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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 35-37, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conner et al. (2006/0258322).
Regarding claim 1 Conner discloses a computer-implemented method for execution by a processing system operatively coupled to an audiovisual system comprising (i) an audiovisual generation system with an audiovisual capture device including at least one of an image capture device or an audio capture device (par. 14), the audiovisual generation system further comprising a processing device and (ii) a network interface (par. 12), the audiovisual system being powered by a replenishable power supply (par. 14), the audiovisual generation system being operable to generate at least one of images or audio (par. 18), the network interface being operable to transmit at least one of generated images or audio over a communication network (par. 13 and 18), the method comprising:
determining, over a first time period, at least one of (i) a projected power input for replenishing the power supply and (ii) a projected power demand for operating at least part of the audiovisual system (par. 38); and
causing, over a second time period, regulation of power utilization of at least one of (i) the audiovisual generation system and (ii) the network interface, based at least on the at least one of the projected power input and the projected power demand (par. 28-30; par. 40-53).
Regarding claim 2, Conner discloses the audiovisual generation system and the network interface operate in accordance with operating parameters that affect power utilization by the audiovisual system, wherein causing regulation of power utilization comprises computing values to be applied to at least one of the operating parameters over at least the portion of the second time period (par. 28-30).
Regarding claim 6, Conner discloses causing regulation of power utilization comprises at least one of (i) reducing a sampling rate, a frame rate, an image resolution, a number of images captured over a given time period and/or an activation of flash used by the audiovisual capture device to generate the at least one images or audio; (ii) reducing a detection rate used by the processing device to process the at least one generated images or audio; (iii) increasing a compression used by the processing device to process the at least one generated images or audio; (iv) reducing a bandwidth, a transmission duty cycle and/or a data rate used by the network interface to transmit the at least one generated images or audio over the communication network; and (v) changing a modulation scheme used by the network interface to transmit the at least one generated images or audio over the communication network (par. 13, 16, 24, 35, 60).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, see rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 37, Conner discloses the replenishable power supply comprises an off- grid power supply (par. 14).
Regarding claim 39, Conner discloses that the image capture device of the audiovisual capture device comprises a still image camera or a video camera (par. 14).
Regarding claim 40, Conner inherently includes a memory for storing the generated images and instructions for operation of the processing entity.
Regarding claim 41, Conner discloses the network interface comprises a wireless network interface device (par. 12).
Regarding claim 42, Conner discloses the first time period is entirely in the future (par. 38).
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.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner et al. (2006/0258322).
Regarding claim 38, Conner does not disclose that the replenishable power supply comprises at least one battery coupled to at least one solar panel as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that using solar panel to charge a battery is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the well known solar panel into Conner so that the battery could be recharged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, and 7-34 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fontaine et al. (2017/0347317) discloses power management for a local communication network.
Krantz et al. (7,340,615) discloses network interface power management system.
Collins (6,697,953) discloses a power saving option based on battery capacity.
Chiu (2003/0158609) discloses a power management for portable devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
