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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-8 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.
Claim 1 recites a limitation of “an identification code including an sub-identification code identical to the identification code” this makes the claim unclear, it is not understood if the sub-identification is same as identification or different, and if there are two different codes given to the same moving object. Recitation of limitation “when the handover unit discriminates that the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area” makes the claim unclear, as handover unit discriminates if the moving object is same, the same and discrimination are opposites therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons because claim 8 recites similar limitations as well.
Dependent claims 3-7 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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 1 and 3-8 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20110111883) in view of Park et al (US Pub. 20150332476), and Nerayoff et al (US Pub. 2014/0218532).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses A computing device for providing [a parking service] (see figure 3) comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a first sensor for monitoring a first handover area and a second sensor for monitoring a second handover area (see figure 3, communication between cameras and master sensor); and
a handover unit coupled to the communication unit, the handover unit configured to obtain a first image from the first sensor, to obtain a second image from the second sensor, to detect an exit of a moving object from the first handover area based on the obtained first image, to detect an entrance of a moving object into the second handover area based on the obtained second image and [to discriminate whether the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area by comparing only the detected entrance of the moving object and the detected exit of the moving object], wherein the second handover area matches with the first handover area, and handover areas are disposed in a longitudinal direction of a road (see page 3 of translation, description for figure 2, wherein …the master sensor 110 searches for candidate target sensors adjacent to sensor 1 (120-1) serving as a serving sensor, and then performs a target of camera handover with sensor 1 (120-1) using information on the monitoring target…; also page 3, …the sensor 2 (120-2) receiving the camera handover instruction message is monitored in the direction in which the monitoring target enters “entering”, and simultaneously monitors the sensor 1 (120-1) and the sensor 2 (120-2) at point B [this is read as exiting A and entering B]...; and see page 2 of translation, description of figure 1, wherein …and is adjacent to the serving sensor for real-time tracking of the monitoring target, and the movement path “road” of the monitoring target… );
[wherein the handover unit determines that a moving object entering the second handover area, that is temporally closest to the moving object that exited from the first handover area, is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area]; and
[wherein a same identification code as an identification code assigned to the moving object in the first handover area or an identification code including an sub-identification code identical to the identification code assigned to the moving object in the first handover area, is assigned to the moving object that entered in the second handover area, when the handover unit discriminates that the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area], as claimed.
However Lee fails to explicitly disclose to discriminate whether the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area by comparing only the detected entrance of the moving object and the detected exit of the moving object;
wherein the handover unit determines that a moving object entering the second handover area, that is temporally closest to the moving object that exited from the first handover area, is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area; and
wherein a same identification code as an identification code assigned to the moving object in the first handover area or an identification code including an sub-identification code identical to the identification code assigned to the moving object in the first handover area, is assigned to the moving object that entered in the second handover area, when the handover unit discriminates that the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area, as claimed.
Park teaches to discriminate whether the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area by comparing only the detected entrance of the moving object and the detected exit of the moving object, (emphasis added, see paragraph 0005, wherein …tracking the object from the image input from the second camera by comparing second feature information of the object generated from an image input from the second camera with the first feature information), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of object tracking using image analysis. Teaching of Park to use comparison to attain the similarity between the objects in two fames can be incorporated in to Lee’s system as suggested (see Lee page 3 of translation, wherein …real-time tracking and monitoring of the monitoring target from point A to point C becomes possible), for suggestion, and modifying the system will yields the predictable results as claimed and a tracking of an object with multiple cameras (see Park paragraph 0002), for motivation.
Nerayoff in tracking vehicles in the parking teaches the handover unit determines that a moving object entering the second handover area, that is temporally closest to the moving object that exited from the first handover area, is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area, (see figure 4, zones 430a and 430b are read as first and second handover areas and they are closest to each other also, the car 410 is moving in these areas, see paragraph 0068 for making sure it’s the same car with an identification); and
wherein a same identification code as an identification code assigned to the moving object in the first handover area or an identification code including an sub-identification code identical to the identification code assigned to the moving object in the first handover area, is assigned to the moving object that entered in the second handover area, when the handover unit discriminates that the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area, (see paragraph 0068, wherein …a temporary unique identifier would be assigned to vehicle 440, …Sets of vehicle characteristics would be determined for vehicle 440 while it made use of destination location 450c, as well as when it passed through overlap areas 430d, 430c, 430b, and 430a, and the correspondence of these sets of characteristics would be performed much in the same manner described above, to determine and record that the same vehicle 440 associated with the temporary identifier…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of object tracking using image analysis. Teaching of Nerayoff uniquely identify the moving object entering and exiting the handover zones can be incorporate in to Lee’s system as suggested (see Lee page 3 of translation, wherein …real-time tracking and monitoring of the monitoring target from point A to point C becomes possible), for suggestion, and modifying the system will yields the predictable results as claimed and a tracking vehicles with a identification code in the parking area (see Nerayoff paragraph 0002), for motivation.
With respect to claim 3, combination of Lee, Park and Nerayoff further discloses wherein information concerning the moving object that exited from the first handover area is inputted to an exit queue, and information concerning the moving object that entered the second handover area is inputted to an entrance queue, and wherein the handover unit discriminates whether the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area by comparing the exit queue with the entrance queue, (see Park paragraphs 0046-0048, wherein …identification information of an object which is present in a view angle of other camera than the first camera is input …the input identification information is compared with the identification information of the object to be tracked to confirm whether the objects are identical to each other… If the identification information is identical, the moved object is present in a view angle of a camera to which the identical identification information is input so that the object is tracked by handing over from the first camera), as claimed.
With respect to claim 4, combination of Lee, Park and Nerayoff further discloses wherein the handover unit compensates for a misalignment of the first handover area and the second handover areas by analyzing a road depicted in the first and second images, and determines whether the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area, (see Park paragraphs 0046-0048, wherein …identification information of an object which is present in a view angle of other camera than the first camera is input …the input identification information is compared with the identification information of the object to be tracked to confirm whether the objects are identical to each other… If the identification information is identical, the moved object is present in a view angle of a camera to which the identical identification information is input so that the object is tracked by handing over from the first camera; also see Lee Abstract wherein …a sensing range between sensors corresponding to a moving path of a monitoring target is overlapped “a misalignment of the first handover area and the second handover areas by analyzing a road depicted in the first and second images”, thereby allowing neighboring sensors to simultaneously monitor the monitoring target…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, combination of Lee, Park and Nerayoff further discloses wherein a plurality of moving objects enter the second handover area, one of which is the moving object that exited the first handover area, (see Nerayoff figure 4, moving object 410 is exiting and entering zones 430a to 430b); and
the handover unit detects the moving object that exited the first handover area from the plurality of moving objects by using information including kind or number of the moving objects and assigns the same identification code as an identification code assigned to the moving object that exited the first handover area to the detected moving object, (see Nerayoff paragraph 0068, wherein …(see paragraph 0068, wherein …a temporary unique identifier would be assigned to vehicle 440, …Sets of vehicle characteristics would be determined for vehicle 440 while it made use of destination location 450c, as well as when it passed through overlap areas 430d, 430c, 430b, and 430a, and the correspondence of these sets of characteristics would be performed much in the same manner described above, to determine and record that the same vehicle 440 associated with the temporary identifier…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, combination of Lee, Park and Nerayoff further discloses wherein the handover unit expands the first handover area or the second handover area when a speed of the moving object moving through the first handover area or the second handover area exceeds preset speed, and determines whether the moving object that entered the second handover area is the same moving object as the moving object that exited from the first handover area based on the expanded handover area, (see Lee page 3 of translation, description of figure 2, wherein …the information on the monitoring target may be information such as a traveling speed of the vehicle…; and Park paragraphs 0046-0048, wherein …identification information of an object which is present in a view angle of other camera than the first camera is input …the input identification information is compared with the identification information of the object to be tracked to confirm whether the objects are identical to each other… If the identification information is identical, the moved object is present in a view angle of a camera to which the identical identification information is input so that the object is tracked by handing over from the first camera), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, combination of Lee, Park and Nerayoff further discloses an identification code unit configured to assign an identification code to the moving object, wherein the handover unit sequentially receives information from a series of handover areas, including a 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 handover area, and corresponding 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 handover area, assigns an identification code to a moving object that enters the 1-3 handover area by comparing a moving object that exited the 2-1 handover area and the moving object that entered the 1-3 handover area, and wherein the identification code is assigned even if the identity of an object in the 1-2 handover area and the corresponding 2-2 handover area could not be determined, (see Lee paragraphs 0046-0050 and figure 2, also “wherein the identification code is assigned even if the identity of an object in the 1-2 handover area and the corresponding 2-2 handover area could not be determined” this means that all the moving objects are assigned the identification code that is disclose in Park paragraphs 0046-0048, wherein …identification information of an object which is present in a view angle of other camera than the first camera is input …the input identification information is compared with the identification information of the object to be tracked to confirm whether the objects are identical to each other… If the identification information is identical, the moved object is present in a view angle of a camera to which the identical identification information is input so that the object is tracked by handing over from the first camera), as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 1, 3-7 as claim 8 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in various combination of claims 1, 3-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663