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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 14-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 14-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,374,204 in view of Burns et al. (US Pat. No. 2019/0361577 hereinafter referred as Burns).
Regarding claim 1, the Patent application claim 1 recites a method for displaying information related to a video feed on a user interface, the method comprising: receiving the video feed, the video feed corresponding to video captured by a video camera provided at a first location; displaying the video feed in a first region of the user interface, the user interface rendered on a display of a client device located remotely from the video camera; displaying a video timeline associated with the video feed in a second region of the user interface; and superimposing, on at least the video timeline, at least one user interface element indicative of occurrence of at least one event associated with the video feed, a position of the at least one user interface element on the video timeline corresponding to a time of occurrence of the at least one event, wherein the at least one user interface element comprises at least one pop-up element displayed at least in part in the first region of the user interface, the at least one pop-up element displayed automatically based on the at least one event associated with the video timeline and providing first information of interest about the at least one event, the first information of interest comprising textual information descriptive of the at least one event and being based on an event occurrence record obtained from a data source.
Claim 1 differs from the Patent application in that the claim further requires obtaining a query for occurrence records, the query defining at least one parameter for the occurrence records; identifying, in a data source storing the occurrence records, events of interest which correspond to the at least one parameter defined in the query; and the said pop-up element is displayed in response to user interaction with the at least one user interface element.
In the same field of endeavor Burns discloses obtaining a query for occurrence records, the query defining at least one parameter for the occurrence records; identifying, in a data source storing the occurrence records, events of interest which correspond to the at least one parameter defined in the query; and the said pop-up element is displayed in response to user interaction with the at least one user interface element (see paragraphs 0142, 0292, 0299 and also paragraphs 0268-0269, 0314 and 0335).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Burns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Patent application in order to present live and/or saved video with a more efficient user control flow and provide additional information and adequate context regarding the videos.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 14-20, the Patent application claims 2-11, 14-19 and 22 respectively recite the limitation of claims 2-11 and 14-20.
Regarding claim 21, the Patent Application claim 20 recites the limitation of claim 21. Burns discloses obtaining a query for occurrence records, the query defining at least one parameter for the occurrence records; identifying, in a data source storing the occurrence records, events of interest which correspond to the at least one parameter defined in the query; and the said pop-up element is displayed in response to user interaction with the at least one user interface element (see paragraphs 0142, 0292, 0299 and also paragraphs 0268-0269, 0314 and 0335). See also Claim 1 rejection above where the motivation is discussed.
Regarding claim 22, the Patent Application claim 21 recites the limitation of claim 21. Burns discloses obtaining a query for occurrence records, the query defining at least one parameter for the occurrence records; identifying, in a data source storing the occurrence records, events of interest which correspond to the at least one parameter defined in the query; and the said pop-up element is displayed in response to user interaction with the at least one user interface element (see paragraphs 0142, 0292, 0299 and also paragraphs 0268-0269, 0314 and 0335). See also Claim 1 rejection above where the motivation is discussed.
Regarding claim 23, Burns discloses the at least one parameter defined in the query comprises at least one of a time parameter, a geographical parameter, an identity parameter, a narrative parameter, a priority parameter, a title parameter, and a conditional parameter (see paragraphs 0370, 0381, 0397 and 0439). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights