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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 08/03/2026. Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Tracy (US 2018/0308301) does not disclose the claim limitation “a screen recording of the performance data displayed to the operator on said smartphone,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tracy explicitly discloses a smartphone receiving, recording a meaningful image of the data, and displaying to the user live CAN bus data, including speedometer data, tachometer data, timing data, etc. ([0032]-[0035]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “record the smartphone's screen” and “a screen recording captures what is presented on the operator's display, not the underlying data merged into a video stream”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Tracy (US 2018/0308301) does not disclose the claim limitation “a composite video of a performance data screen recording overlaid on the sport vehicle video,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tracy explicitly discloses the smartphone recording the merged video and CAN bus data image as a single file. ([0032]-[0035]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “data-merge approach that the present application distinguishes in its background discussion”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tracy et al. (US 2018/0308301), herein Tracy.
Consider claim 1, Tracy clearly teaches a sport vehicle video system, (Fig. 1) comprising:
a sport vehicle; (Fig. 1: Vehicle 31 is in a vehicle race, [0012], [0029].)
a video of an operator controlling said sport vehicle; (A smartphone camera records video of the vehicle/driver viewpoint during the race, [0031], [0032], [0034].)
a smartphone mounted to said sport vehicle, (The smartphone is mounted to the vehicle, [0031].) said smartphone for sensing and displaying performance data to the operator of said sport vehicle; (The smartphone receives, records and displays CAN bus data of the vehicle in real-time, [0032], [0034], [0035].)
a screen recording of the performance data displayed to the operator on said smartphone; (The smartphone receives, records and displays CAN bus data of the vehicle in real-time, [0032], [0034], [0035].) and
a composite video of said performance data screen recording overlaid on said sport vehicle video. (The smartphone records the merged visual and CAN data as a single file, [0036].)
Consider claim 2, Tracy clearly teaches said sport vehicle video is taken with said smartphone. (A smartphone camera records video of the vehicle/driver viewpoint during the race, [0031], [0032], [0034].)
Consider claim 3, Tracy clearly teaches said composite video is made on said smartphone. (The smartphone records the merged visual and CAN data as a single file, [0036].)
Consider claim 4, Tracy clearly teaches said composite video is displayed on said smartphone. (The smartphone displays the video and CAN bus data in real-time, [0032].)
Consider claim 6, Tracy clearly teaches said sport vehicle video is an onboard video of the sport vehicle. (A smartphone camera records video of the vehicle/driver viewpoint during the race, [0031], [0032], [0034].)
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy et al. (US 2018/0308301) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0293809), herein Thompson.
Consider claim 5, Tracy clearly teaches said smartphone takes a video. (A smartphone camera records video of the vehicle/driver viewpoint during the race, [0031], [0032], [0034].)
However, Tracy does not explicitly teach a selfie video of the operator, and wherein said selfie video is added as a third component to said composite video.
In an analogous art, Thompson, which discloses a video processing system, clearly teaches a selfie video of the operator, and wherein said selfie video is added as a third component to said composite video. (Video data of the driver of vehicle 110 is composited with vehicle data from sensors 112 and additional video data from onboard camera 114, [0014]-[0016].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Tracy by a selfie video of the operator, and wherein said selfie video is added as a third component to said composite video, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of capturing driver actions while driving the vehicle.
Consider claim 7, Tracy combined with Thompson clearly teaches said sport vehicle video (A smartphone camera records video of the vehicle/driver viewpoint during the race, [0031], [0032], [0034] Tracy.) is a selfie video of the operator of the sport vehicle. (Video data of the driver of vehicle 110 is composited with vehicle data from sensors 112 and additional video data from onboard camera 114, [0014]-[0016] Thompson.)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights