`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/670,307
`
`03/26/2015
`
`Hiroshi Kanamaru
`
`731156421
`
`4826
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLPflDanasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`REN’ ZHUBING
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2483
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/29/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/670,307 KANAMARU ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`ZHUBING REN $2213 2483
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/27/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 10 11 13-15 18 19 21-23 and 28-46is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 10 11 13- 15 18 19 21 -23 and 28-46 is/are rejected.
`
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`* If any)claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`
`
`()
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiryto PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`hit
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20171117
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 2
`
`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
`
`Summary
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This action is in reply to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 10/27/2017.
`
`Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21-23, and 28-46 are pending.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Regarding applicant’s argument on page 11 of the remarks that the combination of Nakamura
`
`and Jones does not disclose displaying details information about a technical malfunction state of a
`
`monitoring camera, FIG. 1 and 16 of illustrate that a monitoring camera with built-in sensors detecting
`
`abnormal events of the monitoring camera and communicating with a cell phone user. The cell phone is
`
`receiving detail information (i.e. warning message, images detection time) from the monitoring camera
`
`and displaying it. Although Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a technical malfunction state of a
`
`camera, however, paragraph [0088] of Jones teaches the well-known concept of abnormality detection
`
`signals including suspected reasons for the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera. See
`
`the detail mappings in section 7 below.
`
`4.
`
`During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification." Phi/lips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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 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.
`
`6.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 3
`
`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 of this title, 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.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, and 38-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 20060209176 A1 in view of Jones et al (US
`
`20090141932 A1)
`
`Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses a monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 16] including an
`
`imager [e.g. 23] and a communicator [e.g. FIG. 1-3; e.g. LAN system]; and a master device [e.g. 25]
`
`which, in operation [e.g. [0091]], performs wireless communication with the monitoring camera according
`
`to a communications protocol [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication],
`
`performs wireless communication [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication], via a wireless
`
`router [e.g. FIG. 2], with a smartphone having a display [e.g. 12], in response to identify a malfunction
`
`state of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 16 and 18; e.g. remaining power level is low and a
`
`built-in sensor detects an abnormal event], transmits notification information to the smartphone [e.g.
`
`12; [0091]; cellular phone] to display thereon a warning screen [e.g. FIG. 2 and 15; [0230-233 and
`
`244]; e.g. warning message of lowering of battery level] based on the notification information, in
`
`response to receiving from the smartphone, user selection of a first request [e.g. [0190]; e.g. user input
`
`request for downloading images] displayed as part of the warning screen, transmits first detailed
`
`information [e.g. e.g. image data with specified low0power communication] about the malfunction
`
`state to the smartphone for display, and in response to receiving, from the smartphone, user selection of
`
`a second request [e.g. [0294]; e.g. abnormal detection time] displayed as part of the first detailed
`
`information, transmits second detailed information about the malfunction state to the smartphone for
`
`display [e.g. FIG. 16-18; displaying the images at the time the built-in sensor detects the abnormal
`
`event].
`
`Although Nakamura discloses a monitoring camera with built-in sensors detecting abnormal
`
`events of the monitoring camera and communicating with a cell phone user, it is noted that Nakamura
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 4
`
`differs to the present invention in that Nakamura fails to disclose the details of a technical malfunction
`
`state of the monitoring camera.
`
`However, Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) teaches the well-known concept of abnormality
`
`detection signals including suspected reasons for the technical malfunction state of the monitoring
`
`camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 10; [0088]; e.g. lower power, low or high temperature].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones as above, in order to image quality measures [See
`
`Jones; [0029]].
`
`Regarding claim 11, this claim is an apparatus that performs the same limitations cited in claim 10,
`
`the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Nakamura discloses a monitoring camera
`
`[e.g. FIG. 2-4; 23] comprising: a sensor [e.g. FIG. 16; e.g. 50a and 68] detecting a malfunction state
`
`[e.g. FIG. 16-18; e.g. low power].
`
`Regarding claim 13, Nakamura and Jones disclose all the limitations in claim 10, but Nakamura
`
`fails to disclose monitoring a temperature.
`
`However, Jones teaches a suspected reason for the technical malfunction state of the monitoring
`
`camera is a temperature below a defined threshold [e.g. FIG. 6; [0088]].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones as above, in order to image quality measures [See
`
`Jones; [0029]].
`
`Regarding claim 15, Nakamura further discloses the technical malfunction state of the sensor is
`
`a remaining battery level of the sensor below a defined threshold [e.g. FIG. 3 and 4; [0104]].
`
`Regarding claim 18, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 10
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 10, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 19, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 11
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 11, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 21, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 11 and
`
`13 above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 11 and 13, the rejection of
`
`which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 28, Nakamura further disclose the sensor is an infrared sensor [e.g. [0282]; an
`
`infrared sensor].
`
`Regarding claim 30, Nakamura further discloses the notification information includes one or
`
`more of an ID of the monitoring camera and a location of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 9;
`
`[0239]; e.g. registered camera selection].
`
`Regarding claim 32, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 30
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 30, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein
`
`Regarding claim 34, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 30
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 30, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 36, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 32
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 32, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 38, Nakamura further discloses the communications protocol is a DECT (Digital
`
`Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) protocol [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication].
`
`Regarding claim 39, this claim is an apparatus that performs the same limitations cited in claim
`
`38, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 40, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 38
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 38, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 41, Nakamura further teaches wherein the communications protocol is a DECT
`
`(Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) protocol [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication].
`
`Regarding claim 42, Nakamura and Jones disclose all limitations in claim 10. Furthermore,
`
`Nakamura discloses the suspected reason is displayed in one or both of an image and text [e.g. Fig. 16-
`
`18; [0230]].
`
`Regarding claim 43, this claim is an apparatus that performs the same limitations cited in claim
`
`42, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 44, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 42
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 42, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 45, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 43
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 43, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 14, 22, 23, 31, 33, 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Nakamura et al (US 20060209176 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) and Lee et al
`
`(US 20110090822 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Nakamura further discloses the master device detects a malfunction state
`
`of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 16 and 17; e.g. low power], but Nakamura fails to disclose detecting
`
`a communication link.
`
`However, Lee teaches the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera is a disconnection
`
`of a communication link between the master device and the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 1 and 2;
`
`[0037]; e.g. detecting a communication link disconnection].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and detecting communication link connection
`
`technique taught by Lee as above, in order to image quality measures [See Jones; [0029]] and audio
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 7
`
`between landline telephones and recording (i.e., taping, storing, preserving, or filing) a media conference
`
`when a termination event is detected [See Lee].
`
`Regarding claim 22, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 14
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 14, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 23, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 11 and
`
`14 above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 11 and 14, the rejection of
`
`which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 31, Nakamura further discloses the master device detects a malfunction state
`
`of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 16 and 17; e.g. low power], but Nakamura fails to disclose detecting
`
`a communication link.
`
`Moreover, Lee teaches the suspect reason for the technical malfunction state is a disconnection
`
`of a communication link between the monitoring camera and the DECT master device [e.g. FIG. 1 and 2;
`
`[0037]; e.g. detecting a communication link disconnection].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and detecting communication link connection
`
`technique taught by Lee as above, in order to provide image quality measures [See Jones; [0029]] and
`
`audio between landline telephones and recording (i.e., taping, storing, preserving, or filing) a media
`
`conference when a termination event is detected [See Lee].
`
`Regarding claim 33, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 31
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 31, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein
`
`Regarding claim 35, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 31
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 31, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding claim 37, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 33
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 33, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US
`
`20060209176 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) and Slavin et al (US 8675071 B1).
`
`Regarding claim 29, Nakamura and Jones disclose all the limitations in claim 11, but Nakamura
`
`fails to explicitly disclose the details of the sensor.
`
`However, Slavin et al (US 8675071 B1) teaches the well-known concept of wherein the sensor is
`
`selected from a group [column 7 lines 23-39; e.g. sensors] consisting of a human sensor [e.g. blood
`
`sugar sensor], a smoke sensor [e.g. smoke detector], an opening/closing sensor [e.g. door opening
`
`detector], a temperature sensor [e.g. temperature sensor].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and motion detection sensor technique taught by
`
`Slavin as above, in order to provide image quality measures [See Jones; [0029]] and more accurate
`
`alarm verification [See Slavin; column 22 lines 1-16].
`
`10.
`
`Claim 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US
`
`20060209176 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) and Hundal (US 20050197061 A1)
`
`Regarding claim 46, Nakamura and Jones disclose all the limitations in claim 10, but Nakamura
`
`fails to disclose a cordless handset and detail of malfunction state of the camera.
`
`However, Hundal (US 20050197061 A1) teaches the well-known concept of a master device [e.g.
`
`FIGURE 4; 410] performs wireless communication [e.g. [0007]; wireless communication] with one or
`
`more cordless handsets [e.g. 411] according to the communications protocol [e.g. FIG. 5; [0023];
`
`protocol], and is connected to a fixed telephone network [e.g. FIGURE 4; [0022 and 0038]; e.g.
`
`cordless/wireless radio link] to communicate with other fixed telephones [e.g. multiple 411].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 9
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and the well-known concept of cordless set
`
`telephone network technique taught by Hundal as above, in order to provide image quality measures
`
`[See Jones; [0029]] and exchanging data and audio between landline telephones and various electronic
`
`devices [See Hundal; [0002]].
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth
`
`in 37 CFR1.136(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 extension fee 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 ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571 )272—2788. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00am to 5 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,
`
`Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 571-272—7383. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 10
`
`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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative
`
`or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-
`
`1000.
`
`/ZHUBING REN/
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2483
`
`