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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 10/7/2025 are acknowledged. Applicant's arguments filed on 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office has thoroughly reviewed Applicants' arguments which are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the filed amendments. Since all arguments are for the claimed limitations as amended not as previously filed, the responses to the arguments will be detailed in the rejection section below.
References Cited in Prior Art Rejections
The following references are cited in the prior art rejections set forth below and are referred to as noted:
Li et al., US 20180260793 A1, published on 2018-09-13, hereinafter Li.
Nazareth et al., US 20210349032 A1, published on 2021-11-11, hereinafter Nazareth.
He, Ye-peng, CN 114283416 A, published on 2022-04-05 (machine translation), hereinafter He-YP.
Bloch et al., US 20140082666 A1, published on 2014-03-20, hereinafter Bloch.
Takanezawa et al., US 20110181719 A1, published on 2011-07-28, hereinafter Takanezawa.
St. Denis et al., US 20120297337 A1, published on 2012-11-22, hereinafter Denis.
Christensen et al., US 20140257872 A1, published on 2014-09-11, hereinafter Christensen.
Milosevski et al., US 20150189130 A1, published on 2015-07-02, hereinafter Milosevski.
Dawson, US 20150087279 A1, published on 2015-03-26, hereinafter Dawson.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Nazareth, and further in view of He-YP.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for inspecting a vehicle (Li: Figs. 4-5 and 26-27, [0005, 0233]), comprising:
capturing one or more segments of video of the vehicle comprising a plurality of parts; (Li: [0057-0059, 0066, 0091]. “[0058]… images (e.g., photos or videos) showing damage to the vehicle are captured”. “[0091] …performing image processing on the one or more images includes: … image segmentation into vehicle parts” implies a plurality of parts being in the captured images (i.e., one or more segments of video).)
identifying, using one or more classifiers stored (on a server) Li: [0091, 0178-0179, 0233]. “[0178]… the CNN then associates the most complex features of the image computed by the last convolution layer with any desired output type, e.g., a damaged parts list”. “[0233] … At step 2610, the server computing device executes the plurality of CNNs to determine which external vehicle parts are damaged.”)
generating feedback related to capturing the one or more segments of video Li: [0064, 0151, 0272]. Generating feedback is interpreted as detecting and declaring window damages from captured image ([0151]).) and
displaying an interface comprising the feedback and video data being captured. (Li: [0151]. Fig. 13 displays feedback (damaged windows) and video data (captured images))
Li does not disclose explicitly but Nazareth teaches, in an analogous art of image processing involving image classification, one or more classifiers stored locally on the user device. (Nazareth: [0058-0059]. “[0058] … the classifier may be stored on or otherwise reside on the user device 302.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s disclosure with Nazareth’s teachings by combining the method for inspecting a vehicle (from Li) with the technique of storing classifiers locally on the user device (from Nazareth) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for inspecting a vehicle would still work in the way according to Li and the technique of storing classifiers locally on the user device would continue to function as taught by Nazareth. In fact, the inclusion of Nazareth's technique of storing classifiers locally on the user device would provide a practical and alternative implementation of the method for inspecting a vehicle and would enable a better and more flexible method for inspecting a vehicle by providing the alternative implementation of storing classifiers locally on the user device.
The combination of Li and Nazareth, or Li {modified by Nazareth}, does not disclose explicitly but He-YP teaches, in an analogous art of image processing for vehicle insurance claim settlement, generating feedback related to capturing the one or more segments of video to guide a user to capture video of sufficient quality to assess a state of the vehicle, wherein the feedback is generated during the capturing of the one or more segments. (He-YP: Fig. 1-2 and 8. “after shooting the appointed picture of the vehicle part, the back end service will pre-detect the current shot picture, and returning the processing result and the shooting adjusting prompt information to the left lower part of the shooting area. … comparing the current shooting picture with the standard settlement picture of the selected vehicle part to obtain a difference result. The results are as follows: the result in the pre-detection process is fed back to the photographing terminal; Shooting adjustment prompt information: for prompting the user to adjust the shooting distance and angle.” (4th paragraph on page 7). “Step S204: under the condition that the comparison is not passed, generating the shooting adjusting prompt information corresponding to the vehicle part according to the comparison result, for assisting the user to shoot the picture, until obtaining the shooting picture which can be compared and passed.” (last paragraph on page 10). “comparing the resolution of the shot picture with the resolution of the standard claim settlement picture of the vehicle part, if the resolution difference is large, directly generating the shooting adjusting prompt information” (from last para. on page 11 to the 1st para. on page 12))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth}’s disclosure with He-YP’s teachings by combining the method for inspecting a vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth}) with the technique of generating feedback to guide a user to capture video of sufficient quality to assess a state of the vehicle (from He-YP) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for inspecting a vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth} and the technique of generating feedback to guide a user to capture video of sufficient quality to assess a state of the vehicle would continue to function as taught by He-YP. In fact, the inclusion of He-YP's technique of generating feedback to guide a user to capture video of sufficient quality to assess a state of the vehicle would provide a practical and alternative implementation of the method for inspecting a vehicle and would enable a better and more flexible method for inspecting a vehicle by providing the alternative implementation of generating feedback to guide a user to capture video of sufficient quality to assess a state of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Nazareth and He-YP to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the feedback includes an overlay comprising a two-dimensional graphical representation configured to indicate which parts of the vehicle have been captured in the one or more segments of video. (Li: [0064, 0151, 0272]. “[0272] In step 2708, the localized damage on the 2D images can be shown, for example, by drawing a 2D heatmap overlaying the image to localize where on the image the damage is located.”)
Regarding claim 3, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the two-dimensional graphical representation comprises a representation of the vehicle or a representation of a generic vehicle. (Li: [0064, 0151, 0272]. “[0064] … the computer vision techniques involve segmenting an image into portions related to the vehicle in question, determining a pose of the vehicle, detecting localized damage in the 2D image of the vehicle, aligning the 2D image to a 3D model of the vehicle, and fusing the localized damage onto the 3D model.” A 2D image of the vehicle is a two-dimensional graphical representation of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 8, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: assessing, using the one or more classifiers stored locally on the user device, a state of the vehicle. (Li: damage assessment of 508 in Fig. 5 and 2610 in Fig. 26. [0139, 0233].) (Nazareth: [0058-0059].)
Regarding claim 9, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the state of the vehicle provides the basis for an estimated evaluation of the vehicle. (Li: cost evaluation of 404-408 in Fig. 4, 508 in Fig. 5 and 2610-2614 in Fig. 26. [0139, 0152-0153, 0233].)
Claims 14-15 and 19 are the apparatus (Li: Figs. 2-3) claims, respectively, corresponding to the method claims 1, 3 and 9. Therefore, since claims 14-15 and 19 are similar in scope to claims 1, 3 and 9, claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1, 3 and 9.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, and further in view of Bloch.
Regarding claim 4, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} discloses method of claim 1, wherein the feedback includes a graphical representation of the vehicle Li: [0064, 0091, 0151, 0179, 0272]) and a current location of the user device relative to the vehicle. (Li: [0059, 0067])
Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} does not disclose explicitly but Bloch teaches, in the analogous art of representing progress in a streaming video, a progress bar to indicate one or more segment of video. (Bloch: [0001, 0005]. “[0005] … various implementations of the invention provide a progress indicator that dynamically displays the progression status of video content paths made up of selectably presentable video content segments while being viewed by a user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}’s disclosure with Bloch’s teachings by combining the method for inspecting a vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}) with the technique of a progress bar to indicate one or more segment of video (from Bloch) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for inspecting a vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} and the technique of a progress bar to indicate one or more segment of video would continue to function as taught by Bloch. In fact, the inclusion of Bloch's technique of a progress bar to indicate one or more segment of video would provide a practical and alternative implementation of the method for inspecting a vehicle and would enable a better and more effective method for inspecting a vehicle by providing the progress bar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} with Bloch to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected as claim 4.
Claims 5-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, and further in view of Takanezawa.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} does not disclose explicitly but Takanezawa teaches, in the analogous art of a camera system, wherein the feedback includes an alert configured to indicate a request to a user during the recording of the video to change a distance or angle between the camera and the vehicle. (Takanezawa: Figs. 14-16 and 22, [0129, 0140, 0158-0159]. “[0158] … an arrow indication 2242 indicates its general information about how far the subject candidate is away from the image display area and a message indication 2243 presents more detailed information. By using the information, it is possible to automatically change a pan angle or a tilt angle, or an image angle of the image forming optical system 1401 so that the image taking unit 1403 is able to take image of the subject candidate.” Although the subject candidate is shown in Fig. 22 as a person, the subject candidate can be a vehicle according to [0140].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}’s disclosure with Takanezawa’s teachings by combining the method for inspecting a vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}) with the technique of an alert indicating a request to a user to change an angle between the camera and the subject candidate (from Takanezawa) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for inspecting a vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} and the technique of an alert indicating a request to a user to change an angle between the camera and the subject candidate would continue to function as taught by Takanezawa. In fact, the inclusion of Takanezawa's technique of an alert indicating a request to a user to change an angle between the camera and the subject candidate would provide a practical and alternative implementation of the method for inspecting a vehicle and as a result would enable a more accurate and reliable method for inspecting a vehicle due to the feedback provided to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} with Takanezawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Li {modified by Nazareth and Takanezawa} discloses method of claim 5, wherein the request to change the distance or angle is based on identifying a region of interest on the vehicle. (Takanezawa: Figs. 14-16 and 22, [0129, 0140, 0158-0159].)
Regarding claim 7, Li {modified by Nazareth and Takanezawa} discloses method of claim 1, wherein the feedback includes an alert configured to indicate a request to a user during the recording of the video to change a manner in which the user is moving the camera. (Takanezawa: Figs. 14-16 and 22, [0129, 0140, 0158-0159]. “[0159] As described above, if the subject candidate is out of the image taking image angle, it is possible to detect the existence of the subject candidate. Further, it is possible to present the information about the position of the subject candidate which exists out of the image taking image angle.”)
The reasoning and motivation to combine are similar to that of claim 5.
Claims 17-18 are similarly rejected as claims 5 and 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Denis.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 8, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} does not disclose explicitly but Denis teaches, in the analogous art of providing automatic vehicle inspection and damage assessment services, wherein the state of the vehicle comprises a paint condition for one or more parts of the vehicle. (Denis: [0209-0215].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}’s disclosure with Denis’s teachings by combining the method for assessing a state of the vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}) with the technique of assessing a paint condition for one or more parts of the vehicle (from Denis) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for assessing a state of the vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} and the technique of assessing a paint condition for one or more parts of the vehicle would continue to function as taught by Denis. In fact, the inclusion of Denis's technique of assessing a paint condition for one or more parts of the vehicle would provide a practical implementation of the method for assessing a state of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} with Denis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Christensen.
Regarding claim 11, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} discloses method of claim 1 further comprising: capturing Li: damage assessment of 508 in Fig. 5 and 2610 in Fig. 26. [0057-0059, 0066, 0091, 0139, 0233].) (Nazareth: [0058-0059].) Even though video data (Li: [0058]) include audio data, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} does not disclose explicitly but Christensen teaches, in the analogous art of collecting and processing vehicle image and sound data for insurance rating or underwriting purposes,
capturing audio data of the vehicle in operation; (Christensen: “[0016] … the one or more sensors 114 may include an audio sensor (e.g., a microphone) that the policy holder may operate to record sounds related to the vehicle such as engine sounds while the vehicle is running.”) and
assessing, using the one or more classifiers, a state of the vehicle based on the audio data. (Christensen: “[0024] … a condition of the vehicle may correspond to the vehicle engine sound. For example, the vehicle sound data 120B in the repository 120 may specify engine sound information. As such, the insurance server 104 may compare the engine sound information in the data 120B to a baseline engine sound model (e.g., stored as one of the vehicle condition models 122) in the repository 120. The baseline engine sound model may indicate that certain engine sounds correspond to particular operating conditions or states of the vehicle that can lead to a high-risk of loss, such as states of disrepair or indications of inappropriate or illegal modifications to the vehicle engine, when the sound data recorded by the audio sensor of the computing device deviates from the baseline engine sound model by a threshold amount. For example, where an exhaust note of a normally operating vehicle at idle may include a frequency of 600 Hz, the recorded sound data may indicate a low frequency of 300 Hz or a high frequency of 1000 Hz. Either the low or the high frequency may indicate disrepair or other engine states that correspond to a high-risk of loss.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}’s disclosure with Christensen’s teachings by combining the method for assessing a state of the vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}) with the technique of assessing a state of the vehicle based on captured audio data (from Christensen) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for assessing a state of the vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} and the technique of assessing a state of the vehicle based on captured audio data would continue to function as taught by Christensen. In fact, the inclusion of Christensen's technique of assessing a state of the vehicle based on captured audio data would provide a practical implementation of the method for assessing a state of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} with Christensen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, and further in view of Milosevski.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} does not disclose explicitly but Milosevski teaches, in the analogous art of video recording and editing, the processor configured to perform operations further comprising: generating a request to the user to collect image data or video data of the vehicle after a first video clip is recorded of the vehicle at the user device based on the one or more segments of video. (Milosevski: “[0005] In embodiments, the control center causes a first digital mark to be created on a first video frame of the video recording when the user error is detected and causes a second digital mark to be put on a second video frame of the video recording when the user error is no longer detected.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}’s disclosure with Milosevski’s teachings by combining the method for inspecting a vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}) with the technique of video recording and editing (from Milosevski) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for inspecting a vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} and the technique of video recording and editing would continue to function as taught by Milosevski. In fact, the inclusion of Milosevski's technique of video recording and editing would provide a practical and alternative implementation of the method for inspecting a vehicle and would enable a better and more effective method for inspecting a vehicle by providing video editing capabilities.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} with Milosevski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected as claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Dawson.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} does not disclose explicitly but Dawson teaches, in the analogous art of mobile accident processing, wherein the feedback includes an indication to the user that a video clip being recorded by the user is to include an identifier specific to the vehicle. (Dawson: “[0042] The accident processing mode also directs drivers on site and in real time (i.e., at the scene of an accident scene) to collect accurate, timely, and comprehensive information about the accident, by providing sequential questions and/or instruction to the driver, and receiving data input (e.g., text, photos, voice recording and/or video) at the mobile device.” “[0056] Other examples of data entry may include a prompt to the user to take a photograph of the license plates of the vehicle(s), data entry screens for driver's and/or witnesses of the accident. As shown this data may be entered as text, voice recording, and/or photograph.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}’s disclosure with Milosevski’s teachings by combining the method for inspecting a vehicle (from Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP}) with the technique of including an identifier specific to the vehicle in captured data (from Dawson) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for inspecting a vehicle would still work in the way according to Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} and the technique of including an identifier specific to the vehicle in captured data would continue to function as taught by Dawson. In fact, the inclusion of Dawson's technique of including an identifier specific to the vehicle in captured data would provide a practical and alternative implementation of the method for inspecting a vehicle and would enable a better and more accurate method for inspecting a vehicle by providing an identifier specific to the vehicle in captured data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li {modified by Nazareth and He-YP} with Dawson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FENG NIU whose telephone number is (571)272-9592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm PT.
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, Chan Park can be reached on (571) 272-7409. 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.
/FENG NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669