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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment to claim 1 is accepted and entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending regarding this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Though cited portions of Wang (as best understood) do disclose scanning a driver's face (paragraphs [0042]-[0043]), this is not the same as validating the one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to which the one or more images were received as determined by processing the one or more received second images with respect to the one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle as determined by processing the one or more received first images, as encompassed by claim 1.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The interior of the vehicle is interpreted to mean inside space of a vehicle, which includes the cabin area of the vehicle in which the passengers/driver reside. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle”, the examiner maintains that aspects regarding an individual(s) residing within a vehicle can broadly be interpreted as equivalent to the claimed one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle.
Claims 2-20 have not been directly argued or amended. Therefore, the analysis of these claims has not been altered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “with respect to which the one or more images were received” in lines 11-12 and “with respect to which the one or more images were received” in line 14. However, both “one or more first images” and “one or more second images” are introduced in the claim prior to the recitation of “the one or more images” as recited in lines 11-12 and line 14. As such, it is unclear whether the “one or more images” as recited in lines 11-12 and line 14 are equivalent to or distinct from the “one or more first images” and/or the “one or more second images”. Applicant discusses the above subject matter in para. [0059]-[0068]. However, nowhere in these sections does the applicant clearly convey to which images the “one or more images” as recited in lines 11-12 and line 14 refers. As such, claim 1 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Note: For prior art mapping purposes, it will be assumed that the “one or more images” as recited in lines 11-12 and line 14 of claim 1 refer to the claimed “one or more first images” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 106780850 A, see English translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a system (Wang “camera Intelligent Recognition vehicle management gate control system” para. [0014]) comprising:
a processing device (Wang “When camera Intelligent Recognition vehicle management gate control system is run, image is reached into computer by camera, run on Recognizer on computer after treatment, to single-chip microcomputer output instruction signal” para. [0044]; since Wang teaches a computer, it is noted there exists a processing device); and
a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions that, when executed by the
processing device (Wang “when camera Intelligent Recognition vehicle management gate control system is run, image is reached into computer by camera, run on Recognizer on computer after treatment, to single-chip microcomputer output instruction signal” para. [0044]; since the prior art teaches a computer capable of processing and sending instructions, it is noted there inherently exists a memory), cause the system to perform one or more operations comprising:
receiving one or more first images (Wang teaches capturing images of a license plate in para. [0043]; These license plate image(s) are interpreted as equivalent to the first images in the claim language);
processing the one or more first images to determine one or more aspects of an exterior of a vehicle (Wang teaches a process of license plate binarization to determine the license plate information; since the license plate is on the exterior of the vehicle, and information is being processed from the image of the license plate, the obtaining of license plate information as outlined in para. [0043] is interpreted as equivalent to the aspects of an exterior of a vehicle in the claim language);
receiving one or more second images (Wang teaches adjusting the focus of the camera to obtain scans of the face of the vehicle driver after the license plate information is captured in para. [0042]; the face images here are interpreted as the second images in the claim language);
processing the one or more second images to determine one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle with respect to which the one or more images were received (Wang teaches the comparison of the captured driver’s face images with the driver’s facial information to obtain a number of matching characteristic points in para. [0043]; the comparison here is interpreted as determining one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle, the aspect here being the identity of the driver. Additionally, this processing occurs with respect to the license plate information in the first images as further shown in para. [0042]-[0043]. See the note in the 112(b) section above regarding the interpretation of the one or more images);
validating the one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to which the one or more images were received as determined by processing the one or more received second images with respect to the one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle as determined by processing the one or more received first images (Wang teaches determining, based on the license information (exterior aspect), whether the driver (interior aspect) matches the driver information stored in the database that is associated with the found license plate information in para. [0042]); and
