DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 27-54 of U.S. Application No. 18/319210 filed on 03/02/2026 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's remarks filed 08/20/2026. Claims 1-26 are cancelled. Claims 27-54 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the 101 rejection is improper. Applicant further argues on page. 2-7 of the Remarks, “In Applicant's response to the previous office action, pages 12 to 17, Applicant provided three main arguments for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101: 1. the claims recite an improvement that integrates the exception into a practical application; 2. the claims contain an inventive concept under step 2B, evidenced by the improvement and the unconventional arrangement of components; and 3. several claims contain particular machinery that cannot be performed in the human mind, namely, a global positioning system (GPS) unit. A claim reciting a GPS receiver is the first example used by the MPEP to illustrate the concept that claims that cannot be performed in the human mind are eligible. None of these arguments have been meaningfully addressed or rebutted in the office action. Neither the section "Response to Arguments" nor the section "Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101" challenge the argued improvement, the argued inventive concept, or the particular machinery argument. Only conclusory statements are presented alleging that the judicial exception is merely applied on a generic computer… Applicant provides below three further arguments and respectfully requests, in addition to reasons addressing the arguments mentioned above, reasons meaningfully addressing the arguments presented below. The first argument challenges the finding of a mental process under step 2A prong one. The second argument is that the conditions and considerations of the MPEP with regards to the "mere instructions to apply" consideration actually weigh in favor of eligibility. The third argument challenges Examiner's assertion of insignificant extra-solution activity… Examiner has not identified the abstract idea to which the claims are allegedly directed. Examiner has merely stated that certain limitations are generic computer elements and that other limitations are steps capable of being performed in the human mind. Merely isolating some limitations of a claim and alleging them as performable in the human mind is not the same as identifying a judicial exception to which the claim is directed to. As a reminder, an examiner must do more than allege that the claim involves a judicial exception; to be patent ineligible, a claim must be directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106…Mere instructions to apply The central thrust of Examiner's rejection is that the claim is directed to a judicial exception which is merely applied on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f) discusses Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. It is a concept used by the courts to prevent an applicant from obtaining an invention to an ineligible idea merely by applying the ineligible idea on a generic computer… Further, MPEP § 2106.05(f) directs examiners to consider three factors when determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it." All three weigh in favor of eligibility here: 1. Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished…. 2. Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process….3. The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception… Applicant respectfully submits that Examiner has misinterpreted the guidance of the MPEP. Insignificant extra-solution activity is a consideration that prevents applicants from adding limitations to clearly ineligible claims in order to ground them into eligibility. The key aspect of such limitations is that they need to be pre or post-solution activity, that is, insignificant to the main invention. For example, a claim to the natural law of the relationship between certain metabolites and the presence of a disease would be ineligible. Further, a claim directed to that relationship, with an extra limitation of measuring a patient's metabolites or administering a drug in response to it would be considered ineligible, since the claim is still directed to the ineligible law. The measuring or administering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity. The ineligible law isn't changed or affected by the measuring or administering steps. Per the MPEP: "The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." Receiving parking data is not incidental to the process. In order to perform parking enforcement, a system must process data about parked vehicles. The obtaining of parking data from one enforcement device and then making it available to another is an important feature for the claim, allowing data from one enforcement device to be used by other devices to improve the system. Similarly, determining a parking violation is not an optional part of the claim. Claim 1 is, after all, a "parking enforcement system". If the claim recited, e.g., printing or outputting an overtime parking violation, this would fall closer to insignificant extra-solution activity. However, the ability to determine the existence of the parking violation is not incidental to a parking enforcement system.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the application recites a mental process which is a Judicial Exception. The claims as a whole were interpreted and concluded to recite a mental process that is actually able to be performed in the human mind. As a whole the claims recite a method for parking enforcement that is able to generate a first parking event for a vehicle. Then retrieve a past parking event regarding the nearby vehicle to see if the current parking event and the past parking event match. If the data matches and based on the comparison of the current parking event and the past parking event the patrol officer determines a violation and outputs a parking ticket. The process repeats for a second parking event that can utilize the data from the original parking event that was recorded and/or the parking event data that was in the database from another mobile parking enforcement device. The hardware regarding the wireless interface, remote parking enforcement server, computerized database, a processor and memory are all additional elements that are used to initiate instructions of receiving data and sending data. Any person is able to sit on a bench next to a meter and determine a vehicle first parking at a meter and inputting money towards the meter. The person then takes note of the vehicle and license plate and other data such as make, model and color and the time and location of this parking event and can further dictate how long a vehicle was set to park at a meter. Then the user can come back after a set time and take new data of a parked vehicle at a meter. The user then checks the previous log of data and compare if they are same vehicle based on just a license plate (portion of the rest of the data) and conclude the parked vehicle has parked past the allotted time for it. The user then generates a violation and issues the violation to the vehicle in question. The process can repeat again for the same vehicle to see if the new data of seeing that same car again is in violation by checking the previous logged data again, or the data prior to that and so on. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in light of the specification and further showed a mental process being performed in the mind. The hardware in the claims was concluded to be additional elements considering the mental process did not require any of the hardware to carry out the mental process. The hardware consists of networks interfaces, processors, computers and parking enforcement devices, to carry out instructions initiated by the person to reach the same conclusion. Further, per the MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception, the courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Examiner interprets that the parking hardware including the network interface, processors, parking acquisition hardware, server and memory, and GPS receiver, are applying instructions in order to reach the end result of detecting a parking violation. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) after the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner has interpreted claims in light of the specification and found that all the hardware are additional elements with introduced to perform mere instructions. The parking server, the computerized database are interpreted to be storage for a user to search for previous data, the plurality of first and second mobile parking enforcement devices, do not do more than simply instruct the user to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as recited do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine, (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The mere fact the server is remote from the location of the mobile parking enforcement devices, builds a shared database, and triggers a search of that database simultaneously, does not change the fact it is still a generic computer including instructions to implement an abstract idea. Further the server is a computer that is known for storing data in general. The fact the claim mentions that the parking data is stored and is compared against other previous data is not meaningful to the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that data that is sent to the server is stored and when needed, the device reaches out to the server to retrieve and compare the previously stored information. Therefore, the abstract idea being performed on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Further Per the MPEP 2106.05(g) based on the examples given by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as: “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions”, “Consulting and updating an activity log” and other examples. These examples are court decisions that were considered mere data gathering and further outputting the result which is similar to what the claim set describes. The claim set describes a device that receives parking event data at different times from different devices into one database, and checks at another point in time, the same data for a parking violation. The application appears to have a generic computers for mere data gathering with insignificant extra solution activity with the end result being an output of a parking violation. Lastly, Applicant attempted to point out that Examiner did not address the "improvement" and "particular machinery arguments" in the previous responses and does point out the abstract idea. The responses Examiner provided in the previous actions are similar to this response, that the additional elements mentioned in the claims are generic and not considered particular machinery and that using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) after the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (meaning an improvement) (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)). The abstract idea being, generating a parking violation event for a parked vehicle. Further Applicant points out that the Examiner has not provided evidence as to why the functionality of the processors, devices, and memories are generic, however Examiner has explained throughout the previous actions, that the hardware recited is generic because they perform instructions of receiving, sending, and determining, there is no meaningful steps in the claims that necessitate the devices to be anything other than generic. As a whole, the arguments have been meaningfully addressed and rebutted in this action and previous actions. As recited above, the claims as recited do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine, (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims can be performed in the human mind, by two different people along a single street taking notes of cars that are parked, when they parked and how long they are authorized to park, and what the time limit is for them to be in violation. Further the two people can compare their records of parked cars to see if there are any violations based on how long certain vehicles have been parked on a street or parking lot. The claims are not integrated into a practical application, nor do the claims as recited offer improvement. Therefore, the previous 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations “a wireless interface to obtain, from the remote parking enforcement server, a set of at least one extraneous past parking event taken from the first parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device; determining a parking violation by searching the set of at least one extraneous past parking event by comparing the current parking event to individual extraneous past parking events in the set of at least one extraneous past parking event to identify amongst the at least one extraneous past parking event of the set a violation parking event for which the vehicle license plate of the violation parking event matches the current vehicle license plate and for which the additional current parking parameter and the additional parameter of the violation parking event indicates a violation of a regulation;”. Applicant further argues on pages. 9-10 pf the Remarks, “Importantly, in Kielland, the computers do not communicate with each other, and communication with the central server is limited to data upload at the end of a route. Kielland does not teach a computer that receives parking data from a central server (or from any other parking enforcement vehicle or device). Nor does Kielland teach the parking enforcement device determining a parking violation based on parking data collected by the device and by another device. Examiner cites Kielland, col. 23 lines 55-65 as teaching claim 1 's "a wireless interface to obtain ... " limitation. However, this passage merely explains how processing data collected by multiple public transit vehicles (outfitted with computers) can be processed to determine overtime violations at smaller intervals (more frequent passing of transit vehicles means smaller intervals between observations of a same parking spot). However, this passage does not teach that any of the transit vehicles have a wireless interface capable of receiving, from a server, parking data collected by a different computer. Examiner cites Kielland col. 16 lines 1-65 as teaching claim 1 's 'determining a parking violation ... " limitation. This passage explains how Kiel land's computer determines some parking violations. However, it is important to note that the computer and parking database in this embodiment are entirely local (see Fig. 1, or col 23 line 15 to 19: "The embodiments described above typically maintain the observed Epoch-IDs in a database that resides on-board each mobile patrol vehicle (i.e. the data link 56 extends no further than the local communication bus 120 and a local mass storage device in the computer 101 )."). The computer essentially takes note of vehicles it passes and determines an overtime violation based on those notes (see col 6 line 64 to col 7 line 30). It does not involve receiving parking data collected by a different computer. The only described databases that are externally accessed by 56 are wanted list police databases or payment databases.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Kielland is incorporated to disclose a parking enforcement system that is utilized by a parking enforcement officer to detect parking violations of parked vehicles. Kielland further discloses a parking patrol vehicle that contains an on-board computer that is connected with a video camera to receive information of parked vehicles. Further Kielland discloses that a plurality of patrol vehicles are able to survey a route that contains parked vehicles and are able to concatenate all of the epoch IDS of the parked cars into a central database and makes it easier for the rest of the patrol vehicles to detect potential violations (see at least Kielland, col. 23 lines 55-65). Considering that all the data is pooled into the central database, the patrol vehicles have access to the database to compare their current data with past Epoch IDS which take data of the parked vehicles, that includes license plates information, time data, and location data of the parked vehicle. In regards to the “public transit vehicles” detecting information, is merely exemplary, and not limiting in anyway. Further considering that Kielland discloses a plurality of patrol vehicles detecting information of parked vehicles and uploading to a central database, the information is accessible to all patrol vehicles on the same route (see at least Kielland, col. 13, col. 15-16, col. 18, etc.,). Kielland discloses the idea of patrol vehicles uploading information of different vehicles at different times, and other patrol vehicles driving the same route and detecting current information and comparing with the previous information that was captured by itself, and/or other patrol vehicles to conclude a parking violation. Kielland discloses a central database that is utilized by patrol vehicles to send information to the database (see at least Kielland, col. 20 lines 29-35 & col. 23 lines 25-40). In view of the arguments above, the 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations “generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation; transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with the violation parking event to the parking enforcement server; and obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from the parking enforcement server”. Applicant further argues on pages. 10-11 of the Remarks, “ Second, Marchasin does not teach the limitation it is cited for. Claim 33 requires "generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation," where the processor is the processor of the second mobile parking enforcement device as recited by claim 27. The passage relied on states that "if it is determined that there is a violation based on the privilege analysis (see step S7) or, as described above, no valid tag is associated with the parked vehicle (see step S5), a determination is made as to the appropriate enforcement action to be taken." Marchasin, paragraph [0080]. That step follows a determination that a violation exists; it selects an enforcement action rather than generating a tentative violation event to be confirmed. Marchasin further teaches that the analysis producing that determination is performed centrally: "the privilege analysis is performed by the PermitView System 1," which then "sends the results of the privilege analysis to the Reader 8." Marchasin, paragraph [0081]. Marchasin thus locates the determination at the system rather than at the processor of a mobile device, which is the opposite of the arrangement recited by claims 33 and 47.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Marchasin is incorporated to teach the idea of utilizing a reader to detect a violation of a parked vehicle. Marchasin further teaches that the reader is able receive parking data that includes additional parking parameters such as make, model, year, location, date, time, and other information that the parking enforcement office can input. Further once this information is input to the reader sends the current information to be compared by the system on the reader, to detect if there is a potential violation (see at least Marchasin, para. [0073-0077]). Once the information comes back, the reader displays the potential violation to the parking enforcement office who can take action as to what enforcement action is needed (see at least Marchasin, para. [0081]). Further, the parking enforcement officer is able to request and receive parking privilege data in regards to the vehicle and permit holder data, and determine why the violation was given (see at least Marchasin, para. [0077-0078]). In view of the arguments above the 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations “wherein the second mobile parking enforcement device comprises a user interface for providing data to and obtaining input from a user, the user interface to provide at least a portion of the context information to the user and to obtain confirmation that the tentative violation event is a parking violation from the user, wherein the processor being operable to execute the program instructions for determining the parking violation is based at least in part on the confirmation.”. Applicant further argues on pages. 11 of the Remarks, “ The Kielland passages relied on describe an officer visually verifying that two images portray the same vehicle and that the plate-strings are identical, and then reading and entering the license plate characters. That is verification of vehicle identity and of the LPR output, not confirmation of a tentative violation event generated from a comparison against context data obtained from a server. Without the tentative violation event and the context data, the recited confirmation step is not taught..”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Kielland discloses that the when a parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer displays the stored images of the current and past data and the officer verifies that the information portrays the same vehicle with the information (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65). Further the officer is looking at the computer that displays the information, that includes time, and location of the vehicle and an image of the parked vehicle. Once the officer verifies the information and enters the data, the officer prints and serves the citation (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65). In view of the arguments above the 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations “wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event.”. Applicant further argues on pages. 11-12 of the Remarks, “ (Chauvin, paragraph [0055]) - and no selection of records is made on the basis of transmission time. Nor does Chauvin involve parking events generated by a mobile parking enforcement device, a remote parking enforcement server, or the selection of a set of past parking events to be sent to a second mobile device. Because Chauvin's disclosure of how long a transmission takes is not a teaching that a set of past parking events is selected based on a transmission time, the combination does not supply the limitation of claims 30 and 44, and the stated reason for combining - improved data collection for single space electronic parking meters - does not bear on the recited selection. Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 30 and 44 is respectfully requested.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Chauvin is incorporated to teach the idea of transmitting information based on transmission time, and considering that there is not a lot information and the transmission time is low, the information is transmitted. This teaches the idea of the information that is transmitted is based on the type of data and the time it takes to transmit. In view of the arguments above the 103 rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 27-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 27 & 41 recite generating first parking events, each first parking event pertaining to a respective parking instance of a parked vehicle observed, comprising first parking data including at least a vehicle license plate of the parked vehicle and one additional parking parameter observed, obtain a set of at least one extraneous past parking event taken from the first parking events generated, obtain therefrom second parking data pertaining to parked vehicles observed, the second parking data comprising current parking data pertaining to a current parking instance of a nearby parked vehicle and including at least a current vehicle license plate of the nearby parked vehicle and one additional current parking parameter observed, generating a current parking event pertaining to the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle using the current parking data, determining a parking violation by searching the set of at least one extraneous past parking event by comparing the current parking event to individual extraneous past parking events in the set of at least one extraneous past parking event to identify amongst the at least one extraneous past parking event of the set a violation parking event for which the vehicle license plate of the violation parking event matches the current vehicle license plate and for which the additional current parking parameter and the additional parameter of the violation parking event indicates a violation of a regulation, generating a violation event for the nearby parked vehicle and storing the violation event, as drafted, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. For example, but for the “A distributed mobile parking enforcement system including a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices movable to be brought to locations where vehicles are parked to monitor and/or enforce parking regulations, at least one first mobile parking enforcement device, storage in a remote parking enforcement server, a second mobile parking enforcement device separate from the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device, a wireless interface to obtain, from the remote parking enforcement server, a data interface communicatively couplable with parking data acquisition hardware, computer-readable memory storing program instructions; and a processor in communication with the wireless interface, the data interface, and the computer-readable memory. the processor being operable to execute the program instructions for, the computer-readable memory,” language, “generating first parking events, each first parking event pertaining to a respective parking instance of a parked vehicle observed, comprising first parking data including at least a vehicle license plate of the parked vehicle and one additional parking parameter observed, obtain a set of at least one extraneous past parking event taken from the first parking events generated, obtain therefrom second parking data pertaining to parked vehicles observed, the second parking data comprising current parking data pertaining to a current parking instance of a nearby parked vehicle and including at least a current vehicle license plate of the nearby parked vehicle and one additional current parking parameter observed, generating a current parking event pertaining to the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle using the current parking data, determining a parking violation by searching the set of at least one extraneous past parking event by comparing the current parking event to individual extraneous past parking events in the set of at least one extraneous past parking event to identify amongst the at least one extraneous past parking event of the set a violation parking event for which the vehicle license plate of the violation parking event matches the current vehicle license plate and for which the additional current parking parameter and the additional parameter of the violation parking event indicates a violation of a regulation, generating a violation event for the nearby parked vehicle and storing the violation event” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a parked vehicle and comparing the information to past information to determine if it in violation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using “an estimation portion; an image generation portion which generates an image around the present vehicle including a graphic;”. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a parking violation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “A distributed mobile parking enforcement system including a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices movable to be brought to locations where vehicles are parked to monitor and/or enforce parking regulations, at least one first mobile parking enforcement device, storage in a remote parking enforcement server, a second mobile parking enforcement device separate from the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device, a wireless interface to obtain, from the remote parking enforcement server, a data interface communicatively couplable with parking data acquisition hardware, computer-readable memory storing program instructions; and a processor in communication with the wireless interface, the data interface, and the computer-readable memory. the processor being operable to execute the program instructions for, the computer-readable memory,”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 28-40 & 42-54 is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of these claim encompasses the user utilizing additional elements to help calculate and store information regarding the parking violations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a parking violation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-29, 31-32, 36-43, 45-46, & 49-54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6081206 (“Kielland”).
As per claim 27 Kielland discloses
A distributed mobile parking enforcement system including a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices movable to be brought to locations where vehicles are parked to monitor and/or enforce parking regulations (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible.), the system comprising:
at least one first mobile parking enforcement device generating first parking events, each first parking event pertaining to a respective parking instance of a parked vehicle observed by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device and comprising first parking data including at least a vehicle license plate of the parked vehicle and one additional parking parameter observed by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device about the parking instance of the parked vehicle and transmitting the first parking events for storage in a remote parking enforcement server (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 10-25: In preferred embodiments described below, a data link 56 enables the transfer of information to and from various external databases maintained by various judicial and/ or financial institutions. The link to data may a real time communications link to data Stored at a remote Site, a real-time link over the local communication bus 120 to data stored on-board the patrol vehicle 50 or a post-mission link to data Stored at a remote Site…FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible. & col. 12 lines 21-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Sub system 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle’s Epoch-ID.); and
a second mobile parking enforcement device separate from the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. col. 23 lines 34-41:Therefore, in a preferred embodiment (not illustrated), each patrol vehicle contributes all of its observed Epoch-IDs to a remote database (by means of either a real-time or post-mission link 56). No attempt is made to serve printed citations on Over-parked vehicles therefore no real-time data analysis is required. Data from all patrol vehicles is simply accumulated into a Single database for a considerable length of time (typically a full working day).), comprising:
a wireless interface to obtain, from the remote parking enforcement server, a set of at least one extraneous past parking event taken from the first parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.);
a data interface communicatively couplable with parking data acquisition hardware to obtain therefrom second parking data pertaining to parked vehicles observed by the parking data acquisition hardware, the second parking data comprising current parking data pertaining to a current parking instance of a nearby parked vehicle and including at least a current vehicle license plate of the nearby parked vehicle and one additional current parking parameter observed by the second mobile parking enforcement device about the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle (see at least Kielland, col. 12 lines 20-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Subsystem 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle's “Epoch-ID”. col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.);
computer-readable memory storing program instructions; and a processor in communication with the wireless interface, the data interface, and the computer-readable memory. the processor being operable to execute the program instructions for (see at least Kielland, col. 8 lines 15-25: FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer system 100 in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. Computer system 100 includes a host computer 101. Host computer 101 includes a CPU 102, a memory 103, a communication bus 120, a display device 130 (e.g., a computer monitor), and input/output devices Such as a keyboard 131 and printer 132. Memory 103 may include device drivers 110 and operational software modules. License Plate Recognition Software 111, vehicle navigation Software 112 and database Software 113 are described in detail below.):
generating a current parking event pertaining to the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle using the current parking data (see at least Kielland, col. 15 lines 54-65: In a preferred embodiment, the patrol vehicle is driven past a row of parked cars 500 and the plate-string visible in each Successively captured raster image 501 is extracted using Full Recognition Mode LPR 503. Each plate-string 503 is geo-referenced 504 and time-stamped 502. The observed plate-String, its time of observation and its location of observation are concatenated into an Epoch-ID record 505 that is Suitably formatted for Storage in the System's data base 113. The reliability indicators described above are also concatenated into the Epoch-ID (not illustrated). To assure the privacy of citizens (described below) the data is typically encrypted 506 before being stored in the database 507.);
determining a parking violation by searching the set of at least one extraneous past parking event by comparing the current parking event to individual extraneous past parking events in the set of at least one extraneous past parking event to identify amongst the at least one extraneous past parking event of the set a violation parking event for which the vehicle license plate of the violation parking event matches the current vehicle license plate and for which the additional current parking parameter and the additional parameter of the violation parking event indicates a violation of a regulation (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: AS Soon as each Epoch-ID has been entered into the database, the computer Searches to see if the same plate string has been observed previously by the system 508. If no matching vehicle identifier is found 509, then the algorithm reverts to waiting for the next parked car to be encountered 500. If a previous instance of the plate-String is found in the database of Epoch-IDs 509, then the vehicle's previous position coordinates are compared to its current position coordinates 510… When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.); and
generating a violation event for the nearby parked vehicle and storing the violation event in the computer-readable memory (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.).
As per claim 28 Kielland discloses
wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions for determining a particular geographic location of the second mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 15 lines 20-45: The present invention can use an “off the Shelf positioning System to provide geo-referencing information for each Epoch-ID. Satellite systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are the preferred sub system….The geographic coordinates observed by the positioning sub-system define the position of the patrol vehicle rather than that of the (nearby) parked cars under Surveillance. The parking violation detection algorithm described below assumes that the coordinates logged in the Epoch-ID describes the position of each parked car. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the distance observed from the patrol vehicle to each parked vehicle (measured by the range finder) and the known geometry between the location of the camera, the range finder and the positioning System's antenna, is used to compute the geographic coordinates of each parked car's license plate. The estimated position of each license plate (and its estimated uncertainty) is then stored in the parked vehicle's Epoch-ID.),
wherein the wireless interface is to transmit an indication of the particular geographic location to the remote parking enforcement server, and wherein the set of at least one extraneous past event obtained at the wireless interface is selected based on the particular geographic location of the second mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 18 lines 20-52: To address this speed limitation, a preferred embodiment of the present invention utilizes the information available from the positioning Sub-System 53 to accelerate the Search for matching vehicle identifiers. AS each new Epoch-ID is observed 505, instead of searching through thousands of records in the database for a matching vehicle identifier, the database first searches to find those few Epoch-IDS that are positioned a short distance from the current Epoch-ID. Conducting a preliminary “nearest neighbor” search of the database is much faster than trying to find a matching plate-model 520. By localizing the Search to only those few vehicles that might conceivably be the same (over-parked) vehicle, extra processing time becomes available for carrying out more Sophisticated LPR analysis. The distance criterions used to Search for “nearest neighbor' Epoch-IDs will typically be the same distance criterion used by the violation detection algorithm to test if a vehicle has moved “appreciably” between observations (described above). The nearest neighbor distance criterion may therefore be comprised of a distance to compensate for instrumental noise in the positioning System as well as a regulated distance imposed to force motorists to completely vacate the vicinity after legally occupying a parking spot. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the database Search 519 also comprises a preliminary nearest neighbor Search to find Epoch-IDs located a short distance away from the patrol vehicle's current geographic location. The few Epoch-IDS found by this preliminary Search are then Searched to See if there are any matching plate-models. If a plate-match is found, then the rest of the data processing proceeds as illustrated in FIG. 6.).
As per claim 29 Kielland discloses
wherein the data interface is communicatively couplable to a global position system (GPS) unit to obtain therefrom the particular geographic location of the second mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 15 lines 20-45: The present invention can use an “off the Shelf positioning System to provide geo-referencing information for each Epoch-ID. Satellite systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are the preferred sub system….The geographic coordinates observed by the positioning sub-system define the position of the patrol vehicle rather than that of the (nearby) parked cars under Surveillance. The parking violation detection algorithm described below assumes that the coordinates logged in the Epoch-ID describes the position of each parked car. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the distance observed from the patrol vehicle to each parked vehicle (measured by the range finder) and the known geometry between the location of the camera, the range finder and the positioning System's antenna, is used to compute the geographic coordinates of each parked car's license plate. The estimated position of each license plate (and its estimated uncertainty) is then stored in the parked vehicle's Epoch-ID.).
As per claim 31 Kielland discloses
wherein the wireless interface is to transmit at least a portion of the violation event to the remote parking enforcement server (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 32 Kielland discloses
wherein the computer readable memory comprises a database of parking events, wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions for storing the current parking event in the database (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 36 Kielland discloses
the second mobile parking device being movable to be brought nearby one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible.), wherein:
the data interface is to obtain from the parking data acquisition hardware subsequent current parking data pertaining to subsequent parking instances of the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles, the subsequent current parking data including at least a subsequent current vehicle license plate for the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles and one subsequent additional current parking parameter observed by the second mobile parking enforcement device about the subsequent parking instances of the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles (see at least Kielland, col. 12 lines 20-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Subsystem 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle's “Epoch-ID”. col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.); and
the processor is to execute the program instructions for generating one or more subsequent current parking events for the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles using the subsequent current parking data (see at least Kielland, col. 12 lines 20-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Subsystem 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle's “Epoch-ID”. col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.).
As per claim 37 Kielland discloses
wherein determining the parking violation comprises searching the one or more subsequent current parking events by comparing the current parking event to individual subsequent current parking events (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: AS Soon as each Epoch-ID has been entered into the database, the computer Searches to see if the same plate string has been observed previously by the system 508. If no matching vehicle identifier is found 509, then the algorithm reverts to waiting for the next parked car to be encountered 500. If a previous instance of the plate-String is found in the database of Epoch-IDs 509, then the vehicle's previous position coordinates are compared to its current position coordinates 510… When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.).
As per claim 38 Kielland discloses
wherein the wireless interface is to transmit, to the remote parking enforcement server, part or all of the subsequent current parking events database (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 39 Kielland discloses
wherein the wireless interface is to transmit at least a portion of the current parking event generated by the processing device to the remote parking enforcement device database (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 40 Kielland discloses
wherein the second mobile parking enforcement device comprises a user interface for providing data to and obtaining input from a user database (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: In a preferred embodiment, when the parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer 101 displays the two Stored images of the parked vehicle on the display monitor 130. The Officer then verifies that the two images appear to portray the same vehicle. The Officer also visually verifies that the two plate-Strings are identical to the plate-String recognized by LPR analysis 515..), wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions for:
causing the user interface to display image data associated with the current parking event and the violation parking event (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: In a preferred embodiment, when the parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer 101 displays the two Stored images of the parked vehicle on the display monitor 130. The Officer then verifies that the two images appear to portray the same vehicle. The Officer also visually verifies that the two plate-Strings are identical to the plate-String recognized by LPR analysis 515..);
obtaining, via the user interface, user input indicative of a confirmation of a match in the image data (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.);
wherein determining the parking violation is based at least in part on the confirmation (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.).
As per claim 41 Kielland discloses
A method for performing parking enforcement using a distributed mobile parking enforcement system including a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices movable to be brought to locations where vehicles are parked to monitor and/or enforce parking regulations (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible.), the method comprising:
generating, using at least one first mobile parking enforcement device, first parking events, each first parking event pertaining to a respective parking instance of a parked vehicle observed by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device and comprising first parking data including at least a vehicle license plate of the parked vehicle and one additional parking parameter observed by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device about the parking instance of the parked vehicle and transmitting the first parking events for storage in a remote parking enforcement server (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 10-25: In preferred embodiments described below, a data link 56 enables the transfer of information to and from various external databases maintained by various judicial and/ or financial institutions. The link to data may a real time communications link to data Stored at a remote Site, a real-time link over the local communication bus 120 to data stored on-board the patrol vehicle 50 or a post-mission link to data Stored at a remote Site…FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible. & col. 12 lines 21-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Sub system 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle’s Epoch-ID.); and
obtaining, at a wireless interface of a second mobile parking enforcement device separate from the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. col. 23 lines 34-41:Therefore, in a preferred embodiment (not illustrated), each patrol vehicle contributes all of its observed Epoch-IDs to a remote database (by means of either a real-time or post-mission link 56). No attempt is made to serve printed citations on Over-parked vehicles therefore no real-time data analysis is required. Data from all patrol vehicles is simply accumulated into a Single database for a considerable length of time (typically a full working day).),
a set of at least one extraneous past parking event taken from the first parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.);;
obtaining, at a data interface of the second mobile parking enforcement device, second parking data from parking data acquisition hardware communicatively couplable to the data interface, the second parking data pertaining to parked vehicles observed by the parking data acquisition hardware and comprising current parking data pertaining to a current parking instance of a nearby parked vehicle and including at least a current vehicle license plate for the nearby parked vehicle and one additional current parking parameter observed by the second mobile parking enforcement device about the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle (see at least Kielland, col. 12 lines 20-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Subsystem 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle's “Epoch-ID”. col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.);
generating a current parking event for the nearby parked vehicle using the current parking data (see at least Kielland, col. 15 lines 54-65: In a preferred embodiment, the patrol vehicle is driven past a row of parked cars 500 and the plate-string visible in each Successively captured raster image 501 is extracted using Full Recognition Mode LPR 503. Each plate-string 503 is geo-referenced 504 and time-stamped 502. The observed plate-String, its time of observation and its location of observation are concatenated into an Epoch-ID record 505 that is Suitably formatted for Storage in the System's data base 113. The reliability indicators described above are also concatenated into the Epoch-ID (not illustrated). To assure the privacy of citizens (described below) the data is typically encrypted 506 before being stored in the database 507.);
determining a parking violation by searching the set of at least one extraneous past parking event by comparing the current parking event to individual extraneous past parking events in the set of at least one extraneous past parking event to identify amongst the at least one extraneous past parking event of the set a violation parking event for which a vehicle license plate of the violation parking event matches the current vehicle license plate and for which the additional current parking parameter and an additional parameter of the violation parking event indicates a violation of a rule (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: AS Soon as each Epoch-ID has been entered into the database, the computer Searches to see if the same plate string has been observed previously by the system 508. If no matching vehicle identifier is found 509, then the algorithm reverts to waiting for the next parked car to be encountered 500. If a previous instance of the plate-String is found in the database of Epoch-IDs 509, then the vehicle's previous position coordinates are compared to its current position coordinates 510… When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.); and
generating a violation event for the nearby parked vehicle and storing the violation event in a computer-readable memory (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.).
As per claim 42 Kielland discloses
comprising: determining a particular geographic location of the second mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 15 lines 20-45: The present invention can use an “off the Shelf positioning System to provide geo-referencing information for each Epoch-ID. Satellite systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are the preferred sub system….The geographic coordinates observed by the positioning sub-system define the position of the patrol vehicle rather than that of the (nearby) parked cars under Surveillance. The parking violation detection algorithm described below assumes that the coordinates logged in the Epoch-ID describes the position of each parked car. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the distance observed from the patrol vehicle to each parked vehicle (measured by the range finder) and the known geometry between the location of the camera, the range finder and the positioning System's antenna, is used to compute the geographic coordinates of each parked car's license plate. The estimated position of each license plate (and its estimated uncertainty) is then stored in the parked vehicle's Epoch-ID.),
transmitting, by the wireless interface, an indication of the particular geographic location to the remote parking enforcement server; wherein the set of at least one extraneous past event obtained at the wireless interface is selected based on the particular geographic location of the second mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Kielland, col. 18 lines 20-52: To address this speed limitation, a preferred embodiment of the present invention utilizes the information available from the positioning Sub-System 53 to accelerate the Search for matching vehicle identifiers. AS each new Epoch-ID is observed 505, instead of searching through thousands of records in the database for a matching vehicle identifier, the database first searches to find those few Epoch-IDS that are positioned a short distance from the current Epoch-ID. Conducting a preliminary “nearest neighbor” search of the database is much faster than trying to find a matching plate-model 520. By localizing the Search to only those few vehicles that might conceivably be the same (over-parked) vehicle, extra processing time becomes available for carrying out more Sophisticated LPR analysis. The distance criterions used to Search for “nearest neighbor' Epoch-IDs will typically be the same distance criterion used by the violation detection algorithm to test if a vehicle has moved “appreciably” between observations (described above). The nearest neighbor distance criterion may therefore be comprised of a distance to compensate for instrumental noise in the positioning System as well as a regulated distance imposed to force motorists to completely vacate the vicinity after legally occupying a parking spot. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the database Search 519 also comprises a preliminary nearest neighbor Search to find Epoch-IDs located a short distance away from the patrol vehicle's current geographic location. The few Epoch-IDS found by this preliminary Search are then Searched to See if there are any matching plate-models. If a plate-match is found, then the rest of the data processing proceeds as illustrated in FIG. 6.).
As per claim 43 Kielland discloses
wherein determining the particular geographic location of the second mobile parking enforcement device comprises obtaining, at the data interface of the second mobile parking enforcement device, the particular geographic location from a global position system (GPS) unit (see at least Kielland, col. 15 lines 20-45: The present invention can use an “off the Shelf positioning System to provide geo-referencing information for each Epoch-ID. Satellite systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are the preferred sub system….The geographic coordinates observed by the positioning sub-system define the position of the patrol vehicle rather than that of the (nearby) parked cars under Surveillance. The parking violation detection algorithm described below assumes that the coordinates logged in the Epoch-ID describes the position of each parked car. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the distance observed from the patrol vehicle to each parked vehicle (measured by the range finder) and the known geometry between the location of the camera, the range finder and the positioning System's antenna, is used to compute the geographic coordinates of each parked car's license plate. The estimated position of each license plate (and its estimated uncertainty) is then stored in the parked vehicle's Epoch-ID.).
As per claim 45 Kielland discloses
comprising transmitting, by the wireless interface, at least a portion of the violation event to the remote parking enforcement server (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 46 Kielland discloses
comprising storing the current parking event in a database of the computer-readable memory (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 49 Kielland discloses
wherein obtaining second parking data from the parking data acquisition hardware comprises capturing, by at least one license plate reader, license plate numbers as part of the second parking data pertaining to the parked vehicles observed by the parking data acquisition hardware (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible.).
As per claim 50 Kielland discloses
comprising: moving the second mobile parking device nearby to one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicle (see at least Kielland, Fig. 2 & col. 9 lines 20-25: FIG. 2, illustrates two instances of the parking patrol vehicle 50 being driven past a line of parked cars 60. A raster image showing each vehicle's license plate 61 is captured by the video camera 51 into the system's on-board computer 101. Each of these raster images shows a parked car 60 such that its license plate 61 is clearly visible.);
obtaining, at the data interface and from the parking data acquisition hardware, subsequent current parking data pertaining to subsequent parking instances of the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles, the subsequent current parking data including at least a subsequent current vehicle license plate for the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles and one subsequent additional current parking parameter observed by the second mobile parking enforcement device about the subsequent parking instances of the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles (see at least Kielland, col. 12 lines 20-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Subsystem 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle's “Epoch-ID”. col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.); and
generating one or more subsequent current parking events for the one or more subsequent nearby parked vehicles using the subsequent current parking data (see at least Kielland, col. 12 lines 20-30: At the same instant that each vehicle's raster image is captured by the Video camera 51, the computer also captures the current time (from the time sensor 55) and the vehicle's current geographical position (from the positioning Subsystem 53). These three observed data (time, location and vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the system's database 113. Each of these data records is hereafter referred to as the parked vehicle's “Epoch-ID”. col. 23 lines 55-65: For example, a patrol vehicle might traverse a long route that only permits it to observe all parked vehicles once every 2 hours. However, if eight Surveillance vehicles patrol that same route (while maintaining approximately equal spacing between them) then each parked car along the route would be observed approximately once every 15 minutes. Concatenating all of the Epoch-IDs observed by all eight patrol vehicles would permit each parked vehicle's virtual-parking-meter to be re-observed and updated once every 15 minutes.).
As per claim 51 Kielland discloses
wherein determining the parking violation comprises searching the one or more subsequent current parking events by comparing the current parking event to individual subsequent current parking events (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: AS Soon as each Epoch-ID has been entered into the database, the computer Searches to see if the same plate string has been observed previously by the system 508. If no matching vehicle identifier is found 509, then the algorithm reverts to waiting for the next parked car to be encountered 500. If a previous instance of the plate-String is found in the database of Epoch-IDs 509, then the vehicle's previous position coordinates are compared to its current position coordinates 510… When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.).
As per claim 52 Kielland discloses
comprising transmitting, by the wireless interface, part or all of the subsequent current parking events to the remote parking enforcement server (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 53 Kielland discloses
comprising transmitting, by the wireless interface, at least a portion of said current parking event generated by the processing device to the remote parking enforcement server (see at least Kielland, col. 13 lines 1-5: The System's computer also captures the current time and the current geographical coordinates observed by the positioning Sub-System. These three observed data (time, location and unique vehicle identifier) are concatenated and Stored as a data record in the System's database.).
As per claim 54 Kielland discloses
comprising: causing a user interface of the second mobile parking enforcement device to display image data associated with the current parking event and the violation parking event (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: In a preferred embodiment, when the parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer 101 displays the two Stored images of the parked vehicle on the display monitor 130. The Officer then verifies that the two images appear to portray the same vehicle. The Officer also visually verifies that the two plate-Strings are identical to the plate-String recognized by LPR analysis 515..);
obtaining, via the user interface, user input indicative of a confirmation of a match in said image data (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.);
wherein determining the parking violation is based at least in part on the confirmation (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0218383A1 (“Franklin”)
As per claim 35 Franklin discloses
A distributed mobile parking enforcement system including a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices movable to be brought to locations where vehicles are parked to monitor and/or enforce parking regulations (see at least Franklin, para. [0040]: The vision system 26 is used to capture images of vehicles 12 that are parked on a roadway 10. The vision system 26 may be comprised of one or more cameras that capture digital images of vehicles or parts of vehicles and the size measuring capability of the proximity laser that are then transmitted to the infraction detection device 20. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the vision system 26, and more specifically the cameras that comprise the vision system 26 are mounted on the parking enforcement vehicle 18, and provide the images that are captured to the detection device 20 by wired or wireless means.), the system comprising:
at least one first mobile parking enforcement device generating first parking events, each first parking event pertaining to a respective parking instance of a parked vehicle observed by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device and comprising first parking data including at least a vehicle identifier of the parked vehicle and one additional parking parameter observed by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device about the parking instance of the parked vehicle and transmitting the first parking events for storage in a remote parking enforcement server (see at least Franklin, para. [0040]: The vision system 26 is used to capture images of vehicles 12 that are parked on a roadway 10. The vision system 26 may be comprised of one or more cameras that capture digital images of vehicles or parts of vehicles and the size measuring capability of the proximity laser that are then transmitted to the infraction detection device 20. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the vision system 26, and more specifically the cameras that comprise the vision system 26 are mounted on the parking enforcement vehicle 18, and provide the images that are captured to the detection device 20 by wired or wireless means.); and
a second mobile parking enforcement device separate from the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Franklin, para. [0045]: The interface application 46 is a software application that is used to sync the databases associated with the detection devices which will be described in detail below, with databases that are associated with a back office that is used to centrally store all information relating to parking infractions that have been detected by the various enforcement vehicles 18. The communication application 48 allows for a communication link between the detection device 20 and the back office.), comprising:
a wireless interface to obtain, from the remote parking enforcement server, a set of at least one extraneous past parking event taken from the first parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device (see at least Franklin, para. [0045]: The interface application 46 is a software application that is used to sync the databases associated with the detection devices which will be described in detail below, with databases that are associated with a back office that is used to centrally store all information relating to parking infractions that have been detected by the various enforcement vehicles 18. The communication application 48 allows for a communication link between the detection device 20 and the back office.);
a data interface communicatively couplable with parking data acquisition hardware to obtain therefrom second parking data pertaining to parked vehicles observed by the parking data acquisition hardware, the second parking data comprising current parking data pertaining to a current parking instance of a nearby parked vehicle and including at least a current vehicle identifier of the nearby parked vehicle and one additional current parking parameter observed by the second mobile parking enforcement device about the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle (see at least Franklin, para. [0040]: The first camera captures the view of the vehicle that is parallel to the side of the parking enforcement vehicle. When vehicles are parked parallel to the route of travel of the enforcement vehicle, in an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the first camera will therefore capture an image of the vehicle that will include items found approximately 1 meter to the front and rear of the vehicle. As a result, the surroundings associated with the vehicle are recorded, and may be used to determine when in fact, a vehicle has been moved from its location. The second camera is used to record the license plate of the vehicle, and provides supplementary lighting for illuminating the vehicle in poor lighting conditions.);
computer-readable memory storing program instructions; and a processor in communication with the wireless interface, the data interface, and the computer-readable memory. the processor being operable to execute the program instructions for (see at least Franklin, para. [0038]: Reference is now made to FIG. 3, where the constituent components of the infraction detection device 20 are shown. The infraction detection device 20 in one exemplary embodiment is comprised of, or connected to, a positioning system 22, a proximity detection system 24, a vision system 26, an identification system 28, an electronic permit system 29, an input mechanism 30, a display mechanism 32, a printer 34, an alert mechanism 36, a processor 38, a memory store 40,):
generating a current parking event pertaining to the current parking instance of the nearby parked vehicle using the current parking data (see at least Franklin, para. [0040]: The vision system 26 is used to capture images of vehicles 12 that are parked on a roadway 10. The vision system 26 may be comprised of one or more cameras that capture digital images of vehicles or parts of vehicles and the size measuring capability of the proximity laser that are then transmitted to the infraction detection device 20.);
determining a parking violation by searching the set of at least one extraneous past parking event by comparing the current parking event to individual extraneous past parking events in the set of at least one extraneous past parking event to identify amongst the at least one extraneous past parking event of the set a violation parking event for which the vehicle identifier of the violation parking event matches the current vehicle identifier and for which the additional current parking parameter and the additional parameter of the violation parking event indicates a violation of a regulation (see at least Franklin, para. [0071-0072]: At the conclusion of step 357, the vehicle tracking database 56 for the particular vehicle of interest will contain a database entry, where the vehicle has been recorded as being present in the same location at two distinct times. Method 350 then proceeds to step 358, where the time interval during which the vehicle has been observed as being parked in the same location is computed and stored in the vehicle tracking database 56. Method 350 then proceeds to step 360, where a check is performed to determine whether the allowable duration of parking has been exceeded.); and
generating a violation event for the nearby parked vehicle and storing the violation event in the computer-readable memory (see at least Franklin, para. [0073]: At step 368, an infraction alert is issued to notify the enforcement officer that an infraction has been detected. The enforcement officer then may proceed to stop the vehicle at a convenient and safe location and review the information related to the infraction to confirm that an infraction has taken place. At step 370, information pertaining to the detected infraction is displayed to the enforcement officer, upon the display associated with the detection device.),
wherein the second mobile parking enforcement comprises the parking data acquisition hardware including at least one license plate reader to capture license plate numbers as part of the second parking data pertaining to the parked vehicles observed by the parking data acquisition hardware (see at least Franklin, para. [0059]: Reference is now made to FIG. 12, where the fields of the vehicle tracking database 56 are shown. The vehicle tracking database 56 stores images of all the vehicles that the infraction detection device 20, and more specifically the vision system 26 records while on patrol. The location field 252 provides the GPS co-ordinates of where the vehicle was observed parked. The location field 252 stores the address co-ordinates associated with the closest address that may be associated with the vehicle 12 when parked. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, two images are taken of the vehicle, one image recording the profile of the entire vehicle, and one image recording the license plate.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 30 & 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kielland, in view of US 2009/0267732A1 (“Chauvin”).
As per claim 30 Kielland does not explicitly disclose
wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event.
Chauvin teaches
wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event (see at least Chauvin, para. [0055]: A typical transmission time may be between 3-6 seconds. The actual transmission time depends on the amount and type of data required to send or receive. As such if there is no parking meter information to transmit or very little parking meter information, the time required to transmit may be less than a second. The coin collection cart may be in close proximity to the parking meter 200, such as for example within 15 feet, or as little as a foot. Since the receiver is typically in close proximity to the transmitter during transmission of the parking meter data, the parking meter information may be transmitted using less power.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kielland to incorporate the teachings of wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event of Chauvin, with a reasonable amount of success, in order improved data collection for single space electronic parking meters (see at least Chauvin, para. [0001]).
As per claim 44 Kielland does not explicitly disclose
wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event.
Chauvin teaches
wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event (see at least Chauvin, para. [0055]: A typical transmission time may be between 3-6 seconds. The actual transmission time depends on the amount and type of data required to send or receive. As such if there is no parking meter information to transmit or very little parking meter information, the time required to transmit may be less than a second. The coin collection cart may be in close proximity to the parking meter 200, such as for example within 15 feet, or as little as a foot. Since the receiver is typically in close proximity to the transmitter during transmission of the parking meter data, the parking meter information may be transmitted using less power.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kielland to incorporate the teachings of wherein the set of at least one extraneous past parking events generated by the at least one first mobile parking enforcement device is selected based on a transmission time of the subset of at least one extraneous past parking event of Chauvin, with a reasonable amount of success, in order improved data collection for single space electronic parking meters (see at least Chauvin, para. [0001]).
Claim(s) 33-34, & 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kielland, in view of US 2006/0255119A1 (“Marchasin”).
As per claim 33 Kielland discloses
wherein determining the parking violation comprises: comparing, by the processor, the additional parking parameter of the violation parking event and the additional current parking parameter (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: AS Soon as each Epoch-ID has been entered into the database, the computer Searches to see if the same plate string has been observed previously by the system 508. If no matching vehicle identifier is found 509, then the algorithm reverts to waiting for the next parked car to be encountered 500. If a previous instance of the plate-String is found in the database of Epoch-IDs 509, then the vehicle's previous position coordinates are compared to its current position coordinates 510… When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.);
generating, by the processor, a violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.).
However Kielland does not explicitly disclose
generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation;
transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with the violation parking event to the parking enforcement server; and
obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from the parking enforcement server.
Marchasin teaches
comparing, by the processor, the additional parking parameter of the violation parking event and the additional current parking parameter (see at least Marchasin, para. [0073]: The parked vehicle data may include, but is not limited to, the following information: 1) the make, model, year, and color of the vehicle; 2) the license plate number of the vehicle; 3) the location of the parked vehicle (e.g., the lot, Street, and/or Zone); and 4) the date, time, and day of the week of the scan. One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the PEO may enter the parked vehicle data into the Reader 8 using any Suitable input means, such as, for example, a keyboard, a keypad, and/or a voice recognition system. & para. [0077]: Having captured the RFID tag number and parked vehicle data, the Reader 8 sends this data to the PermitView System 1. FIG. 3 illustrates at least a portion of the steps of the permit management process performed by the Permit View System 1. As shown in FIG.3, the PermitView System 1 receives the tag number and parked vehicle data from the Reader 8 via the User Interface 20, in step S1. The information is provided to the Privilege Module 40, which in turn retrieves the tag data associated with the tag number from the Permit Database 50, in step SII.);
generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation (see at least Marchasin, para. [0081]: Returning to the process illustrated in FIG. 2, in step S8, if it is determined that there is a violation based on the privilege analysis (see step S7) or, as described above, no valid tag is associated with the parked vehicle (see step S5), a determination is made as to the appropriate enforcement action to be taken. One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the determination as to the appropriate enforcement action may be made by the PermitView System 1 (as part of the privilege analysis), the PEO, or by a parking program manager.);
transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with the violation parking event to the parking enforcement server (see at least Marchasin, para. [0077-0078]: The information is provided to the Privilege Module 40, which in turn retrieves the tag data associated with the tag number from the Permit Database 50, in step SII. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the “tag data” includes, but is not limited to, the following information: 1) authorized vehicle data; 2) permit holder data; and/or 3) parking privilege data. The “authorized vehicle data” includes, but is not limited to the make, model, color, year, and/or license plate number of the vehicle or vehicles authorized under a valid permit. The “permit holder data” includes, but is not limited to, the permit holder's name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and/or facsimile number. The “parking privilege data” generally defines the scope of privileges or parking rights held by the permit holder, including, but is not limited to: a) the one or more locations, zones, streets, lots, spaces, or areas the vehicle is permitted to park; b) the term of the permit and/or the permit's expiration date; and/or c) the valid parking time or times (i.e., weekend-only rights; weekday-only rights, seasonal rights, etc.).); and
obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from the parking enforcement server (see at least Marchasin, para. [0077-0078]: The information is provided to the Privilege Module 40, which in turn retrieves the tag data associated with the tag number from the Permit Database 50, in step SII. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the “tag data” includes, but is not limited to, the following information: 1) authorized vehicle data; 2) permit holder data; and/or 3) parking privilege data. The “authorized vehicle data” includes, but is not limited to the make, model, color, year, and/or license plate number of the vehicle or vehicles authorized under a valid permit. The “permit holder data” includes, but is not limited to, the permit holder's name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and/or facsimile number. The “parking privilege data” generally defines the scope of privileges or parking rights held by the permit holder, including, but is not limited to: a) the one or more locations, zones, streets, lots, spaces, or areas the vehicle is permitted to park; b) the term of the permit and/or the permit's expiration date; and/or c) the valid parking time or times (i.e., weekend-only rights; weekday-only rights, seasonal rights, etc.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kielland to incorporate the teachings of generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation, transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with the violation parking event to the parking enforcement server; and obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from the parking enforcement server of Marchasin, with a reasonable amount of success, in order to administer an efficient parking program (see at least Marchasin, para. [0015]).
As per claim 34 Kielland discloses
wherein the second mobile parking enforcement device comprises a user interface for providing data to and obtaining input from a user (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: In a preferred embodiment, when the parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer 101 displays the two Stored images of the parked vehicle on the display monitor 130. The Officer then verifies that the two images appear to portray the same vehicle. The Officer also visually verifies that the two plate-Strings are identical to the plate-String recognized by LPR analysis 515..),
the user interface to provide at least a portion of the context information to the user and to obtain confirmation that the tentative violation event is a parking violation from the user (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.),
wherein the processor being operable to execute the program instructions for determining the parking violation is based at least in part on the confirmation (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.).
As per claim 47 Kielland discloses
wherein determining the parking violation comprises: comparing, by the processor, the additional parking parameter of the violation parking event and the additional current parking parameter (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: AS Soon as each Epoch-ID has been entered into the database, the computer Searches to see if the same plate string has been observed previously by the system 508. If no matching vehicle identifier is found 509, then the algorithm reverts to waiting for the next parked car to be encountered 500. If a previous instance of the plate-String is found in the database of Epoch-IDs 509, then the vehicle's previous position coordinates are compared to its current position coordinates 510… When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.);
generating, by the processor, a violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation(see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: When a suspect vehicle has been flagged 510, the system then subtracts the time stamps of the two Epoch-IDs under suspicion 511, thereby determining the period of time that the car has been parked at that location. The System then Searches a database of geo-referenced parking regulations (described below) to determine the legal time limit that's applicable to the parked vehicle's present location 512. If the elapsed time is greater than the time period legally permitted for that location, then the System declares a parking violation 513.).
However Kielland does not explicitly disclose
generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation;
transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with said particular extraneous past parking event to said parking enforcement server; and
obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from said parking enforcement server.
Marchasin teaches
comparing, by the processor, the additional parking parameter of the violation parking event and the additional current parking parameter (see at least Marchasin, para. [0073]: The parked vehicle data may include, but is not limited to, the following information: 1) the make, model, year, and color of the vehicle; 2) the license plate number of the vehicle; 3) the location of the parked vehicle (e.g., the lot, Street, and/or Zone); and 4) the date, time, and day of the week of the scan. One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the PEO may enter the parked vehicle data into the Reader 8 using any Suitable input means, such as, for example, a keyboard, a keypad, and/or a voice recognition system. & para. [0077]: Having captured the RFID tag number and parked vehicle data, the Reader 8 sends this data to the PermitView System 1. FIG. 3 illustrates at least a portion of the steps of the permit management process performed by the Permit View System 1. As shown in FIG.3, the PermitView System 1 receives the tag number and parked vehicle data from the Reader 8 via the User Interface 20, in step S1. The information is provided to the Privilege Module 40, which in turn retrieves the tag data associated with the tag number from the Permit Database 50, in step SII.);
generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation (see at least Marchasin, para. [0081]: Returning to the process illustrated in FIG. 2, in step S8, if it is determined that there is a violation based on the privilege analysis (see step S7) or, as described above, no valid tag is associated with the parked vehicle (see step S5), a determination is made as to the appropriate enforcement action to be taken. One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the determination as to the appropriate enforcement action may be made by the PermitView System 1 (as part of the privilege analysis), the PEO, or by a parking program manager.);
transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with the violation parking event to the parking enforcement server (see at least Marchasin, para. [0077-0078]: The information is provided to the Privilege Module 40, which in turn retrieves the tag data associated with the tag number from the Permit Database 50, in step SII. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the “tag data” includes, but is not limited to, the following information: 1) authorized vehicle data; 2) permit holder data; and/or 3) parking privilege data. The “authorized vehicle data” includes, but is not limited to the make, model, color, year, and/or license plate number of the vehicle or vehicles authorized under a valid permit. The “permit holder data” includes, but is not limited to, the permit holder's name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and/or facsimile number. The “parking privilege data” generally defines the scope of privileges or parking rights held by the permit holder, including, but is not limited to: a) the one or more locations, zones, streets, lots, spaces, or areas the vehicle is permitted to park; b) the term of the permit and/or the permit's expiration date; and/or c) the valid parking time or times (i.e., weekend-only rights; weekday-only rights, seasonal rights, etc.).); and
obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from the parking enforcement server (see at least Marchasin, para. [0077-0078]: The information is provided to the Privilege Module 40, which in turn retrieves the tag data associated with the tag number from the Permit Database 50, in step SII. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the “tag data” includes, but is not limited to, the following information: 1) authorized vehicle data; 2) permit holder data; and/or 3) parking privilege data. The “authorized vehicle data” includes, but is not limited to the make, model, color, year, and/or license plate number of the vehicle or vehicles authorized under a valid permit. The “permit holder data” includes, but is not limited to, the permit holder's name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and/or facsimile number. The “parking privilege data” generally defines the scope of privileges or parking rights held by the permit holder, including, but is not limited to: a) the one or more locations, zones, streets, lots, spaces, or areas the vehicle is permitted to park; b) the term of the permit and/or the permit's expiration date; and/or c) the valid parking time or times (i.e., weekend-only rights; weekday-only rights, seasonal rights, etc.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kielland to incorporate the teachings of generating, by the processor, a tentative violation event based on the result of the comparing and the regulation, transmitting, by the wireless interface, a request for context data associated with the violation parking event to the parking enforcement server; and obtaining, by the wireless interface, context data associated with the violation parking event from the parking enforcement server of Marchasin, with a reasonable amount of success, in order to administer an efficient parking program (see at least Marchasin, para. [0015]).
As per claim 48 Kielland discloses
comprising: providing, via a user interface for providing data to and obtaining input from a user (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: In a preferred embodiment, when the parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer 101 displays the two Stored images of the parked vehicle on the display monitor 130. The Officer then verifies that the two images appear to portray the same vehicle. The Officer also visually verifies that the two plate-Strings are identical to the plate-String recognized by LPR analysis 515..),
at least a portion of the context information to the user and to obtain confirmation that the tentative violation event is a parking violation from the user (see at least Kielland, col. 16 lines 1-65: In a preferred embodiment, when the parking violation alarm is triggered, the computer 101 displays the two Stored images of the parked vehicle on the display monitor 130. The Officer then verifies that the two images appear to portray the same vehicle. The Officer also visually verifies that the two plate-Strings are identical to the plate-String recognized by LPR analysis 515. col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.); and
wherein determining the parking violation is based at least in part on the confirmation (see at least Kielland, col. 17 lines 1-65: The Officer then visually inspects the images to verify that the vehicle captured at the first and Second observation epochs appears to be the same make and model of car. If the Violation alarm passes this visual inspection, the Officer then reads and enters the alphanumeric characters on the vehicle's license plate into the System where it becomes the plate-string inserted into each of the Epoch-Ids 521. Data entry is typically effected using the keyboard 131. The human-read plate-String is flagged as Such in the Epoch-ID, thereby certifying its high level of certainty in the event that the parking citation is contested in court. Once the plate String has been entered, the System proceeds to print out the parking citation 516, the Officer serves it 517 and proceeds along the patrol route 500.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights