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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed 12-9-25 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell et al., US 2020/0213193 in view of Heiser et al., US 2024/0174244, and in further view of Hattori et al., JP 2020169551 (Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Newell teaches of an on-board camera in a business network for wireless acquisition of images from cameras installed on traveling vehicles which image while traveling (See [0045] and [0090] vehicle dashcam for wireless connection such that the receiver acquires images from the dashcam), the network including a first storage processor which, responsive to the on-board camera being in range for direct wireless communication therewith, acquires recorded image data from an image memory of the on-board camera, (See [0045] and [0090] which discloses of the receiver storage acquiring the dash cam video when the dash cam is within a range of the local wireless network) the on-board camera comprising:
the image memory (See [0045] and [0090]); and
at least one processor and/or circuitry configured to store camera image data as recorded data in the image memory of the on-board camera (See [0045] and [0090] the dash cam has at least processor/circuitry to store the image data in order to upload);
determine whether the on-board camera is in range for communication directly over a wireless connection to a computing system predefined for image acquisition (See [0045] and [0090] which discloses connecting to the wireless network when the dash cam is in range where the receiver then acquires images from the dash cam);
responsive to determining that the on-board camera is in range, trigger an acquisition communication of the recorded data from the image memory to a storage of the computing system (See [0045] and [0090] which discloses connecting to the wireless network when the dash cam is in range where the receiver then acquires images from the dash cam); and
perform the acquisition communication, responsive to being triggered, of the recorded data from the image memory (See [0045] and [0090] uploading to the server, the images from the dash cam upon connection);
wherein the recorded data which is communicated by the acquisition communication includes the camera image data (See [0045] and [0090] dash cam video is transmitted to the receiver/remote server).
Newell is silent with respect to the camera image being that of raw image data and with respect to the communication being that of returned-to-garage.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Heiser teaches of the camera image being that of raw image data and with respect to the communication being that of returned-to-garage (See [0006], [0018]-[0020], [0040]-[0044] wherein the vehicle parks/returns for extended periods of time such as in a parking garage. The claim has is silent with respect to detailing what returned to garage means such as a determination or a detection of a garage and thus, any type of car parking in a garage would read on the claim limitation of a return to garage).
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 the teachings of Newell to have incorporated the teachings of Heiser for the mere benefit of being able to provide compatible and bandwidth efficient original data to edge devices in parking areas.
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to maintain power on to the on board camera for a duration of the acquisition communication of the recorded data to the storage of the computing system when a local vehicle containing the on board camera is turned off.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hattori teaches of wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to maintain power on to the on board camera for a duration of the acquisition communication of the recorded data to the storage of the computing system when a local vehicle containing the on board camera is turned off (See Pages 35-40).
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 the teachings of Newell and Heiser to have incorporated the teachings of Hattori for the mere benefit of allowing recorded data to be transferred by battery power such that the car does not have to be turned on for the camera to be operatable.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Newell and Heiser teaches the on-board camera of claim 1, wherein recorded data which is communicated by the acquisition communication further includes location data where the image was acquired and a date corresponding to the raw camera image data (See Heiser, [0007], [0028], and [0041]).
The combination is silent with respect to a camera identification identifying the on-board camera which corresponds to the raw camera image data.
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken to note that camera identification metadata that corresponds to the image data is notoriously well-known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated into the teachings of Newell and Heiser for the mere benefit of knowing the image data origination among multiple cameras.
Regarding claim 7, Newell teaches of a first storage processor in a business network for wireless acquisition of images from on-board cameras installed on traveling vehicles which image while traveling (See [0045] and [0090]; analysis of claim 1), the first storage processor comprising:
a memory (See [0045] and [0090]; analysis of claim 1); and
at least one first storage processor and/or circuitry configured to responsive to at least one camera of the on-board cameras being in range for direct wireless communication therewith (See [0045] and [0090]; analysis of claim 1), acquire the recorded data from an image memory of the at least one camera to a first storage, wherein the recorded data which is acquired includes the camera image data (See [0045] and [0090]; analysis of claim 1).
Newell is silent with respect to the camera image being that of raw image data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Heiser teaches of the camera image being that of raw image data and with respect to the communication being that of returned-to-garage (See [0006], [0018]-[0020], [0040]-[0044] wherein the vehicle parks/returns for extended periods of time such as in a parking garage. The claim has is silent with respect to detailing what returned to garage means such as a determination or a detection of a garage and thus, any type of car parking in a garage would read on the claim limitation of a return to garage).
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 the teachings of Newell to have incorporated the teachings of Heiser for the mere benefit of being able to provide compatible and bandwidth efficient original data to edge devices in parking areas.
