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 Interpretation
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:
Claims 1-6:
Recording determination unit (Fig 1, 12);
Clarity determination unit (Fig 1, 13);
Storage control unit (Fig 1, 14);
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.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONO, US 20230015364; Koseki, US 10,102,392 and KUMAGAMI, US 20110043341.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
555
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed recording condition…is met where based upon vehicle position (Fig 4, 8 10) and when the vehicle is recording (S102) is the vehicle position with a recording restriction areas including privacy processing (masking, mosaicking) license plates of other vehicles (para 38, 74, 75, 78-86). Also, as shown in Fig 3a/b, the privacy processing can be turned off based upon the distance from an areas, and turn on the closer it gets to the restricted ara (para 42,46, 58 peripheral area).
c). the claimed storage control unit…is met by control unit 20 (Fig 2) which determines to store the images in a nonvolatile memory (S105) or buffer memory (S107) (Fig 4) (s204/206, Fig 8) (para 31-34, 36-37, 43-45, 48, 53, 55, 57, 59, 63-72, 74, 81 and 85-86).
The examiner further evidences, Koseki, US 10,102,392 regarding conditional recording, where a vehicle recorder (Fig 7) can start automatically recording based upon vehicle condition/sensors as shown in order to document the vehicle operation which can be used in the event of a collision.
Regarding b-d); The examiner incorporates US 20110043341, KUMAGAMI which discloses a system which displays images which are sufficiently remote (S5, Fig 7) and when the distance is not sufficiently remote the images are masked (S6).
The motivation to modify the SONO/Koseki combination with KUMAGAMI provides the additional benefit of ensuring privacy protection by using the known distance of a cameras ability/capability which may view remote areas without seeing privacy protected data (license plates) and while masking or not storing such data when close to such objects/data for the advantages of ensuring proper privacy protection, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
As noted by the incorporation of KUMAGI, where KUMAJI disclose based upon the camera resolution a distance coefficient is used to (para 46, 59, 63, 64, 71, 72, 76-79) is used to either mask information (protect privacy) or not based upon the distance.
The motivation to modify the SONO/Koseki combination with KUMAGAMI provides the additional benefit of ensuring privacy protection by using the known distance of a cameras ability/capability which may view remote areas without seeing privacy protected data (license plates) and while masking or not storing such data when close to such objects/data for the advantages of ensuring proper privacy protection, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 3,
KUMAGAMI discloses (para 46) that the resolution (number of pixels in the at least one of vertical and horizontal directions) of the camera is used for the distance coefficient to determine if an object is sufficiently remote to display the image or requires masking.
The motivation to modify the SONO/Koseki combination with KUMAGAMI provides the system the ability to ensure privacy protection by using the cameras capability/characteristics which can change how clear/focused images are based upon the number of pixels/resolution of the camera in capturing an image, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 4,
As noted by the combination:
SONO discloses storing data that does not require privacy processing (abstract, para 6-7, 43) including a nonvolatile memory (privacy protected) or buffer memory (privacy protection not required).
KOSEKI discloses a system which stores information (Fig 6) but depending upon the incident allows access to such information, where some information may require an administrator for personal information protection information (see full text para 19, 23 and 121).
KUMAGAMI discloses determining whether an object is remote (distance) enough to not require privacy protection (Fig 7) .
Thus the above combination, can stop storing in a particular memory or not whether such information is protected (masked) or not based upon the distance, thus being an obvious combination which provides expected results as noted above.
In considering claim 5,
SONO discloses the license plate and face (para 38, 74-86).
KUMAGAMI also discloses a persons face or number plate (para 5, 8-10, 27, 32-37, 41, 45, 47 and 87).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONO, US 20230015364; Koseki, US 10,102,392; KUMAGAMI, US 20110043341 and TERUUCHI et al., US 20190222797
In considering claim 6,
As noted in claim 1,
Koseki discloses a vehicle recorder (Fig 7) can start automatically recording based upon vehicle condition/sensors as shown in order to document the vehicle operation which can be used in the event of a collision.
Although Koseki does not explicitly recite speed or steering in the disclosure, the examiner notes in vehicle operation, the speed, direction (steering) are notable factors to determine vehicle status/operation.
KUMAGAMI disclose the velocity sensor or gyro sensor to detect the velocity, an acceleration or slant of the vehicle (para 29).
The examiner incorporates TERUUCHI et al., US 20190222797, which disclose recording, ordinary or event (141, 142; Fig 1), including steering (para 38, 39, 127-128) and velocity (para 34, 67-68, 73-81, 83, 92, 106-107, 110-116, 127), which starts recording based upon an event.
The motivation to modify the above combination provide the user/vehicle the ability to store/detect relevant data when operating the vehicle to either prevent an event from happening and/or documenting such events, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
US 20240223885 discloses a vehicle camera which adjust the focus based upon the changes in distance
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