initiating one or more operations based on the validation (Wang teaches that, once a threshold is reached based on the matching characteristics between the face image (interior aspect) and the database face information associated with the license plate number (exterior aspect), the gate is lifted in order for the driver to pass through the gate in para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein processing the one or more first images comprises identifying a license plate within the one or more first images (Wang teaches capturing images of a license plate in para. [0043]; These license plate image(s) are interpreted as equivalent to the first images in the claim language).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises comparing metadata associated with the one or more first images with metadata associated with the one or more second images (Wang teaches comparing a driver’s facial information associated with the obtained license plate images (metadata associated with the first images) with the actual scans of the driver’s face (the metadata associated with the second images) in para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein initiating one or more operations comprises generating a record based on the validation (Wang “It will be recorded when vehicle passes through gate, to adjust its Parking Fee” para. [0040]; the fact that this process is recorded is interpreted as equivalent to generating a record).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches a method (para. [0014]) comprising:
receiving one or more first images (Wang teaches capturing images of a license plate in para. [0043]; These license plate image(s) are interpreted as equivalent to the first images in the claim language);
processing the one or more first images to determine one or more aspects of an exterior of a vehicle (Wang teaches a process of license plate binarization to determine the license plate information; since the license plate is on the exterior of the vehicle, and information is being processed from the image of the license plate, the obtaining of license plat information as outlined in para. [0043] is interpreted as equivalent to the aspects of an exterior of a vehicle in the claim language);
receiving one or more second images (Wang teaches adjusting the focus of the camera to obtain scans of the face of the vehicle driver after the license plate information is captured in para. [0042]; the face images here are interpreted as the second images in the claim language);
processing the one or more second images to determine one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle (Wang teaches the comparison of the captured driver’s face images with the driver’s facial information to obtain a number of matching characteristic points in para. [0043]; the comparison here is interpreted as determining one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle, the aspect here being the identity of the driver);
validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle (Wang teaches determining, based on the license information (exterior aspect), whether the driver (interior aspect) matches the driver information stored in the database that is associated with the found license plate information in para. [0042]); and
initiating one or more operations based on the validation (Wang teaches that, once a threshold is reached based on the matching characteristics between the face image (interior aspect) and the database face information associated with the license plate number (exterior aspect), the gate is lifted in order for the driver to pass through the gate in para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the method of claim 17,
wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises comparing metadata associated with the one or more first images with metadata associated with the one or more second images (Wang teaches comparing a driver’s facial information associated with the obtained license plate images (metadata associated with the first images) with the actual scans of the driver’s face (the metadata associated with the second images) in para. [0043]).
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.
Claims 3-5, 6, 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106780850 A, see English translation for citations) in view of Hayes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11861953), hereinafter Hayes.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein processing the one or more first images comprises identifying at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle.
However, Hayes teaches wherein processing the one or more first images comprises identifying at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle (Hayes “the user may generate an image of the vehicle (e.g., using a camera of the user device) that depicts identifying details of the vehicle (e.g., license plate number, vehicle manufacturer or make, vehicle model, etc.) and upload or send the photo” col. 15, lines 55-59).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein processing the one or more first images comprises identifying at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “determine a value for the current holistic characteristic of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 15-18. Capturing the make and/or model would additionally be useful in order to determine the components within a specific make and/or model that may have potential damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches a system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach “wherein processing the one or more first images comprises determining a condition of the vehicle”.
However, Hayes teaches wherein processing the one or more first images comprises determining a condition of the vehicle (Hayes teaches “sensors 212A and 212B may detect and store the vehicle's external features and driving conditions, for example, the vehicle's front, side, and rear body exterior, the vehicle's windshield conditions, the vehicle's wiper conditions” col. 8, lines 3-10. [0137]).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein processing the one or more first images comprises determining a condition of the vehicle”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “determine a value for the current holistic characteristic of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 15-18. Determining the condition of the vehicle additionally be useful in order to confirm the vehicle is a match to the vehicle stored in the database of Wang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the system of claim 1. Wang further teaches processing the one or more first images as shown in claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein processing the one or more first images comprises processing the one or more first images with one or more images previously received with respect to the vehicle.
However, Hayes teaches wherein processing the one or more first images comprises processing the one or more first images with one or more images previously received with respect to the vehicle (Hayes “receiving current data (including but not limited to, quantifiable data, image data, video data, sound data, and/or movement data) from sensors that can determine present conditions of one or more vehicle features, receiving reference data from terminals 141, 151, 161, comparing the received current data to the received reference data” col. 6, lines 36-42; the current data can include images of the exterior (first images) as cited in col. 8, lines 3-10).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein processing the one or more first images comprises identifying at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “compare the data of the past condition and the data of the current condition for the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 33-36. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein processing the one or more first images comprises processing the one or more first images to determine an origin of the one or more first images.
However, Hayes teaches wherein processing the one or more first images comprises processing the one or more first images to determine an origin of the one or more first images (Hayes “the vehicle service parameter generation server may use methods known to those having ordinary skill in the art to check the authenticity of the data being delivered so that the data is indeed of the current condition of the vehicle” col. 17, lines 44-48; Applicant’s specification describes determining the origin and/or authenticity of an image as “determine [that the images] are actual photos (and were not, for example, edited, modified, and/or generated using artificial intelligence tools or techniques capable of generating images)” in para. [0063] of Applicant’s specification).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein processing the one or more first images comprises processing the one or more first images to determine an origin of the one or more first images”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “determine a value for the current holistic characteristic of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 15-18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the system of claim 1. Wang further teaches processing the one or more second images as shown in claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein processing the one or more second images comprises processing the one or more second images with one or more images previously received with respect to the vehicle.
However, Hayes teaches wherein processing the one or more second images comprises processing the one or more second images with one or more images previously received with respect to the vehicle (Hayes “receiving current data (including but not limited to, quantifiable data, image data, video data, sound data, and/or movement data) from sensors that can determine present conditions of one or more vehicle features, receiving reference data from terminals 141, 151, 161, comparing the received current data to the received reference data” col. 6, lines 36-42; the current data can include images of the interior (second images) as cited in col. 8, lines 18-24).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein processing the one or more second images comprises identifying at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “compare the data of the past condition and the data of the current condition for the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 33-36. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Wang system of claim 1, wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle further comprises:
validating, in relation to inputs originating from one or more sensors of the vehicle, the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle (Wang teaches determining, based on the license information (exterior aspect), whether the driver (interior aspect) matches the driver information stored in the database that is associated with the found license plate information in para. [0042]).
Wang fails to teach wherein the data originates from one or more sensors of the vehicle.
However, Hayes teaches the data originating from one ore more sensors of the vehicle (Hayes “vehicle sensors” col. 7, lines 25-29).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein the data originates from one or more sensors of the vehicle”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “determine a value for the current holistic characteristic of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 15-18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein initiating one or more operations comprises associating a validated record with one or more previously generated records.
However, Hayes teaches wherein initiating one or more operations comprises associating a validated record with one or more previously generated records (Hayes “vehicle database 222 may regularly synchronize and/or update the latest vehicle-specific information on known vehicles by communicating with manufacturer and/or dealership computer systems 232, and other driving databases and computer/systems 233. An update interface 223 may be involved in the periodic updating and synchronization of the vehicle database 222. Vehicle-specific information stored in vehicle database 222 may include identifying information of the vehicle as well as data describing the original conditions of the various features of the vehicle. It is contemplated that data describing the original conditions may include image data. Thus, information stored in the vehicle database 222 may be used to identify a vehicle, e.g., from image data obtained by the user device camera 241” col. 11, lines 11-20).
Wang and Hayes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hayes and include “wherein initiating one or more operations comprises associating a validated record with one or more previously generated records”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “compare the data of the past condition and the data of the current condition for the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle”, as suggested by Hayes in col. 3, lines 33-36. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Hayes to obtain the invention specified in claim 16.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106780850 A, see English translation for citations) in view of Helstab et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0025392 A1), hereinafter Helstab.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein processing the one or more second images comprises identifying an odometer within the one or more second images.
However, Helstab teaches wherein processing the one or more second images comprises identifying an odometer within the one or more second images (Helstab teaches taking photos of the interior in which “Such photographs may include, for example, odometer” para. [0144]).
Wang and Helstab are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Helstab and include “wherein processing the one or more second images comprises identifying an odometer within the one or more second images”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “it would therefore be beneficial to provide a system that provides users with an assessment report established through a standardized sequence of graphical user interfaces by another user so that a degree of standardization is introduced to the assessment reports the users access”, as suggested by Helstab in the abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Helstab to obtain the invention specified in claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106780850 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Wang in view of Fan (CN 111881856 A, see English translation for citations).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang further teaches the first and second images as cited in claim 1, but fails to disclose
wherein processing the one or more second images comprises processing the one or more second images to determine an origin of the one or more first images.
However, Fan teaches wherein processing the one or more second images comprises processing the one or more second images to determine an origin of the one or more first images (Fan “one or more internal components that are adjacent to the external component can be determined for each external component according to the structural configuration of the component, and thus one or more internal components that may be damaged due to damage to the external component are established” para. [0066]; to expand more upon this process, Fan teaches that “the external damage prediction model may be trained using the set of vehicle damage images and the external component damage information; and selecting a corresponding internal damage prediction model according to the vehicle component configuration type, and training the internal damage prediction model by using the vehicle damage image set [and] the external component damage information” para. [0119] (emphasis added); this process is interpreted as equivalent to determining an origin, as the claim broadly recites determining the origin, it is interpreted here that the origin is the origin of the damage in the interior based on the damaged components within the exterior).
Fan and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicles through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Fan and include “wherein processing the one or more second images comprises processing the one or more second images to determine an origin of the one or more first images”. The motivation for doing so would have been to guide users through the process of collecting information regarding their vehicle in order to update the database with relevant information, as suggested by Fan in para. [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fan with Wang to obtain the invention specified in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Wang, Fan, Helstab, and Hayes. Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 10, 12-13, 18, and 20.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises determining that an odometer identified within the one or more second images is consistent with at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle identified with respect to the one or more first images.
Helstab further teaches identifying an odometer para. [0144] and identifying a make or a model of the vehicle in para. [0103].
Hayes further teaches identifying a make or a model of the vehicle in col. 15, lines 55-59.
However, neither Wang, nor Helstab, nor Fan, nor Hayes, nor a combination teach wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises determining that an odometer identified within the one or more second images is consistent with at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle identified with respect to the one or more first images.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 18.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises comparing a chronological interval associated with a capture of the one or more first images with a chronological interval associated with a capture of the one or more second images.
Hayes further teaches “In order to make sure that the generated data is current, the user device may be prompted to deliver the data within a predetermined time frame” in col. 17, lines 41-47.
However, neither Wang, nor Fan, nor Hayes, nor Helstab, nor a combination teach wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises comparing a chronological interval associated with a capture of the one or more first images with a chronological interval associated with a capture of the one or more second images.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches the system of claim 1.
Wang fails to teach wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises comparing one or more geographic coordinates associated with the one or more first images with one or more geographic coordinates associated with the one or more second images.
However, neither Wang, nor Fan, nor Helstab, nor Hayes teach wherein validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle comprises comparing one or more geographic coordinates associated with the one or more first images with one or more geographic coordinates associated with the one or more second images.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches receiving one or more first images; processing the one or more first images to determine one or more aspects of an exterior of a vehicle; receiving one or more second images; processing the one or more second images with one or more images previously received with respect to the vehicle to determine one or more aspects of an interior of the vehicle; and initiating one or more operations based on the validation (see claim 1).
Fan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform one or more operations.
However, neither Wang, nor Helstab, nor Fan, nor Hayes, nor a combination teach validating the determined one or more aspects of the interior of the vehicle with respect to the determined one or more aspects of the exterior of a vehicle by determining that an odometer identified within the one or more second images is consistent with at least one of a make of the vehicle or a model of the vehicle identified with respect to the one or more first images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm 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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights