Fig. 15/20, first camera “304”), the battery being configured to supply power to the electronic device ([0116], lines 10-16, “…device 300 is powered by a rechargeable battery…”), the camera module being configured to capture a video ([0116], lines 16 and 17), the pre-roll module being configured to capture a video at lower power consumption compared to the camera module ([0116], lines 1-5), wherein the method comprises when operating the electronic device in a first operation mode (e.g., Fig. 17 or Fig. 21):
causing the electronic device to be in a first state by default, wherein in the first state, the camera module is deactivated, and the pre-roll module is activated to capture and record a video ([0116], lines 1-9);
causing the electronic device to enter a second state from the first state in response to an event being detected (Fig. 17 or Fig. 21, step “B352”/steps “B422-B426”), wherein in the second state, the camera module is activated to capture and record a video (Fig. 17 or Fig. 21, steps “B354” and “B356”/steps “B428” and “B430”);
causing the electronic device to enter the first state from the second state in response to determining that motion is no longer present ([0116], lines 18-20).
Claim 1 differs from Siminoff et al. in that it further requires that, in determining that motion is no longer present, the method includes the additional steps of determining whether a current image frame of the video captured by the camera module contains a target in response to a preset period of time having elapsed since the event is detected, causing the electronic device to be maintained in the second state in response to determining that the current image frame of the video captured by the camera module contains the target, and causing reversion to the first state in response to determining that the current frame of the video captured by the camera module does not contain the target. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Wakeyama et al. teaches a monitoring system (Fig. 2) comprising a camera (Fig. 2, camera(s) “30n”) that detects motion of an intruder within its field of view from captured image data ([0091], lines 1-5). In response to detecting motion, the camera transmits captured image data to a remote device (Fig. 6B, “S4”), and after initial motion detection, the camera waits a predetermined period of time before resuming motion detection and repeats this operation until the motion of the intruder is no longer detected ([0068]).
Although Wakeyama et al. does not specifically disclose a separate pre-roll camera, the examiner nonetheless submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to intermittently analyze images captured by Siminoff’s second, high-resolution camera after initial motion detection (Note that Siminoff et al. discloses that only the second, high resolution camera operates after initial motion detection while the first, low resolution camera is powered down – [0116], lines 20-23). As Wakeyama et al. notes in para. [0068], lines 9-13, intermittent motion analysis after initial motion detection can conserve battery power.
As to claim 2, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising when operating the electronic device in the first operation mode: storing the video recorded by the camera module and the video of a preset duration recorded by the pre-roll module immediately before the event is detected by means of at least one of local storage or cloud storage (see Siminoff et al., e.g., Fig. 15, non-volatile memory “314”; [0111], lines 11-13; {Note, also, Fig. 19 and para. [0118].}).
As to claim 3, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the causing the electronic device to enter a second state from the first state in response to an event being detected comprises:
detecting whether an event of a second type (see Siminoff et al., Fig. 21, step “B426”) different from a first type (see Siminoff et al., Fig. 21, step “B422”; {The event of a first type is simple motion detection, and the event of the second type is motion above a threshold speed.}) occurs in response to an event of the first type being detected (see Siminoff et al., Fig. 21; {Step “B426” occurs only after motion is initially detected in step “B422.”}), and causing the electronic device to enter the second state from the first state in response to the event of the second type being detected (see Siminoff et al., Fig. 21, steps “B426” and “B428”); or
detecting whether an event of a second type different from a first type occurs and detecting whether an event of a third type different from the first type and the second type occurs in response to an event of the first type being detected, and causing the electronic device to enter the second state from the first state in response to the event of the second type being detected and the event of the third type being detected.
As to claim 5, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising when operating the electronic device in the first operation mode, performing at least one of:
activating the camera module to capture a video in response to a wake-up command from a user equipment communicating with the electronic device being received, and streaming the video captured by the camera module to the user equipment for viewing by a user; or
after causing the electronic device to be maintained in the second state in response to determining that the current image frame of the video captured by the camera module contains the target, waiting for a preset period of time to redetermine whether a current image frame of the video captured by the camera module contains the target (see Wakeyama et al., [0068]).
As to claim 7, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising when operating the electronic device in a second operation mode (see Siminoff et al., Fig. 15 or 21; {The examiner reads the claimed second operation as a mode in which Siminoff’s device detects additional motion after an initial detection and cessation of motion within the cameras’s field of view.}):
causing the electronic device to be in a third state by default, wherein in the third state, the pre-roll module is deactivated, the camera module is activated to capture a video, and the most recent video of a preset duration is dynamically cached;
causing the electronic device to enter a fourth state from the third state in response to an event being detected, wherein in the fourth state, the camera module is activated to capture and record a video;
determining whether a current image frame of the video captured by the camera module contains a target in response to a preset period of time having elapsed since the event is detected (see Wakeyama et al., [0068]);
causing the electronic device to be maintained in the fourth state in response to determining that the current image frame of the video captured by the camera module contains the target; or
causing the electronic device to enter the third state from the fourth state in response to determining that the current image frame of the video captured by the camera module does not contain the target.
As to claim 8, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising when operating the electronic device in the second operation mode: storing the video recorded by the camera module and the video dynamically cached immediately before the event is detected by means of at least one of local storage or cloud storage (see Siminoff et al., e.g., Fig. 15, non-volatile memory “314”; [0111], lines 11-13; {Note, also, Fig. 19 and para. [0118].}).
As to claim 12, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising at least one of:
switching the electronic device from the second operation mode to the first operation mode in response to one of: a command from a user equipment communicating with the electronic device to stop video streaming being received, a duration for which no command from the user equipment is received exceeding a preset duration threshold, determining that a current image frame of the video captured by the camera module does not contain the target, a configuration command from the user equipment to configure the electronic device to the first operation mode being received, or entering a configuration mode for selecting an operation mode of the electronic device after powering on by button to select the first operation mode; or
switching the electronic device from the first operation mode to the second operation mode in response to one of: a command from the user equipment to perform video streaming being received, an event being detected (see Siminoff et al., Fig. 15 or 21; {The examiner reads the claimed second operation as a mode in which Siminoff’s device detects additional motion after an initial detection and cessation of motion within the cameras’s field of view.}), or a configuration command from the user equipment to configure the electronic device to the second operation mode being received.
As to claims 24 and 25, Siminoff et al. discloses an electronic device with the claimed battery, camera module, and pre-roll module as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally, Siminoff et al. discloses one or more processors that execute stored instructions to accomplish the reference’s functions (see Siminoff et al., e.g.,. Fig. 15, processor “310”; [0142], lines 8 and 9).
B. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff et al. (US 2018/0165933 A1) in view of Wakeyama et al. (US 2019/0104283 A1) and further in view of Cooper et al. (US 2004/0212678 A1)
As to claim 22, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 1. The claim differs from Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., in that it requires that additional steps of switching the electronic device to a seventh operation mode in response to a power-off command from a user equipment communicating with the electronic device being received, wherein when the electronic device is operated in the seventh operation mode, the electronic device is deactivated except for allowing the electronic device to communicate with the user equipment, and switching the electronic device back to the first operation mode in response to a power-on command from the user equipment being received.
In the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cooper et al. discloses a motion detection system including a power switch (Fig. 11, switch “1100”) communicating with a motion detecting camera (e.g., Fig. 9). The power switch causes the camera to power on, power off, and power on in response to detected motion ([0065]; note, also, claim 19 of the Cooper et al.). In light of the teaching of Cooper et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a switch, like that of Cooper et al., that controls power in Siminoff’s camera device because this would allow for increased flexibility regarding its operation, allowing the user to power off the device when privacy is required or power it on when security is required.
As to claim 23, Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., teaches the method according to claim 1. The claim differs from Siminoff et al., as modified by Wakeyama et al., in that it requires that additional steps of switching the electronic device to an eighth operation mode in response to a button power-off operation at the electronic device, wherein when the electronic device is operated in the eighth operation mode, the electronic device is deactivated, and switching the electronic device back to the first operation mode in response to a button power-on operation at the electronic device.
In the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cooper et al. discloses a motion detection camera including a power switch (Fig. 11, switch “1100”) that controls power to a motion detecting camera (e.g., Fig. 12). The power switch causes the camera to power on, power off, and power on in response to detected motion ([0065]; note, also, claim 19 of the Cooper et al.). The switch also includes a push button for selecting a specific power mode ([0065], “…push-button switch…”). In light of the teaching of Cooper et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a switch, like that of Cooper et al., that controls power in Siminoff’s camera device because this would allow for increased flexibility regarding its operation, allowing the user to power off the device when privacy is required or power it on when security is required.
VI. Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claims 4,13,15-19, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 4, the first event being a passive infrared event results in the claim requiring a pre-roll module that captures video, a camera module, and another component that detects the passive infrared event. The prior art fails to disclose these three components in a single device that operate as claimed. In Siminoff’s embodiment of Fig. 21, the first and second camera operate may operate with a passive infrared device but where the passive infrared device cooperates with the first camera to detect speed. The reference does not disclose that the passive infrared device detects motion. The prior art discloses that passive infrared event devices are routinely used in monitoring systems to detect initial motion; Siminoff et al. discloses this in earlier embodiments but without first and second cameras. That is, Siminoff et al. and other prior art do not foresee utilization of a pre-roll camera as well as a passive infrared device when a pre-roll camera is sufficient to produce image data that may be analyzed to detect motion. As to claims 13 and 17, both Siminoff et al. and Cooper et al. fail to disclose selective operations modes as claimed. Both references disclose alternate embodiments, but they are not selectively performable in their native systems. Claims 15,16,18,19, and 21 are allowable because they depend on either claim 13 or claim 17.
B. Claim 10 recites allowable subject matter. It recites selective operation modes similar to those of claims 13 and 17 and is allowable for similar reasons. However, the claim will not officially be deemed allowable until the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is resolved.
VII. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Keskigangas et al. (US 2022/0286621 A1), Wong (US 2022/0223017 A1), Yen et al. (US # 10,645,351 B2), Siminoff (US 2019/0020827 A1), and Ayalasomayajula et al. (US 2018/0332225 A1) each disclose additional examples of conventional pre-roll image capture. However, none disclose the use of a pre-roll camera, a main camera, and a passive infrared detector as in the instant application.
VIII. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights