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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 11/11/2025. Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-26 have been presented in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 16, and 18-20 are acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claims 21-26 is acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2-4, 7-8, 11, 13-15, and 17 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 23, Applicant argues the amended limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Here Applicant argues that the limitation of “wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on the previously stored scores associated with the temporary and permanent unique identifiers.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is first noted that the Examiner does not find this limitation in the specification as filed (see 112 first/a rejection below). Examiner notes that the Examiner has reviewed pages 18-20 of Remarks where the Applicant cited support for such the amendment and other amended limitations, however the Examiner does not find support for the entire amended limitation as detailed in the 112 a/first rejection below.
Lacking direction from the specification, the Examiner interprets this to recite providing law enforcement with one or more related photos or providing a law enforcement entity with information on where to focus taking their photo. This is a method of organizing human activity step of being provided one or more photos related photos or telling someone where to take (focus) their photo as broadly recited in the claim. The additional element that the phone or image is taken by a camera merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
On Remarks page 24, Applicant argues the limitation of “track changes” Specifically Applicant argues this is not an abstract idea as this cannot be performed in the human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is a human activity to as broadly recited in the claims take (trigger) images of a vehicle over time based on the location of the vehicle (e.g. a human activity step or decision to take a picture of your vehicle at your house, an airport, a store, etc.), generate a profile, and keep better photos and throw way worse photos. The additional elements as broadly recited in the claim that the location of the vehicle is determined via GPS and information in the profile id is generated without user invention (by the processor) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below. It is noted here, Applicant has not argued nor claimed improvement to the GPS rather applicant is merely using GPS to implement the human activity step from above, which is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Further Applicant’s specification does not disclose an improvement in GPS, as this function is only described in paragraph 0041 of the specification.
On Remarks page 25, Applicant argues Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0051, which discusses these the functions cannot be performed “as a practical matter, in the human mind.” The Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments here, however, the additional elements here like data storage (databases) recited in the claims( as some of these elements are not disclosed in the claims) have been addressed under the practical application and or significantly more steps, thereby being more than the certain methods of organizing human activities or mathematical concepts. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees
On Remarks page 25, Applicant argues that they have removed the citation of a business and therefore the claims do not recite an abstract idea. However the Examiner respectfully disagrees as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
On Remarks page 26, Applicant argues the 112 (a)/ written description in view of Applicant’s amendments. However the Examiner respectfully disagrees as detailed in the 112 a/first rejections below updated in view of Applicant’s amendments, as lacking the algorithm and or necessary steps for performing the claimed function in view of MPEP 2161.01 (cited herein below under the 112 first/a section).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 26 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claim is directed to a related process (see MPEP 806.05(j)).
MPEP 806.05(j), states:
For other related product inventions, or related process inventions, the inventions are distinct if
(A) the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive (i.e., a claim to the final product does not read on the intermediate, and vice versa);
(B) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and
(C) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. See MPEP § 802.01.
This is the case here as while the claims recite related subject matter, the claims are mutually exclusive, are not obvious variants, and as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function or effect. Specifically claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, 18-25 recite calculating an overall recoverability likelihood score and replacing images based a resolution being better not required by claim 26. Further claim 26 recites predicting potential changes to a new image over time based on changes detected between the new image and the initial image, replacing images based on detected changes, and not replacing images when no change is detected, which is not required by claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, 18-25.
Though not necessarily required to meet the election by original presentation standard, there would be a serious examination burden, as new claim 26 would require a different field of search (e.g. searching different electronic resources or employing different search queries)(see MPEP 808.02).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 26 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art of Record
The reasonings for overcoming the prior art of record found in the non-final office action dated 2/19/2025 remain.
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, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, and 21-25 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor and claims 16 and 18-20 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-25 recite(s) the idea of calculating a recoverability-likelihood score based on image data including difference between a base vehicle and a current vehicle where a car then can be enrolled or registered in a system with that calculated information, updating the enrollment or registration information over time based on new images, and that enrollment or registration can be provided to another entity in response to a request where that entity can compare that enrollment or registration data to image data to make a determination (or match).
Here claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-25 recite a mathematical calculation. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation" (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Here specifically the claims recite determining the variable or number of a recoverability-likelihood score. Mathematical calculations are in the groupings of mathematical concepts.
Additionally, the claims recite subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations. Specifically the claims recite calculating a recoverability-likelihood score where a car then can be enrolled or registered in a system with that calculated information and that enrollment or registration information can be provided to another entity in response to a request. This is a business relation as it is used to determine how likely it is that a vehicle will be recovered or recover the vehicle. It is additionally noted that the claims also previously recited providing this to a business (see previous now cancelled claim 2) and this can be part of a subscription service, e.g. a business (see previous now cancelled claim 7). Therefore the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activities as business relations are included in the certain methods of organizing human activities.
Certain methods of organizing human activities and mathematical concepts are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
The Examiner notes that the Examiner has underlined and bolded the additional
elements beyond the abstract idea for distinction. Information not bolded and underlined
is considered part of the abstract idea for this analysis.
1. (currently amended) A vehicular profiling system, comprising;
a processor operatively coupled to a vehicular profiling database of a public safety agency;,
the processor configured to:
receive a request, transmitted from a primary communication device, for a vehicle to be enrolled in the vehicular profiling system;
process receive live captured images of the vehicle to-be-enrolled, the live captured images being generated by cameras associated with the primary communication device, the live captured images being tagged with date, time and location;
and store the live captured images tagged with the date, time and location into a memory of the vehicular profiling database
retrieve previously recorded images of a base version of the vehicle and base vehicle information including VIN, make, model, license plate number, and owner information associated with that make and model from a department of motor vehicles (DVM) database;
store the previously recorded images of the base version of the vehicle and the base vehicle information into the memory of the vehicular profiling database;
compare, using video processing and image analytics, the live captured images of the vehicle to-be- enrolled, stored in the memory, to the previously recorded images of the base version of the vehicle, stored in the memory, to detect image differences between them;
identify, based on the detected image differences, unique identifiers of the vehicle to-be-enrolled;
store images of the unique identifiers into the memory of the vehicular profiling database and tag the images of the unique identifiers with the date, time and location associated with the live captured images stored in the memory;
categorize each of the images with a score identifying each of the unique identifiers as being a temporary unique identifier or a permanent unique identifier based on difficulty of modification of the unique identifiers for the make and model of the vehicle to be enrolled, each score being established based on predetermined numerical values within predetermined thresholds assigned to vehicle features of a particular make and model which match the make and model of the currently enrolled vehicle, the predetermined numeral values and thresholds being stored in the memory of the vehicular profiling database from previously enrolled vehicles of the same make and model, the images of the unique identifiers being scored higher for permanent unique identifier and lower for temporary unique identifiers;
generate an overall recoverability-likelihood score based on a sum of the individual scores of each of the unique identifiers;
store the overall recoverability-likelihood score into the memory of the vehicular profile database;
generate a vehicular profile including images of the unique identifiers categorized as temporary unique identifiers and permanent unique identifiers and individual scores associated therewith and the overall recoverability score;
store the vehicular profile into the memory of the vehicular profiling database;
enroll the vehicle in the vehicular profiling system;
and upload the vehicular profile to the primary communication;
track changes in the images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers over time by triggering a remote camera based on GPS location of the enrolled vehicle and storing new images taken by the remote camera into the memory for comparison to images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers of the current vehicular profile, and automatically generate an updated vehicular profile, without user intervention, by replacing, in response to the comparison, an image of the current vehicular profile with the image taken by the remote camera when the image resolution of the new image is stronger than the image resolution of the current image, and deleting the new image from the memory when the image resolution of the new image is lower than the current image;
upload the updated vehicular profile for the enrolled vehicle including images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers with scores associated therewith and the recoverability likelihood score to an interactive user display of a secondary communication device in response a stolen vehicle notification, the secondary communication device comprising a computer of a law enforcement vehicle, wherein the law enforcement vehicle includes a vehicular camera operatively coupled to the law enforcement vehicle computer, and wherein live photo chip images of the potentially stolen vehicle are captured by the law enforcement vehicular camera, each of the live photo chip images being focused on portions of the potentially stolen vehicle which align with images of the previously scored identified temporary and permanent unique identifiers of the enrolled vehicle, the photo chip images being automatically tagged with date, time, and location, and uploaded for match verification to the updated vehicular profile;
and wherein the match verification includes comparing each of the live photo chips taken by the law enforcement vehicle camera to the stored images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers associated with the enrolled vehicle, wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on the previously stored scores associated with the temporary and permanent unique identifiers.
5. (currently amended) The vehicular profiling system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the overall recoverability-likelihood score based on relatively lower weights applied to the temporary unique identifiers and relatively higher weights applied to the permanent unique identifiers.
6 (original) The vehicular profiling system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to:
further weight the temporary and permanent unique identifiers based on detectability of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers under predetermined vehicular operating conditions and contextual environments;
and update the recoverability-likelihood score based on the further weight associated with the vehicular operating conditions and contextual environments
9. (original) The vehicular profiling system of claim of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate and transmit inquiries to the primary device to determine a context associated with the unique identifiers.
