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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Final Rejection office action in response to the response received for application Serial No. 17/466,039. Claim(s) 1-8 have been examined and fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 have been amended.
Claim(s) 1-8 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 101 have been considered and are addressed below.
Applicant remarks, “Accordingly, the claims do not fall within the judicial exception of "mental processes." (2) The Office Action erroneously concludes that the claimed elements can be performed in the mind and are therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C.§101 The Office states that the recited elements "under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind." (Office Action, Pg. 6). However, the MPEP expressly states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations" (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). As a result, inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind" are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C §101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite multiple abstract limitations, such as “determin(ing) the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region …”; and “…detect a moving body existing in the predetermined region…” are mental steps that could be made by a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims pertain to the technical improvement of the moving body monitoring system, where traffic flow is measured by personnel, the labor cost can be reduced, the measurement period can be shortened, and the measurement accuracy can be improved, therefore, integrating into a practical application. Examiner agrees that the claims are directed to moving body monitoring system, but the improvement of reducing labor cost and shortening measurement period represent improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than to the improvement to the functioning of the system components themselves. In addition, the MPEP provides relevant examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Furthermore, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 103 have been fully considered, and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art does not disclose the concepts of dividing the detection area into sub-regions for detection or sequential determination of movement direction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Primary reference, Mabuchi, teaches the detection of a moving body (i.e., through movement vectors) through flow points (i.e. intersections). Secondary reference, Kuramochi, further teaches the looping detection of moving bodies through subdivided areas. Tertiary reference, Jang, further teaches the multiple intersections (subdivided areas) detecting signal of a vehicle (i.e. vehicle tracked through multiple subdivided regions).
Applicant further argues that the applied prior art does not teach the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-6 are directed to system. Therefore, claim(s) 1 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim(s) 7 is directed to control server. Therefore, claim(s) 7 is with at least one of the four stator categories.
Claim(s) 8 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim(s) 8 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the recite subject matter that falls within one the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes abstract limitations, shown in bold, that will be used as representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A moving body monitoring system for improving a monitoring accuracy of a moving body traveling on a traveling path, comprising:
a laser radar configured to irradiate a predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser, and to detect a reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle;
a moving body detecting unit configured to detect a moving body existing in the predetermined region based on the reflected signal detected by the laser radar;
a moving direction detecting unit configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and to detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle;
wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where: the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected, and the second divided region is a region in which the moving body is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions; and
a traffic flow calculating unit configured to calculate a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit and the moving direction of each moving body detected by the moving direction detecting unit,
wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced.
Claim 7 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A control server of a moving body monitoring system for improving a monitoring accuracy of a moving body traveling on a traveling path, comprising:
a moving body detecting unit configured to detect a moving body existing in a predetermined region based on a reflected signal detected by a laser radar which irradiates the predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser and detects the reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle;
a moving direction detecting unit configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and to detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle;
wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where:
the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions; and
a traffic flow calculating unit configured to calculate a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit and the moving direction of each moving body detected by the moving direction detecting unit,
wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced.
Claim 8 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A moving body monitoring method for improving a monitoring accuracy of a moving body traveling on a traveling path, comprising:
a step of irradiating a predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser, and detecting a reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle;
a step of detecting a moving body existing in the predetermined region based on the reflected signal;
a step of setting a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and detecting a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions at each predetermined cycle; wherein:
the moving direction of the moving body is determined from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving body is detected a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions; and
a step of calculating a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions and the moving direction of each moving body, wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determin(ing) the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region …”; “…detect a moving body existing in the predetermined region…”; “…detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions…” and “determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where: the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected, and the second divided region is a region in which the moving body is detected after the detection of the moving body in the first divided region” in the context of this claim containing a person (driver) thinking or looking to execute driving actions within the environment looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement to navigate the environment. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of (see underlined portions below):
A moving body monitoring system for improving a monitoring accuracy of a moving body traveling on a traveling path, comprising:
a laser radar configured to irradiate a predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser, and to detect a reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle;
a moving body detecting unit configured to detect a moving body existing in the predetermined region based on the reflected signal detected by the laser radar;
a moving direction detecting unit configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and to detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle;
wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where: the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected, and the second divided region is a region in which the moving body is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions; and
a traffic flow calculating unit configured to calculate a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit and the moving direction of each moving body detected by the moving direction detecting unit,
wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of (see underlined portions below):
A control server of a moving body monitoring system for improving a monitoring accuracy of a moving body traveling on a traveling path, comprising:
a moving body detecting unit configured to detect a moving body existing in a predetermined region based on a reflected signal detected by a laser radar which irradiates the predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser and detects the reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle;
a moving direction detecting unit configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and to detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle;
wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where:
the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions; and
a traffic flow calculating unit configured to calculate a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit and the moving direction of each moving body detected by the moving direction detecting unit,
wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of (see underlined portions below):
A moving body monitoring method for improving a monitoring accuracy of a moving body traveling on a traveling path, comprising:
a step of irradiating a predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser, and detecting a reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle;
a step of detecting a moving body existing in the predetermined region based on the reflected signal;
a step of setting a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and detecting a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions at each predetermined cycle; wherein:
the moving direction of the moving body is determined from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving body is detected a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions; and
a step of calculating a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions and the moving direction of each moving body, wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “A moving body monitoring system”; “a laser radar”; “a moving body detecting unit”; “a moving direction detecting unit” and “a traffic flow calculating unit”, “a control server,” the claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, the functions of the “a laser radar”; “a moving body detecting unit”; “a moving direction detecting unit” and “a traffic flow calculating unit” (collecting, sending and receiving information) are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because they are merely generating data. [see MPEP, 2106.04(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019], (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering, for use in the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)].
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, “a moving body monitoring system,” “a laser radar”; “a moving body detecting unit”; “a moving direction detecting unit” and “a traffic flow calculating unit,” and a “control server” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or generate) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a laser radar”; “a moving body detecting unit”; “a moving direction detecting unit” and “a traffic flow calculating unit” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the processors and/or sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the roadside unit/ traffic infrastructure, and the specification does not provide any indication that the monitoring system is anything other than a conventional computer within a roadside unit/ traffic infrastructure. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Examiner notes that, with respect to the irradiating function of the laser radar, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Examiner notes that, though not positively recited, a sensor for collecting and
transmitting a signal comprising information would amount to extra-solution activity. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). See, for example, [0009], [0013], etc. In addition, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations and introduce additional abstract limitations that are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts, without reciting any further additional elements not recited above with respect to the independent claims (generic computing devices for processing and transmitting data). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru Mabuchi (JP2006259833A; previously recorded; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Mabuchi” in view of Yasunori Kuramochi (JP2009146337A; previously recorded; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Kuramochi” and in view of Jang (Pub. No.: US 2011/0098.916; previously recorded).
Regarding claim 1, Mabuchi disclose a moving body monitoring system for improving a monitoring accuracy (see at least Abstract; Paragraph [0030: “traffic measurement device 2 are installed on the roadside of an intersection”) of a moving body traveling on a traveling path (see at least Paragraph [0030]: “The traffic measurement device 2 measures the number of vehicles that have passed through”), comprising: a laser radar (see at least Paragraph [0002]: “an ultrasonic type that detects a vehicle using an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical type that detects a vehicle using an optical sensor”) configured to irradiate a predetermined region set on the traveling path with a laser, and to detect a reflected signal of the laser by an object in the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle (see at least Paragraph [0052]: “The vehicle extraction unit 23 extracts a vehicle from each frame image and gives an ID to the vehicle detected to have passed through the inflow point (s2). When the extracted vehicle passes through an inflow point of a predetermined intersection, the vehicle extraction unit 23 assigns an ID to the vehicle that has passed through this inflow point, that is, the vehicle that has entered the intersection”);
a moving body detecting unit configured to detect a moving body (see at least Paragraph [0016]: “a movement vector detection means obtains a movement vector for each vehicle to which an ID is assigned”) existing in the predetermined region based on the reflected signal detected by the laser radar (see at least Paragraph [0016]: “the vehicle ID and movement vector extracted from the frame image are registered in association with the divided area of the intersection where this vehicle is located”);
a moving direction detecting unit (see at least Paragraph [0015]: “a movement vector detection means for determining a movement vector in a table, and IDs assigned by the vehicle labeling means and movement vectors detected by the movement vector detection means for each divided area of a preset intersection”)… ; and
a traffic flow calculating unit configured to calculate a traffic flow data including a number of the moving body in each of the divided regions (see at least Paragraph [0018]: “a traffic volume measuring device having a branching direction-specific measuring means for measuring the number of vehicles that have registered and passed through an intersection in each branching direction using the table”) detected by the moving body detecting unit and the moving direction of each moving body detected by the moving direction detecting unit (see at least Paragraph [0016]: “a movement vector detection means obtains a movement vector for each vehicle to which an ID is assigned. A movement vector is obtained from a plurality of temporally consecutive images. Further, the branching direction-specific measuring means creates a table in which, for each frame image, the vehicle ID and movement vector extracted from the frame image are registered in association with the divided area of the intersection where this vehicle is located. Then, the branch direction-specific measurement means refers to this table and tracks which divided area of the intersection the vehicle has moved through for each vehicle assigned an ID, thereby calculating the number of vehicles that have passed through the intersection. Measure by direction”; and [0083]: “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a process for determining a vehicle movement vector in a traffic measurement device”),
…
wherein based upon the calculated traffic flow data the monitoring accuracy is improved and an amount of time of a measurement period of the moving body traveling on the traveling path is reduced (see, Mabuchi, Abstract, “To provide a signal control system capable of substantially reducing occurrence of traffic congestion by deciding a proper signal control parameter while considering traffic density of every branch direction”*** (interpreting as a time-dependent resulting reducing time)*** and “frame images for the past four frames that are temporally continuous are referred to in order to increase the accuracy of the branch determination” ***Examiner notes that the improvement to monitoring accuracy and measurement time period simply expresses the intended result of a series of process steps positively recited***).
Mabuchi does not explicitly disclose
…
a moving direction detecting unit configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and to detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle;
wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where: the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions
…
However, Kuramochi teaches
…
a moving direction detecting unit (see at least Paragraph [0023]: “a moving vehicle detection unit 110”) configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region (see at least Paragraph [0004]: “setting means (e.g., processing unit 100) for setting an image portion to be detected in a captured image captured by a camera looking down from above (e.g., camera 10 in Figs. 1 and 2) as a detection area; dividing means (e.g., processing unit 100) for dividing the set detection area into a plurality of partial areas”) and to detect a moving direction of the moving body (see at least Paragraph [0031]: “FIG. 6 shows an example of the data structure of the moving vehicle data. 13, the moving vehicle data 232 stores, for each moving vehicle 232a being tracked, a current position 232b, a moving speed 232c, and a moving direction 232d in association with each other”) based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions (see at least Paragraph [0024]: “Specifically, in the vehicle detection process, first, a detection area in which vehicles are to be detected is set in the captured image, and then this detection area is divided into a plurality of areas to set divided areas”) detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle (see at least Paragraph [0028]: “the moving vehicle detection unit 110 detects a moving vehicle based on an image shifted by one frame in time. In other words, a difference image 1 is calculated between the captured image (t) at the current time t<sub>０</sub> and an image (t-1) captured at a time t<sub>－１</sub> a predetermined time Δt in the past, which corresponds to one frame time, and a difference image 2 is calculated between the captured image (t-1) and an image (t-2) captured at a time t<sub>－２</sub> a predetermined time Δt in the past from time t<sub>－１</sub>” and [0053]: “the matching threshold change unit 140 performs the process of loop C at every predetermined timeΔt. That is, in loop C, the presence or absence of a moving vehicle being tracked by the vehicle tracking unit 120 is determined”);
…
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Mabuchi by combining a moving direction detecting unit configured to set a plurality of divided regions in the predetermined region and to detect a moving direction of the moving body based on a presence or absence of the moving body in each of the divided regions detected by the moving body detecting unit at each predetermined cycle as taught by Kuramochi. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to achieve highly accurate vehicle detection with relatively simple calculation processing in an image type vehicle detector (see at least Paragraph [0005]).
Neither Mabuchi nor Kuramochi teaches
…wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where: the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected, and the second divided region is a region in which the moving body is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions …
However, Jang teaches
…wherein the moving direction detecting unit is configured to determine the moving direction of the moving body from a first divided region toward a second divided region, where: the first divided region and the second divided region are included in the plurality of divided regions in which the moving object is detected, and the second divided region is a region in which the moving body is detected in a subsequent predetermined cycle after the detection by the predetermined cycle of the moving body in the first divided region, the moving direction determined based upon a chronological ordering of detections across the plurality of divided regions (see, Figure 18, Paragraph [0173]: “Each of the traffic lights at the intersection may transmit traffic light location information (GPS data), a vehicle flow detection (e.g., vehicle flow detection in the directions of east, west, south and north roads), traffic light signal information, time duration remaining until before a current signal is changed to a next signal, whether or not there is a vehicle which has entered the intersection, a location of the corresponding vehicle, and speed information of the vehicle to the nearby vehicle(s) via the wireless communication network (e.g., a wireless LAN (Bluetooth, 802.11n, etc. protocol)..” and [0179]: “each of the traffic lights 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, and 17-4 at the intersection transmit information about a vehicle flow in the common section 17-A and the individual section 17-B of the intersection from the vehicle sensor installed on the road to every vehicle around. Meanwhile, each of the traffic lights 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, and 17-4 at the intersection may receive a signal reflected from the vehicle by using radar of 60 GHz, measure the speed and type of the vehicle, a traffic volume, and the like, to provide traffic information”)…
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a current location to a destination on map data, a communication unit configured to receive signal information of a traffic light and traffic volume information regarding an intersection on the route as taught by Jang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a mobile terminal capable of providing signal information of a traffic light positioned at each road section to a vehicle driver to provide accurate information regarding a road situation to the vehicle driver.
As to claim 4, the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang teaches the moving body monitoring system according to claim 1. Kuramochi teaches wherein the moving direction detecting unit detects a speed of each moving body based on a position of each moving body detected by the moving body detecting unit at different timings of the predetermined cycle (see at least Paragraph [0030]: “The vehicle tracking unit 120 tracks the moving vehicles detected by the moving vehicle detection unit 110 . That is, based on the detection result of a moving vehicle within the sensing area AR1 or additional area AR3 by the moving vehicle detection unit 110, the moving speed and moving direction are calculated from the change in the position of the moving vehicle at time t, and the moving vehicle is tracked by predicting the position at the next time t<sub>＋１</sub>. Here, tracking of moving vehicles is performed only for those that exist within the detection area AR1 or the additional area AR3, and tracking is terminated when the moving vehicle leaves the detection area AR1”), and the traffic flow data includes the speed of each moving body (see at least Paragraph [0031]: “Data about moving vehicles being tracked by vehicle tracker 120 is stored in moving vehicle data 232 . FIG. 6 shows an example of the data structure of the moving vehicle data. 13, the moving vehicle data 232 stores, for each moving vehicle 232a being tracked, a current position 232b, a moving speed 232c, and a moving direction 232d in association with each other”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Mabuchi in view of Kuramochi by combining wherein the moving direction detecting unit detects a speed of each moving body based on a position of each moving body detected by the moving body detecting unit at different timings of the predetermined cycle, and the traffic flow data includes the speed of each moving body as taught by Kuramochi. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to achieve highly accurate vehicle detection with relatively simple calculation processing in an image type vehicle detector (see at least Paragraph [0005]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang teaches the moving body monitoring system according to claim 1. Mabuchi discloses wherein the traveling path is an intersection having a traffic signal (see at least Paragraph [0043]: “The current indication is a traffic flow (group of vehicles) to which the right of passage is given by the signal light device 5, and in Fig. 3 (A), it is a group of vehicles entering the intersection from the left and right directions (no distinction between going straight or turning right or left). 3(B) shows a group of vehicles entering the intersection from the left and right directions and turning right, and FIG. 3(D) shows a group of vehicles entering the intersection from the top and bottom directions (no distinction between going straight or turning right or left)”), and the moving body monitoring system is provided with a communication unit configured to calculate a lighting time of the traffic signal based on the traffic flow data calculated by the traffic flow calculating unit and to transmit a traffic signal lighting data indicating the calculated lighting time (see at least Paragraph [0031]: “The signal control device 1 includes a first communication unit 11 that communicates with the traffic measuring device 2, and a branching direction that cumulatively stores the number of passing vehicles for each branching direction at the intersection measured by the traffic measuring device 2. a separate traffic volume storage unit 12; a statistical processing unit 13 that statistically processes the number of passing vehicles for each branching direction at the intersection cumulatively stored in the traffic volume storage unit 12 for each branching direction; A signal control parameter determination section 14 that determines signal control parameters for controlling the signal lamp device 5 using the processing results”).
Regarding claim 7, recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 7 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regarding claim 8, recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 8 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang, and in view of Taylor (US 2015/0213713; previous recorded).
As to claim 2, the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang teaches the moving body monitoring system according to claim 1. Neither Mabuchi nor Kuramochi explicitly disclose wherein the moving body detecting unit detects at least one of a size and a shape of the moving body based on the reflected signal, the moving direction detecting unit determines whether the moving bodies that are detected at different timings are same based on at least one of the size and the shape of each moving body detected by the moving body detecting unit at different timings in the predetermined cycle, and detects the moving direction of the moving bodies that are determined to be the same.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Taylor teaches
wherein the moving body detecting unit detects at least one of a size and a shape of the moving body based on the reflected signal (see at least Paragraph [0063]: “traffic signal controller 150 may process the optical data to identify the vehicle type based on, for example, the shape, size, color, or other optical attribute of the vehicle. In addition or alternatively, traffic signal controller 150 may also process the optical data to determine an identifier (e.g., a license plate number) associated with the vehicle and use the identifier to determine the associated vehicle type”), the moving direction detecting unit determines whether the moving bodies that are detected at different timings are same based on at least one of the size and the shape of each moving body detected by the moving body detecting unit at different timings in the predetermined cycle, and detects the moving direction of the moving bodies that are determined to be the same (see at least Paragraph [0065]: “Continuing with FIG. 5, process 500 may include determining a traffic signal configuration based on the vehicle type (block 520). For example, traffic signal controller 150 may configure a traffic signal based on different vehicle values associated with different vehicle types. For example, traffic signal controller 150 may sum vehicle values associated with first traffic (e.g., travelling in North/South directions) and Sum vehicle values associated with second traffic (e.g., travelling in East/West directions), and determine cycling times based on a comparison of the Sums’).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang by combining wherein the moving body detecting unit detects at least one of a size and a shape of the moving body based on the reflected signal, the moving direction detecting unit determines whether the moving bodies that are detected at different timings are same based on at least one of the size and the shape of each moving body detected by the moving body detecting unit at different timings in the predetermined cycle, and detects the moving direction of the moving bodies that are determined to be the same as taught by Taylor. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey that The data may include information identifying the vehicle type (e.g., authenticating information identifying a public safety vehicle) or information associated with a configuration or performance of the vehicle that may be used to infer the vehicle type (see at least Paragraph [0012]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang teaches the moving body monitoring system according to claim 1. Neither Mabuchi nor Kuramochi or Jang explicitly teach wherein the moving body detecting unit detects at least one of a size and a shape of the moving body based on the reflected signal, and determines a type of the moving body based on at least one of the size and the shape of the moving body.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Taylor teaches
wherein the moving body detecting unit detects at least one of a size and a shape of the moving body based on the reflected signal, and determines a type of the moving body based on at least one of the size and the shape of the moving body (see at least Paragraph [0063]: “Traffic signal controller 150 may also use another type of sensor readings to detect the vehicle type. For example, an image sensor ( e.g., a traffic camera) may capture optical data associated with the vehicle, and traffic signal controller 150 may process the optical data to identify the vehicle type based on, for example, the shape, size, color, or other optical attribute of the vehicle. In addition or alternatively, traffic signal controller 150 may also process the optical data to determine an identifier (e.g., a license plate number) associated with the vehicle and use the identifier to determine the associated vehicle type”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Mabuchi in view of Kuramochi and Jang by combining wherein the moving body detecting unit detects at least one of a size and a shape of the moving body based on the reflected signal, and determines a type of the moving body based on at least one of the size and the shape of the moving body as taught by Taylor. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey that The data may include information identifying the vehicle type (e.g., authenticating information identifying a public safety vehicle) or information associated with a configuration or performance of the vehicle that may be used to infer the vehicle type (see at least Paragraph [0012]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang, and in view of Nortrup (US 2011/0276259; previously recorded).
As to claim 5, the combination of Mabuchi, Kuramochi and Jang teaches the moving body monitoring system according to claim 1. Mabuchi discloses wherein the traffic flow calculating unit detects a number of the moving body existing in each of the divided regions within a predetermined time by using the moving body detecting unit (see at least Paragraph [0016]: “the vehicle ID and movement vector extracted from the frame image are registered in association with the divided area of the intersection where this vehicle is located. Then, the branch direction-specific measurement means refers to this table and tracks which divided area of the intersection the vehicle has moved through for each vehicle assigned an ID, thereby calculating the number of vehicles that have passed through the intersection”), however, Mabuchi does not explicitly disclose where …creating a density map showing a density of the moving body existing in each of the divided regions within the predetermined time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nortrup teaches
…creating a density map showing a density of the moving body existing in each of the divided regions within the predetermined time (see at least Paragraph [0007]: “The computer program product may repeat this process in real-time to calculate a real-time traffic condition measure. The real-time traffic condition measure may be a traffic density measure that the computer program product may use to predict a travel time. The travel time prediction may be based at least in part on the measure of traffic density and at least one of the following: a time of day, a day of the week, a weather condition and/or a road condition, or some other parameter corresponding to the real-time traffic condition measure”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Mabuchi in view of Kuramochi and Jang by combining …creating a density map showing a density of the moving body existing in each of the divided regions within the predetermined time as taught by Nortrup. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey interacting with many other people and objects. Methods and systems of tracking and predicting such movements can improve operations (see at least Paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights