`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`15/270,913
`
`09/20/2016
`
`Koji Yamanishi
`
`731156.424C1
`
`2141
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLPflDanasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`SENFL BEHROOZ M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2482
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/14/2017
`
`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):
`
`patentinfo @ seedip.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/270,913 YAMANISHI ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`BEHROOZ SEN FI $2213 2482
`-- 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 09/20/2016.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l 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 CIaim(s)1;8is/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| CIaim(s)_1-8is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 09/20/2016 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)|:l 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)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI 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) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 09/20/2016.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170121
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`2.
`
`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 claims at issue 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 Omum, 686
`
`F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA
`
`1970); and 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 ((1) may
`
`be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting
`
`ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with
`
`this 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 §§
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`706.02(I)(l) — 706.02(I)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
`
`Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed
`
`determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/ZS, 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
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD—info—l.jsp.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-8 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of judicially created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over patented
`
`claims 1-6 of US 9,479,354.
`
`Although the conflicting claims are not identical in terms of wording and
`
`terminology; however, the scopes and novel features of the above claims are either the
`
`same or obvious variation in combination with the other, and they are not patentably
`
`distinct from each other.
`
`Therefore allowing claims 1-8 of the instant application would result in an
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
`
`See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQZd 2010 (Feb. Cir. 1993).
`
`Note: The applicant is urged to review all co-pending applications with claims
`
`similar to those of the present application in order to avoid the delays of a Terminal
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`Disclaimer. It is the applicant duty to disclose any evidence pertaining to the
`
`patentability of all applications sub-mitted before the office.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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 —
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1,2,5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated
`
`by Leigh Geary "SwannCloud HD Pan & Tilt WiFi Security Camera Review".
`
`Regarding claim 1, Geary discloses a monitoring camera system (SwannCloud
`
`HD Pan & Tilt WiFi) comprising; a monitoring camera (i.e., page 1, figure 1), and a
`
`master device which, in operation, communicates with the monitoring camera (the
`
`master device is the controller of the camera and integrated in the same housing,
`
`see page 2, first paragraph and related picture), and is connected to a fixed telephone
`
`network to perform calls to other fixed telephones, wherein, when a wireless router for
`
`performing wireless communication with a mobile phone terminal is not registered in the
`
`master device, the master device, in response to receiving a defined operation on the
`
`master device, establishes a wireless connection to the mobile phone terminal
`
`and transmits a setup request signal to the mobile phone terminal (i.e., page 3, last
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`paragraph), the master device, in response to receiving router setup information of the
`
`wireless router from the mobile phone terminal, registers the wireless router at the
`
`master device according to the router setup information and establishes a wireless
`
`connection to the registered wireless router (page 3, last paragraph to page 4, second
`
`paragraph), and the master device, in response to receiving instruction for image
`
`display from the mobile phone terminal via the registered wireless router, transmits
`
`image data transmitted from the monitoring camera to the mobile phone terminal via the
`
`registered wireless router (i.e., receiving event messages and images and controls the
`
`camera, as discussed in pages 7-8).
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 6, Geary discloses the monitoring camera system of
`
`claim 1, wherein, when the mobile phone terminal is not registered at the master device,
`
`the master device, in response to receiving terminal information from the mobile phone
`
`terminal via the registered wireless router, registers the mobile phone terminal at the
`
`master device according to the terminal information (please refer to claim 1 above).
`
`Regarding claim 5, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1
`
`above, and are the method of the above system, therefore the ground for rejecting the
`
`system in claim 1 above, also applies to the method claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 3,4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Leigh Geary "SwannCloud HD Pan & Tilt WiFi Security Camera Review" in view of
`
`Farrand et al. (US 2015/0339912).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Leigh teaches the monitoring system of claim 2, wherein, with
`
`the master device, in operation, communicates with the monitoring camera (please refer
`
`to claim 1 above). But is silent in regards to explicit of, according to a digital enhanced
`
`cordless telecommunication (DECT) method and communicates with a slave device
`
`according to the DECT method.
`
`Farrand in the same communication field (i.e., paragraphs 0033-0036,0051-
`
`0052) teaches the use of digital enhanced cordless telecommunication for the purpose
`
`of wireless communications.
`
`In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching
`
`of Farrand, into the communication system of Leigh, by adding the digital enhanced
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`cordless telecommunication for the purpose of wireless communications, as suggested
`
`by the reference.
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 7-8, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to
`
`claim 3 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim 3, also applies to the above
`
`claims.
`
`Contact
`
`10.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Behrooz Senfi whose telephone number is 571-272-
`
`7339. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00-3:00.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Kelley Christopher can be reached on 571-272—7331. 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). 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/270,913
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2482
`
`/Behrooz Senfi/
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2482
`
`