10. (original) The vehicular profiling system of claim of claim 9, wherein the recoverability-likelihood score is updated based on responses to the inquiries.
12. (original) The vehicular profiling system of claim 11,wherein the one or more remote cameras comprise: a camera on a law enforcement vehicle; a remote surveillance camera; a toll camera; and a home security camera.
16. (currently amended) A method for generating a vehicular profile, comprising:
receiving a request, transmitted from a primary communication device, at a processing device, for a vehicle to be enrolled in a vehicular profiling system of a public safety agency;
collecting live captured images of the vehicle to-be-enrolled and retrieving previously recorded images of a base version of the vehicle from a department of motor vehicles (DMV) database operatively coupled to the vehicular profiling system, the DVM database including make and model of the vehicle to be enrolled;
storing the live captured images and the previously recorded images to a memory of the vehicular profiling database
comparing, by the processing device, the live captured images of the vehicle to-be-enrolled to the previously recorded images of the base version of the vehicle to detect differences between them and establish those differences as unique identifiers;
store images of the unique identifiers into the memory;
categorizing each of the differences unique identifiers with a score, the score being based on difficulty of modification of the unique identifiers for the make and model of the vehicle to be enrolled, each score being established based on predetermined numerical values within predetermined thresholds assigned to vehicle features of a particular make and model which match the make and model of the currently enrolled vehicle, the predetermined numeral values and thresholds being stored in the memory of the vehicular profiling database from previously enrolled vehicles of the same make;
generating a vehicular profile including images of the unique identifiers and associated scores;
calculating an overall recoverability-likelihood score based on a summation of the scores associated with the categorized unique identifiers;
storing the vehicular profile including the unique identifiers associated scores and the recoverability-likelihood score in a memory of the vehicular profiling system; communicating the vehicular profile including the unique identifiers to a communication device in response to a query;
and tracking changes in the images of the unique identifiers over time by triggering a remote camera based on GPS location of the enrolled vehicle and storing new images taken by the remote camera into the memory for comparison to images of the unique identifiers of the current vehicular profile, and automatically generating an updated vehicular profile, without user intervention, by replacing, in response to the comparison, an image of the current vehicular profile with the image taken by the remote camera when the image resolution of the new image is stronger than the image resolution of the current image, and deleting the new image from the memory when the image resolution of the new image is lower than the current image;
upload the updated vehicular profile for the enrolled vehicle including images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers with scores associated therewith and the recoverability likelihood score to an interactive user display of a secondary communication device in response a stolen vehicle notification, the secondary communication device comprising a computer of a law enforcement vehicle, wherein the law enforcement vehicle includes a vehicular camera operatively coupled to the law enforcement vehicle computer, and wherein live photo chip images of the potentially stolen vehicle are captured by the law enforcement vehicular camera, each of the live photo chip images being focused on portions of the potentially stolen vehicle which align with images of the previously scored identified temporary and permanent unique identifiers of the enrolled vehicle, the photo chip images being automatically tagged with date, time, and location, and uploaded for match verification to the updated vehicular profile;
and wherein the match verification includes comparing each of the live photo chips taken by the law enforcement vehicle camera to the stored images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers associated with the enrolled vehicle, wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on the previously stored scores associated with the temporary and permanent unique identifiers.
18. (original) The method of 16, further comprising: categorizing the unique identifiers to separately identify temporary and permanent unique identifiers of the vehicle; generating the recoverability-likelihood score based on relatively lower weights applied to the temporary unique identifiers and relatively higher weights applied to the permanent unique identifiers.
19. (currently amended) The method of 16, further comprising: receiving additional live captured images, over time, from one or more image capturing sources operationally coupled to the vehicular profiling system; detecting new unique identifiers associated with the vehicle; and updating the vehicular profile and the recoverability-likelihood score based on the new unique identifiers.
20. (currently amended) The method of 16, further comprising: receiving additional live captured images, over time, from one or more image capturing sources operationally coupled to the vehicular profiling database;detecting changes in previously identified unique identifiers; and updating the vehicular profile and the recoverability-likelihood score based on the detected changes to the previously identified unique identifiers.
21. (new) The vehicular profiling system of claim 1, wherein the processor of the vehicular profiling database executes a machine learning algorithm to identify changes in images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers over time based on images input from remote camera sources taken over time of the enrolled vehicle, and the processor adjusting scores associated with each of the permanent and unique identifiers and adjusting the recoverability-likelihood score in response to identified changes.
22. (new) The vehicular profiling system of claim 22, wherein the vehicular profile is dynamically updated over time in response the unique identifiers of the enrolled vehicle being added, removed, or modified.
23. (new) The vehicular profiling system of claim 1, wherein text inputs and audio inputs to the primary device are cross-correlated and tagged to corresponding photographic inputs sent from the primary device to the vehicular profiling system; and the recoverability-likelihood score is adjusted based on the tagged information.
24. (new) The vehicular profiling system of claim 1, wherein the processor associated with the vehicular profiling database uses video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning to identify vehicular features unique to the vehicle further based on text inputs and audio inputs received from the primary device.
25. (new) The vehicular profiling system of claim 24, wherein the vehicular features comprise one or more of a dent; a paint splatter on car body or tires; and custom hubcaps.
As per claim 1, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concept steps of collecting image data from various sources like data stores, storing images and metadata related to the collected images (like date, time, and location), comparing the image data from various sources to make determinations of differences between images, identify unique identifiers of a vehicle, sorting the unique identifiers in memory along with metadata of images, categorize each image with a score based on temporary or permanent unique identifiers that are based on the difficulty of modification based on predetermined values in a storage where identifiers for permanent unique identifiers are scored higher than temporary, generate an overall sum of the individual scores of the unique identifiers, generate a profile including images of unique identifiers and scores associated with the overall score, store the profile in memory, enroll a vehicle in a profiling system, transmit the profile to another entity, track changes over time in identifiers based on gathered images based on location of the vehicles, keeping stronger images and removing those with less resolution, update the profile over time based on the new images and scores, transmit the updates to another entity, the entity taking photos tagging them with metadata and making a comparison with the transmitted information, and additionally another entity (like law enforcement) being provided with information on what part of the vehicle focus on for review based on the transmitted information. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these steps are being performed by a “processor”, information is stored in a “database”, images are captured by “cameras”, location information is determined by “GPS”, information that is transmitted is “uploaded”, information is tagged or provided “automatically”, information is displayed on an “interactive display” and a communication “device”, information is being determined from images “using video processing and image analytics”, merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a
tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it."
Specifically here there are no details about a particular video processing and image analytics or how the video processing and image analytics operate to derive the information other than it generally being used. Video processing and image analytics is generally used to apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the video processing and image analytics operates to derive the information. The claim omits any details as to how the video processing and image analytics solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic video processing and image analytics function being performed by a processor for making the recited abstract idea step without purporting to improve the technology or computer. Therefore can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link to the field of computers (additionally see USPTO Example 48).
Further limitations that these human activities or mathematical concepts instead recite by the above computer elements additionally results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to computers.
As per claim 5, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of generating a score with weights based on identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that these steps are being performed by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of weighting identifiers based on detectability and updating the score based on weights. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that these steps are being performed by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, the claims recite human activity steps of generating and transmitting inquires to another entity to determine context associated with the unique identifiers. The additional element that this other entity is a device and this is being performed by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 10, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of updating the score in response to the inquiries. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 12, the claims merely describe the type of or environment of the camera providing the information in claim 1. It is noted it is a human activity or mathematical concept step to gather image data from various locations, like remote, toll camera, home security, etc. as broadly recited in the claims to perform a calculation, like the one in claim 1 as discussed above. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the pictures are being provided from cameras merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 16, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concept steps of collecting image data from various sources like data stores, storing images and metadata related to the collected images (like date, time, and location), comparing the image data from various sources to make determinations of differences between images, identify unique identifiers of a vehicle, sorting the unique identifiers in memory along with metadata of images, categorize each image with a score based on temporary or permanent unique identifiers that are based on the difficulty of modification based on predetermined values in a storage where identifiers for permanent unique identifiers are scored higher than temporary, generate an overall sum of the individual scores of the unique identifiers, generate a profile including images of unique identifiers and scores associated with the overall score, store the profile in memory, enroll a vehicle in a profiling system, transmit the profile to another entity, track changes over time in identifiers based on gathered images based on location of the vehicles, keeping stronger images and removing those with less resolution, update the profile over time based on the new images and scores, transmit the updates to another entity, the entity taking photos tagging them with metadata and making a comparison with the transmitted information, and additionally another entity (like law enforcement) being provided with information on what part of the vehicle focus on for review based on the transmitted information. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these steps are being performed by a “device”, information is stored in a “database”, images are captured by “cameras”, location information is determined by “GPS”, information that is transmitted is “uploaded”, information is tagged or provided “automatically”, and information is displayed on an “interactive display” and a communication “device”, merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a
tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it."
Specifically here there are no details about how the processing device operates to derive the image information other than it generally being used. A processing device is generally used to apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the processing device operates to derive the image information. The claim omits any details as to how the processing device solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a processing device for making the recited abstract idea step without purporting to improve the technology or computer. Therefore can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link to the field of computers (additionally see USPTO Example 48).
As per claim 18, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of generating a score with weights based on identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 19, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of receiving additional images over time, detecting new unique identifiers, and updating the profile and score based on the unique identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the images are from one or more image capturing sources (like cameras), merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed above.
As per claim 20, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of receiving additional images over time, detecting new unique identifiers, and updating the profile and score based on the unique identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the images are from one or more image capturing sources (like cameras) and information is stored in “databases”, merely result in apply it as detailed above.
As per claim 21, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of using rules (algorithms) to identify changes in images of the temporary and permanent identifiers over time based on images taken over time of the enrolled vehicle, and adjusting scores associated with each of the permanent and unique identifiers and adjusting the score in response to the changes. The additional element that this is being performed by a processor and images are received from a camera merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
Further the fact that the rules (algorithm) is a machine learning algorithm merely results in apply it. Here there are no details about a machine learning algorithm or how the machine learning algorithm operates to derive the information other than it generally being used. The machine learning algorithm is generally used to apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the machine learning algorithm operates to derive the information. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning algorithm solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic machine learning algorithm for making the recited abstract idea step without purporting to improve the technology or computer. Therefore this can additionally be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link to the field of computers (additionally see USPTO Example 48).
As per claim 22, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of the profile is dynamically updated over time in response to unique identifiers of the enrolled vehicle being added, removed, or modified. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 23, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of text and audio inputs of an entity and cross correlated and tagged corresponding to photographic inputs from the entity to another entity, and the score is adjusted based on the tagged information. The additional elements that the entity is a “device” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 24, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of using rules to identity vehicle features unique to the vehicle based on text inputs and audio inputs received from an entity. The additional elements that the entity is a “device” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
Further the fact that the rules (algorithm) is “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” merely results in apply it. Here there are no details about a particular “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” or how the “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” operates to derive the information other than it generally being used. The “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” is generally used to apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” operates to derive the information. The claim omits any details as to how the “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic “video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning” for making the recited abstract idea step without purporting to improve the technology or computer. Therefore can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link to the field of computers (additionally see USPTO Example 48).
As per claim 25, the claims recite human activity steps and mathematical concepts of identifiers of vehicles determined from images of vehicles used to perform a calculation like dent, paint splatter, custom hubcaps. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites “compare, using video processing and image analytics, the live captured images of the vehicle-to-be enrolled, stored in the memory, to the previously recorded images of the base version of the vehicle, stored in the memory, to detect image differences between them; identify based on the detected image differences, unique identifiers of the vehicle to be enrolled… categorize each of the images with a score identifying each of the unique identifiers as being a temporary unique identifier or a permanent unique identifier based on difficulty of modification of the unique identifiers for the make and model of the vehicle to be enrolled, each score being established based on predetermined numerical values within predetermined thresholds assigned to vehicle features of a particular make and model which match the make and model of the currently enrolled vehicle,”
Examiner notes: MPEP 2161.01 Computer Programming, Computer Implemented Inventions, and 35 USC 112 (a) or Pre-AIA 25 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph[R-07 .2022]( cited herein):
I. DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS ADEQUATE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION FOR A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED FUNCTIONAL CLAIM LIMITATION
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The purpose of [the written description requirement] is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification"); LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a) ]"); cf. id. ("A claim will not be invalidated on [§] 112 grounds simply because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language."). While "[t]here is no special rule for supporting a genus by the disclosure of a species," the Federal Circuit has stated that "[w]hether the genus is supported vel non depends upon the state of the art and the nature and breadth of the genus." Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1352, 98 USPQ2d 1711, 1724 (Fed. Cir. 2011); id. (further explaining that "so long as disclosure of the species is sufficient to convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the subject matter of the genus, the genus will be supported by an adequate written description."). See also Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1319-21, 123 USPQ2d 1059, 1061-62 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming the Commission’s findings that "the specification did not provide the necessary written description support for the full breadth of the asserted claims," where the claims were broadly drawn to a "container . . . adapted to hold brewing material" while the specification disclosed only a "pod adapter assembly" or "receptacle" designed to hold a "pod").
Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Id.; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172. The function of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession of the specific subject matter later claimed as of the filing date of the application relied on; how the specification accomplishes this is not material. In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 700-01, 200 USPQ 711, 717 (CCPA 1979), further reiterated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also MPEP §§ 2163 - 2163.04.
The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1170. As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not." Id. at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1170-71; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1730-33 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405-06 (Fed. Cir. 1997)("The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention."). Problems satisfying the written description requirement for original claims often occur when claim language is generic or functional, or both. Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.").
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").
The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733.
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases).
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2162- § 2163.07(b). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function of a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation in a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or the sixth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, "the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention" as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 ]. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 must be made in addition to the written description rejection. See also MPEP § 2181, subsection II.B.2(a).
Applicant's specification discusses inputs of comparing live and previously recorded images (see paragraphs 0024) and discusses outputs of various identified objects or identifiers that are then used to calculate the recoverability score (see
paragraphs 0032-0035), however the specification does not disclose how the invention
gets from the inputs to the outputs or the algorithm to actually perform the claimed function (e.g. the necessary steps). At best the specification discloses a computer (See
paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using "one or more machine learning
algorithms'' (see paragraphs 0022). However, this does not disclose the necessary steps for how the computer (processor) actually detects differences between the previously recorded images and live images to determine unique identifiers, to then categorize the identifiers as unique temporary and permanent identifiers based on the unique identifiers, as claimed. Rather instead Applicant merely recites the
inputs and the output or result.
Further As per claim 1, Applicant recites track changes in the images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers over time by triggering a remote camera based on GPS location of the enrolled vehicle and storing new images taken by the remote camera into the memory for comparison to images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers of the current vehicular profile, and automatically generate an updated vehicular profile without user intervention, by replacing, in response to the comparison, an image of the current vehicular profile with the image taken by the remote camera when the image resolution of the new image is stronger than the image resolution of the current image and deleting the new image from the memory when the image resolution of the new image is lower than the current image.
Applicant's specification discusses inputs of comparing live and previously
recorded images (see paragraphs 0024) and discusses outputs of various identified
objects or identifiers that are then used to calculate the recoverability score (see
paragraphs 0032-0035), however the specification does not disclose how the invention
gets from the inputs to the outputs or the algorithm to actually perform the claimed
function (e.g. the necessary steps). At best the specification discloses a computer (See
paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using "one or more machine learning
algorithms'' (see paragraphs 0022). However this does not disclose the necessary steps for how a computer (processor) actually determines the temporary and unique identifiers (as discussed in the previous 112 a/first above) which are then used to detect differences (track changes) between new images temporary and permanent identifiers and those temporary and permanent identifiers from previous images in the vehicular profile, as claimed. Rather instead Applicant merely recites the inputs and the output or result.
Further Applicant’s specification does not disclose how the computer makes a determination that one resolution is stronger than another image. Applicant’s specification merely discloses if one resolution is lower it can be deleted (see paragraph 0047). However, it does not disclose the algorithm or necessary steps for how this determination is made. For example is it stronger based on it having more identifiers, being of better quality, being of the whole vehicle, being at a certain location, etc. Therefore the specification does not disclose the algorithm or necessary steps for making this determination.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites and wherein the live photo chip images of the potentially stolen vehicle are captured by the law enforcement vehicular camera, each of the live photo chip images being focused on portions of the potentially stolen vehicle which align with images of the previously scored identified temporary and permanent unique identifiers of the enrolled vehicle.
Applicant's specification discusses outputs (e.g. green paint on the back passenger side tire may trigger a focused photo of that tire) (see paragraph 0025), however the specification does not disclose how the invention gets from inputs to these outputs or the algorithm to actually perform the claimed function (e.g. the necessary steps). At best the specification discloses a computer (See paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using "one or more machine learning algorithms'' (see paragraphs 0022). However this does not disclose the necessary steps or necessary steps for how a computer (processor or camera) actually makes the determination of a temporary or permanent identifier (e.g. green paint is on the back passenger side tire) (as additionally detailed in the previous 112 a/first sections above) to the get to the output (e.g. green paint on the back passenger side tire to trigger a focused photo of that tire). Rather instead Applicant merely recites the output or result.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites wherein the match verification includes comparing each of the live photo chips taken by the law enforcement vehicle camera to the stored images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers associated with the enrolled vehicle, wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on the previously stored scores associated with the temporary and permanent unique identifiers.
Applicant's specification discusses inputs (e.g. images) and outputs (e.g. potentially stolen vehicle) (see paragraph 0027), however the specification does not disclose how the invention gets from the inputs to the outputs or the algorithm to actually perform the claimed function (e.g. the necessary steps). At best the specification discloses a computer (See paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using "one or more machine learning algorithms'' (see paragraphs 0022). However this does not disclose the necessary steps or algorithm for how a computer (camera of a law enforcement vehicle) actually is performing the match verification, specifically the specification does not disclose how the computer (or processor) actually detects temporary and unique identifiers from new and previously stored images (see additional 112 first/a rejections above) to the use these to get to the outputs (e.g. match of temporary and unique identifiers). Rather instead Applicant merely recites the inputs and the output or result.
Further it is noted that “wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on the previously stored scores associated with the temporary and permanent unique identifiers” is not found in Applicant’s specification as filed. Applicants specification discusses resolution of images (see paragraphs 0047 and 0049) but does not discuss a processor adjusting a law enforcement camera based on previously stored scores associated with temporary and permanent unique identifiers or how this is done. Therefore the claim limitation lacks the algorithm and/or necessary steps for performing the claimed function.
Lacking the algorithm for the above limitations, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Further claims 5-6, 9-10, 12, and 21-25 that depend off of claim 1 are rejected based on their dependency under claim 1.
Further claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as addressed above with respect to claim 1 and is accordingly rejected along with its dependents 18-20 under the same grounds as above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (preAIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 6, Applicant wherein the processor is further configured to: further
weight the temporary and permanent unique identifiers based on detectability of the
temporary and permanent unique identifiers under predetermined vehicular operating
conditions and contextual environment; and update the recoverability-likelihood score
based on the further weight associated with the vehicular operating conditions and
contextual environments. Examiner again notes MPEP 2161.01 with respect to the
algorithm cited herein in this section above.
Applicant's specification discusses inputs of comparing live and previously
recorded images (see paragraphs 0024) and discusses outputs of various identified objects or identifiers that are then used to calculate the recoverability score where some
are permanent and some are temporary (see paragrapi1s 0032-0035), However the
specification does not disclose how the invention gets from the inputs to the outputs or
the algorithm to actually perform the claimed function (e.g. the necessary steps).
Specifically the specification does not disclose how to determine the different unique
identifiers and how to determine whether those identifiers are temporary or permanent
based on image data by a processor. At best the specification discloses a computer
(See paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using ''one or more machine learning
algorithms" (see paragraphs 0022). However this does not disclose the necessary steps
to detect differences between the previously recorded images and live images to
determine a unique identifier and where the identifier is temporary or permanent based
on image data by a processor, as claimed. Rather instead Applicant merely recites the
inputs and the output or result.
Lacking the algorithm the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C.
112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention.
As per claim 20, Applicant recites detecting changes in previously identified unique identifiers; and updating the vehicular profile and the recoverability-likelihood score based on the detected changes to the previously identified unique identifiers. Examiner again notes MPEP 2161.01 with respect to the algorithm cited herein in this section above.
Applicant's specification discusses inputs of comparing live and previously
recorded images (see paragraphs 0024) and discusses outputs of various identified
objects or identifiers that are then used to calculate the recoverability score (see
paragraphs 0032-0035), however the specification does not disclose how the invention
gets from the inputs to the outputs or the algorithm to actually perform the claimed
function (e.g. the necessary steps). At best the specification discloses a computer (See
paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using "one or more machine learning
algorithms" (see paragraphs 0022). However this does not disclose the necessary steps
to detect differences between the previously recorded images and live images to
determine unique identifiers (as previously discussed above in the 112 first/a rejections), as claimed. Rather instead Applicant merely recites the inputs and the output or result.
Lacking the algorithm the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C.
112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the
inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention.
As per claim 21, Applicant recites wherein the processor of the vehicular profiling database executes a machine learning algorithm to identify changes in images of the temporary and permanent unique identifiers over time based on images input from remote camera sources taken over time of the enrolled vehicle, and the processor adjusting scores associated with each of the permanent and unique identifiers and adjusting the recoverability-likelihood score in response to identified changes.
Applicant's specification discusses inputs of comparing live and previously
recorded images (see paragraphs 0024) and discusses outputs of various identified
objects or identifiers that are then used to calculate the recoverability score (see
paragraphs 0032-0035), however the specification does not disclose how the invention
gets from the inputs to the outputs or the algorithm to actually perform the claimed
function (e.g. the necessary steps), by a processor. At best the specification discloses a computer (See paragraphs 0056-0057) and generally recites using "one or more machine learning algorithms'' (see paragraphs 0022). However this does not disclose the necessary steps for how a computer (processor) identifies changes between new images temporary and permanent identifiers and those temporary and permanent identifiers from previous images, as claimed.
As per claim 24, Applicant recites wherein the processor associated with the vehicular profiling database uses video processing and analytics in conjunction with machine learning to identify vehicular features unique to the vehicle further based on text inputs and audio inputs received from the primary device.
Applicant's specification discusses outputs of video processing and analytics specifically determining a dent, paint splatter, car body or ties, custom hubcaps, etc. (see paragraph 0044). Applicant’s specification does not disclose how a computer (processor) performs this function, e.g. the necessary steps or algorithm. Rather Applicant merely recites the broad category of video processing and analytics (e.g. by a computer), to make this determination from a photograph, rather than the necessary steps or algorithm. Further Applicant’s specification discusses text or audio inputs may be cross correlated with photographic inputs to generate an updated individualized vehicle profile (see paragraph 0025). However, Applicant’s specification does not disclose how the computer performs this function, specifically how the computer takes the inputs and cross correlates them with photographs to determine outputs (in the example in paragraph 0025 of green paint on back passenger side tire). Rather here Applicant merely recites the output, e.g. green paint on back passenger side tire, not the algorithm or necessary steps for how the function is of cross correlated is performed by the computer. Therefore Applicant’s specification does not disclose how a computer (processor) performs this function, e.g. the necessary steps or algorithm.
Further claim 25 that depends off of claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (preAIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-25 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.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites the predetermined numeral values and thresholds being stored in the memory of the vehicular profiling database from previously enrolled vehicles of the same make and model. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the same make and model of the vehicle as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the as follows: the predetermined numeral values and thresholds being stored in the memory of the vehicular profiling database from previously enrolled vehicles of a same make and model.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites when the image resolution of the new image is stronger than the image resolution of the current image. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the current image, as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim.
Further the term “stronger” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stronger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted that stronger is not recited in the specification, better resolution is (see paragraph 0047). However there is no standard as to what is better resolution is here in paragraph 0047 for example is “stronger” better picture quality, including more features, at a specific location, at a specific time, and or some other standard.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on the previously stored scores associated with the temporary and permanent unique identifiers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the same make and model of the vehicle as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the as follows: wherein image resolution of the law enforcement camera is adjusted based on
Further claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 21-25 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1 (it is noted that claims 12 and 14 are improper dependent however the claims have been interpreted as if they depended from claim 1 in the efforts of compact prosecution in this office action). Further independent claim 16 recites substantially the same as above and is rejected along with dependents claims 18-20 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per claim 12, Claim 12 recites it depends off of claim 11. Claim 11 is a cancelled claim, therefore this is improper dependent as the claim does not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
As per claim 22, Claim 22 recites it depends off of claim 22. Therefore this is improper dependent as the claim does not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
If the efforts of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claims 12 and 22 as if they depended from claim 1 in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Receiving additional live captured images, over time, from one or more image capturing sources operationally coupled to the vehicular profiling system (see claim 19)
Receiving additional live captured images, over time, from one or more image capturing sources operationally coupled to the vehicle profiling database (see claim 20)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
From review of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure and equivalents for performing the claimed function:
Paragraph 0023- The video sources which are associated with an agency, such a toll cameras registered to the system, may automatically upload live captures imaged when registered vehicle 114 passes the agency camera. The video sources associated with an enrolled vehicle and operatively coupled to the vehicular profiling system 102 may send updated live captured images of the vehicle 114 over time. For example, cameras associated with automotive dealerships or service shops may upload updated live captured images of vehicle 114 when the vehicle is being serviced.
Paragraph 0027- The remote cameras of the vehicular profiling system 102 may
include, but are not limited to, law enforcement vehicle(s) 130, or other registered vehicle in the system, having in vehicle and/or on-vehicle camera(s), remote surveillance camera(s) 132 associated with surveillance agencies, and/or toll camera(s) 124 associated with transportation agencies that may be affiliated with the vehicle profile system.
Paragraph 0041- The registration service 304 may further include selectable options for remote camera video access from which the user can select. Such remote camera sources may include but are not limited to toll cameras, street light cameras, and parking lot cameras, which are triggered based on tracked GPS location of the vehicle.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wilbert et al. (United States Patent Number: US 9563814) teaches
recovering a vehicle identification number from an image (see abstract)
Wilbert et al. (United States Patent Number: US 9589202) teaches
receiving an insurance quote from an image (see abstract)
c. Wilber et al. (United States Patent Number: US 9594971) teaches
receiving listings of similar vehicles from an image (see abstract)
d. Wilber et al. (United States Patent Number: US 9600733) teaches
receiving car parts from an image (see abstract)
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 KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626