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to maintain power on to the on board camera for a duration of the acquisition communication of the recorded data to the storage of the computing system when a local vehicle containing the on board camera is turned off.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hattori teaches of wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to maintain power on to the on board camera for a duration of the acquisition communication of the recorded data to the storage of the computing system when a local vehicle containing the on board camera is turned off (See Pages 35-40).
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 the teachings of Newell and Heiser to have incorporated the teachings of Hattori for the mere benefit of allowing recorded data to be transferred by battery power such that the car does not have to be turned on for the camera to be operatable.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the first storage processor of claim 7, wherein the at least one first storage processor and/or circuitry is further configured to select, from the data in the first storage, portions of the data corresponding to predetermined criteria of a second storage processor as curated data, and transmit the curated data to the second storage processor (See analysis of claim 1; Heiser, [0006]-[0007], [0018]-[0020], [0033], and [0040]-[0045]; Fig.3 which discloses of the edge server storage processing portions of the data as curated/indexed data and transmitting to the cloud/second storage).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the first storage processor of claim 7, wherein the at least one first storage processor and/or circuitry is further configured to process the data on the first storage according to a predefined model corresponding to the second storage processor, and transmit the processed data to the second storage processor over a wireless connection (See analysis of claim 1; Heiser, [0006]-[0007], [0018]-[0020], [0033], and [0040]-[0045]; Fig.3 which discloses of the edge server storage processing portions of the data as curated/indexed data and transmitting to the cloud/second storage, wherein the model includes an AI model).
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 16, further comprising, by the second storage processor, processing the curated data according to a predefined machine learning model (See analysis of claim 1; Heiser, [0006]-[0007], [0018]-[0020], [0033], and [0040]-[0045]; Fig.3 which discloses of the edge server storage processing portions of the data as curated/indexed data and transmitting to the cloud/second storage, wherein the model includes an AI model).
4. Claims 2-3, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell et al., US 2020/0213193 in view of Heiser et al., US 2024/0174244, in view of Hattori et al., JP 2020169551 (Translation), and in further view of Wang et al., CN 112785867.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Newell, Heiser, and Hattori teaches the on-board camera of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to upload, as the acquisition communication, the images from the image memory (See analysis of claim 1).
The combination is silent with respect to track which among the images in the image memory have been uploaded to the storage of the computing system, wherein the images which are uploaded are those which are determined to have not been previously transmitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches of track which among the images in the image memory have been uploaded to the storage of the computing system, wherein the images which are uploaded are those which are determined to have not been previously transmitted (See Page 7).
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 the teachings of Newell, Heiser, and Hattori to have incorporated the teachings of Wang for the mere benefit of ensuring that all of the data is uploaded.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the on-board camera of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to offload, as the acquisition communication, the images from the image memory (See analysis of claim 1);
track which among the images in the image memory have been offloaded to the storage of the computing system so as to recover from an interruption of the acquisition communication (See Wang, Page 7).
Regarding claim 5, the on-board camera of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or circuitry is further configured to, after an interruption of the wireless connection and/or after an interruption of power to the on-board camera, resume the acquisition communication of the recorded data from the image memory of the at least one camera to the storage of the computing system (See analysis of claim 1; Wang, Pages 3-5 and 7 which discloses the power module and of resuming offloading after interruption).
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
5. Claims 9, 11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell et al., US 2020/0213193 in view of Heiser et al., US 2024/0174244, in view of Hattori et al., JP 2020169551 (Translation), and in further view of Salles, US 2020/0137142.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Newell, Heiser, and Hattori teaches the first storage processor of claim 7, wherein the at least one first storage processor and/or circuitry is further configured to clean the data in the first storage which has been acquired, prior to selecting from the data in the first storage as the curated data (See Heiser, [0006]-[0007], [0018]-[0020], [0033], and [0040]-[0045]; analysis of claim 1; Further, it should be noted the term clean is construed to be that of indexing and/or classifying the data).
The combination is silent with respect to the data which has been acquired during a predefined acquisition period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Salles teaches of the data which has been acquired during a predefined acquisition period (See [0003]-[0004] determining optimal time to offload the vehicle data).
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 the teachings of Newell, Heiser, and Hattori to have incorporated the teachings of Salles for the mere benefit of selecting times of offloading that is most optimal.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the first storage processor of claim 7, wherein the at least one first storage processor and/or circuitry is further configured to responsive to the predefined acquisition period expiring, perform the selecting of the curated data and the transmitting of the curated data (See Heiser, [0006]-[0007], [0018]-[0020], [0033], and [0040]-[0045]; Salles, [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0034]-[0036], [0042], and [0048] which discloses of subsequent to the offloading of the data period, indexing/classifying the data to be transmitted to the edge server and/or cloud).
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov