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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent Claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,103.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
As Claims 1:
Step 1: Are the Claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. See the analysis below.
The Claim recites:
A method of monitoring infrastructure, comprising:
capturing video of infrastructure; and
generating an inference of damage to the infrastructure and a severity thereof based on images in the captured video and in response to running the inference locally on at least one edge device.
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Regarding the non-emphasized limitations:
Step 2A prong 1:
“generating an inference of damage to the infrastructure and a severity thereof based on images in the captured video and” is/are directed to a mental processes group of abstract idea. Mental processes are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes includes observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions.
These steps are considered mental processes group of abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2:
Limitations “capturing video of infrastructure; and” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Limitations “in response to running the inference locally on at least one edge device” are mere instruction to apply an exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? No.
Limitation “capturing video of infrastructure; and.” (i.e., storing) step is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by court case cited in 2106.05(d) as evidenced by HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, v. CASTLE RETAIL, LLC.
The claim is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 8 and 15, the Claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as Claim 1
Dependent Claims
As Claim 2, the Claim recites “wherein the running of the inference locally on the at least one edge device comprises using a compression of models to run the inference on the at least one edge device with a low computational resource.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the running of the inference locally on the at least one edge device comprises using a compression of models to run the inference on the at least one edge device with a low computational resource” are mere instruction to apply an exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 3, the Claim recites “enabling privacy preserved learning when generating the inference and the severity thereof by using distributed data subject to at least one federated learning framework.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “enabling privacy preserved learning when generating the inference and the severity thereof by using distributed data subject to at least one federated learning framework” are mere instruction to apply an exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 4, the Claim recites “wherein the at least one edge device includes a camera mounted on at least one vehicle of a public transportation fleet of vehicles.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the at least one edge device includes a camera mounted on at least one vehicle of a public transportation fleet of vehicles” are mere instruction to apply an exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 5, the Claim recites “further comprising capturing the location of the damage based on a position of the at least one vehicle.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “further comprising capturing the location of the damage based on a position of the at least one vehicle” are mere instruction to apply an exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 6, the Claim recites “further comprising displaying data indicative of the inference of damage to the infrastructure in a cartographic display.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “further comprising displaying data indicative of the inference of damage to the infrastructure in a cartographic display” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. Limitation “further comprising displaying data indicative of the inference of damage to the infrastructure in a cartographic display” in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by court case cited in 2106.05(d) as evidenced by HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, v. CASTLE RETAIL, LLC. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claims 8-14, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 1-7, respectively.
As Claim 15-20, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 1-6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramos et al. (U.S. 2024/0167962 hereinafter Ramos).
As Claim 1, Ramos teaches a method of monitoring infrastructure, comprising:
capturing video of infrastructure (Ramos (¶0094), edge devices collect monitory data such as videos); and
generating an inference of damage to the infrastructure and a severity thereof based on images in the captured video (Ramos (¶0077 line 1-5, ¶0116 line 1-16), pavement distress analysis system receives visual data and generate pavement distress data using a trained model. Pavement condition output includes PCI. PCI include distress type and severity level) and in response to running the inference locally on at least one edge device (Ramos (¶0120 line 1-5), pavement distress analysis system 218 and report generation system 220 are housed inside one or more of edge devices).
As Claim 2, besides Claim 1, Ramos teaches wherein the running of the inference locally on the at least one edge device (Ramos (¶0120 line 1-5), pavement distress analysis system 218 and report generation system 220 are housed inside one or more of edge devices) comprises using a compression of models to run the inference on the at least one edge device (Ramos (¶0077 line 1-5, ¶0116 line 1-16), pavement distress analysis system receives visual data and generate pavement distress data using a trained model. Pavement condition output includes PCI) with a low computational resource (Ramos (¶0110 line 4-7), edge device is characterized as having low processing and computational power).
As Claim 4, besides Claim 1, Ramos teaches wherein the at least one edge device includes a camera mounted on at least one vehicle of a public transportation fleet of vehicles (Ramos (¶0112 line 7-10), edge devices can be mounted to existing fleet of vehicles).
As Claim 5, besides Claim 4, Ramos teaches further comprising capturing the location of the damage based on a position of the at least one vehicle (Ramos (¶0119 line 1-5), location data can be used to localize the pavement distress identified in the road network. Ramos (¶0112 line 7-10), edge devices can be mounted to existing fleet of vehicles).
As Claim 6, besides Claim 1, Ramos teaches further comprising displaying data indicative of the inference of damage to the infrastructure in a cartographic display (Ramos (¶0147 line 1-4, fig. 5A), fig. 5A shows road network map that includes PCI values determined for each pavement segment in the road network).
As Claim 7, besides Claim 1, Ramos teaches further comprising: distributing training data among a plurality of clients, wherein the training data utilized in generating the inference of damage (Ramos (¶0164 last 6 lines, fig. 7B item 700b), training data are distributed to multiple edge device processors).
As Claims 8, Ramos teaches a system for monitoring infrastructure, comprising: at least one image-capturing device for capturing video of infrastructure (Ramos (¶0154 last 3 lines, ¶0180 line 5-7), image data are captured by a camera); and at least one edge device that communicates with the at least one image-capturing device (Ramos (¶0155 line 1-6), image data is analyzed by an edge device processor),
The rest of the limitation of are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claims 9 and 11-14, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 2 and 4-7, respectively.
As Claims 15, Ramos teaches a system of monitoring infrastructure, comprising: at least one processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions to cause the at least one processor (Ramos (¶0122 line 1-4), edge device includes a processor and memory) to perform:
The rest of the limitation of are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claim 16, 18-20, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 2, 4-6, respectively.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos in view of Xiao et al. (U.S. 2022/0012155 hereinafter Xiao).
As Claim 3, Ramos may not explicitly disclose:
enabling privacy preserved learning when generating the inference and the severity thereof by using distributed data subject to at least one federated learning framework.
Xiao teaches:
enabling privacy preserved learning when generating the inference and the severity thereof by using distributed data subject to at least one federated learning framework (Xiao (¶0016 line 1-6), system uses federated learning for exchanging encrypted model parameters between the cloud and an edge device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify edge devices of Ramos instead be a federated learning framework taught by Xia, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to allow “the updating can be easily done by exchange of encrypted model parameters between the cloud and an edge device, so the risk of user privacy disclosure can be significantly reduced” (Xiao (¶0016 line 3-6)).
As Claims 10 and 17, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (U.S. 2024/0083478) teaches a visual inspection system for monitoring rail way condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT HUY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7333. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 12:00-8:00 EST.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/NHAT HUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147