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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-27 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/509,980 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite a process and a system configured to data collecting and communications management regarding a crash scene. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1 and 19 are directed to a process and a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claim 1 (and system in claim 19) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 1 and 19: the process and the system recite the steps (functions) of:
A process of self-monitoring, in a crash event detection and response system having a plurality of crash event response vehicles each equipped with one or more imaging devices for imaging video and audio at a site of a crash event (generic computers or components configured to perform the step)
and a communications device for communicating an imaged video and audio, for operation and for quality of images imaged by a respective one of the imaging devices, comprising the steps of: (generic computers or components configured to perform the step)
providing a crash event response vehicle with one or more imaging devices for imaging video and audio at a site of a crash event and a communications device for communicating imaged video and audio as a message to a central controller; (data gathering and mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
associating in an operational status database a unique identifier with each respective one of the one or more imaging devices; (generic computers or components configured to perform the step)
evaluating a selected video and audio imaging message from a respective one of the imaging devices communicated to the central controller; (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
upon determination of an exception in the video and audio imaging from a predetermined standard, attending to correction. (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and post solution activity)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image and determine a fill level, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer for “providing, evaluating, determining, and correcting, etc.,” as claimed in Claim(s) 1 and 19 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1 and 19 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-18, 20-27, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process.
.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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lagassey (US 20170026893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lagassey teaches A process of self-monitoring, in a crash event detection and response system having a plurality of crash event response vehicles (“incident monitoring, for example to directly or inferentially determine whether an accident has occurred.” Lagassey, para. [0005])
each equipped with one or more imaging devices for imaging video (“the control unit transmits the location and still or moving video images of the accident scene which are displayed,” Lagassey, para. [0086]) and audio at a site of a crash event and a communications device for communicating an imaged video and audio, for operation and for quality of images imaged by a respective one of the imaging devices comprising the steps of: (“as a basic function of the MITS, is a vehicle accident detection and data recordation and transmission system that places one or more video cameras, microphones and data collection and transmission apparatus in proximity to traffic intersections, or other desired locations, to monitor local conditions, and, for example, to detect, store, and archivally retain accident-related images and sounds, together with other accident-related data such as time and location, and to relay data to real-time monitoring centers” Lagassey, para. [0072])
(a) providing a crash event response vehicle with one or more imaging devices for imaging video and audio at a site of a crash event and a communications device for communicating imaged video and audio as a message to a central controller; (“When a qualifying sound is detected, the system stops overwriting old information in the circular buffer, thereby saving audio signals and video images leading up to the qualifying sound, and continues saving subsequent audio and video until the control unit is reset. The data is, for example, transferred from the circular buffer to a persistent storage device. In this embodiment, the system is not dependent on preliminary sounds, and is designed to capture the events leading up to an accident” Lagassey, para. [0081])
(b) associating in an operational status database a unique identifier with each respective one of the one or more imaging devices; (“The imaging system may comprise a plurality of video cameras directed at various portions of a location near an electrical traffic signal, wherein a first video camera is activated for a predetermined time period and each subsequent video camera is activated upon deactivation of an active video camera such that only one the video camera is activated at a given time. This configuration permits the system to operate with a limited set of resources, for example a single multiplexed video input. The imaging system may also comprise a plurality of video cameras directed at various portions of a location, in which the processor produces a combined output representing a synthetic representation of the location.” Lagassey, para. [0151])
(c) evaluating a selected video and audio imaging message from a respective one of the imaging devices communicated to the central controller; (“a communication link, for selectively communicating the portion of the video images stored in the buffer, wherein the buffer retains the portion of the video images, at least until an acknowledgement of receipt is received representing successful transmission through the communication link, and after receipt of the acknowledgement, a portion of the buffer containing the portion of the video images is available for reuse.” Lagassey, para. [0136])
(d) upon determination of an exception in the video and audio imaging from a predetermined standard, attending to correction. (“If a qualifying sound is not detected within a predetermined amount of time after a preliminary sound is detected, the stored audio and video signals that followed the preliminary sound may be discarded and the control unit resumes waiting for the next preliminary or qualifying sound to be detected.” Lagassey, para. [0084])
Regarding claim 2, Lagassey teaches wherein the selected video and audio imaging message is communicated upon operational start of a respective one of the one or more imaging devices. (“a communication link, for selectively communicating the portion of the video images stored in the buffer, wherein the buffer retains the portion of the video images, at least until an acknowledgement of receipt is received representing successful transmission through the communication link, and after receipt of the acknowledgement, a portion of the buffer containing the portion of the video images is available for reuse.” Lagassey, para. [0136]) and (“upon the detection of a qualifying sound indicating that an accident is occurring, the control unit 25 starts to initiate contact with the designated monitoring center 45 over the communication link 50.” Lagassey, para. [0199])
Regarding claim 3, Lagassey teaches wherein the selected video and audio imaging message is stored in the operational status database for evaluation indexed by the respective unique identifier of the respective one of the one or more imaging devices. (“simultaneously or shortly before or after the location data is transmitted, at least a still or live image of the desired location 1 showing the accident scene is transmitted to the monitoring center 45 and at least the location of the accident is displayed, preferably on an electronic map together with at least one image of the desired location 1 so the operator at the monitoring center 45 can evaluate the accident scene to determine the appropriate level of response.” Lagassey, para. [0201]) and (“a communications system for selectively communicating the stored conditions to a remote monitoring center after predicting a likely occurrence of an incident” Lagassey, para. [0153])
Regarding claim 4, Lagassey teaches wherein the evaluation is based on a visual display of the video imaging of selected video and audio imaging message. (“A still image followed by a live image can be also used so that the location and image of the accident can be quickly transmitted for visual assessment by the operator in determining an appropriate response, followed by periodic still or live images to allow the operator to continue to monitor the situation and report to the authorities.” Lagassey, para. [0201])
Regarding claim 5, Lagassey teaches wherein the evaluation is based on an audio sounding of the audio imaging of the selected video and audio imaging message (“In alternate embodiments that utilize preliminary sounds, if an incoming sound is recognized to be a preliminary sound, then protected storage of the audio signals and video images begins and the control unit 25 continues to monitor incoming audio signals until the earlier of a predetermined period of time elapses or an incoming audio signal is recognized to be a qualifying sound.” Lagassey, para. [0187])
Regarding claim 6, Lagassey teaches wherein the evaluation is based on an analytical analysis of the video imaging of selected video and audio imaging message. (“analysis of video images of motor vehicles moving through the desired location can be used in place of, or to support the use of, acoustic data to detect an accident. For example unusual movements like sudden deceleration, acceleration or lateral movement of one or more vehicles can indicate an accident condition. As with acoustic signals, models or algorithms can be used to analyze video images for unusual movements, changes in traffic flow or other indications of an accident.” Lagassey, para. [0114])
Regarding claim 10, Lagassey teaches wherein the evaluation is based on an analytical analysis of the audio imaging of the selected video and audio imaging message. (“In alternate embodiments that utilize preliminary sounds, if an incoming sound is recognized to be a preliminary sound, then protected storage of the audio signals and video images begins and the control unit 25 continues to monitor incoming audio signals until the earlier of a predetermined period of time elapses or an incoming audio signal is recognized to be a qualifying sound.” Lagassey, para. [0187])
Regarding claim 13, Lagassey teaches further comprising the step of comparing an evaluation of a first one of the video and audio imaging messages stored under the index for the respective one of the one or more imaging devices with an evaluation of a second one of the selected video and audio imaging message for the respective one of the one or more imaging devices. (“The AutoAlert system monitors background traffic noise and compares it with the acoustic signatures of previously recorded accidents and incidents for detection.” Lagassey, para. [0022]) and (“The technique consists of utilizing computers to analyze video images received by television cameras placed along the roadway. A “mask’ frames the significant part of the image, which typically is a three or four-lane roadway and the emergency shoulder. The computer processes five pictures a second, compares them two at a time, and analyzes them looking for points that have moved between two successive pictures. These points are treated as objects moving along the roadway. If a moving object stops and remains stopped within the mask for over 15 seconds, the computer considers this an anomaly and sets off an alarm.” Lagassey, para. [0024])
Regarding claim 14, Lagassey teaches further comprising analyzing an operational status of the respective one of the one or more imaging devices. (“It is a further aspect of one embodiment of the invention that an installation (and optionally maintenance) procedure is performed including an analysis of the acoustic environment and context, to ensure adequate system operation with standardized hardware and software, and to permit optimization on-site.” Lagassey, para. [0118])
Regarding claim 15, Lagassey teaches wherein the operational status analysis comprises evaluating power supply capacity of the response vehicle. (“It is a further object of the invention to provide a vehicular monitoring system, comprising an environmentally protected enclosure, suitable for protecting electronic equipment from uncontrolled weather conditions when placed outdoors, a power supply, a processor module for receiving data representing vehicular conditions and analyzing the data to determine at least one of a vehicular incident, a likely occurrence of a vehicular incident, or an imminent vehicular incident, and memory to at least temporarily store at least a portion of the data, an interface for communicating with a traffic signal control device, receiving at least a status of the traffic signal, at least one option port, providing a physical interface for communications with the processor module, and a communication link for communicating remotely from the enclosure, wherein the at least one option port permits optional hardware therein to access resources of at least one of the power supply and the processor module.” Lagassey, para. [0138])
Regarding claim 16, Lagassey teaches further comprising the step of communicating a request to a respective one of the one or more imaging devices to communicate a video message to the central controller for evaluation, whereby the respective one of the one or more imaging devices communicates a video and audio imaging message in response to the request. (“Upon making contact with the monitoring center 45, the control unit 25 initially transmits the location information of the desired location 1 which may be displayed on a computerized map at the monitoring center 45. In the preferred embodiment, simultaneously or shortly before or after the location data is transmitted, at least a still or live image of the desired location 1 showing the accident scene is transmitted to the monitoring center 45 and at least the location of the accident is displayed, preferably on an electronic map together with at least one image of the desired location 1 so the operator at the monitoring center 45 can evaluate the accident scene to determine the appropriate level of response.” Lagassey, para. [0201])
Regarding claim 17, Lagassey teaches wherein the central controller communicates the request to the respective one of the one or more imaging devices on a periodic schedule. (“A still image followed by a live image can be also used so that the location and image of the accident can be quickly transmitted for visual assessment by the operator in determining an appropriate response, followed by periodic still or live images to allow the operator to continue to monitor the situation and report to the authorities.” Lagassey, para. [0201])
Regarding claim 18, Lagassey teaches wherein the central controller, upon failure of a response communication to the request, enters an exception status to the database for the respective one of the one or more imaging devices. (“The control unit will continue attempting to establish contact with the monitoring center until contact is established. The system may provide a time-out which ceases communications attempts after a predetermined amount of time lapses, to avoid undue communication system burden in the event of a failure. If communication is not immediately established, there are a number of options available. To the extent possible, the remote unit may store data internally until communications are established.” Lagassey, para. [0125])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 12, 19- 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagassey (US 20170026893 A1) and further in view of Adair et al. (US 10019489 B1) referred to as Adair hereinafter
Regarding claim 7, Lagassey does not teach wherein the analytical analysis evaluates one or more image characteristics relating to image quality.
Adair teaches wherein the analytical analysis evaluates one or more image characteristics relating to image quality. (“Using image analysis, the brightness, contrast, clarity, and/or similar image quality metrics of the image may be determined.” Adair, col. 8, lines 9-11)
Lagassey and Adair are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lagassey in light of Adair’s operations for quality of images. One would have been motivated to do so because it can improve in indirect feedback. (Adair, col. 1, lines 19-20)
Regarding claim 8, Lagassey teaches and focus relative to a respective predetermined standard. (“the view angle of the video cameras is sufficiently wide to display both the street area of the desired location 1 and the visible portion(s) of the traffic signal(s) 30 from that angle, however, a separate video camera or cameras 35 or other suitable devices can be used exclusively to monitor the state of the traffic signals at the desired location 1.” Lagassey, para. [0179])
Adair teaches wherein the image characteristics of the analytical analysis evaluates image sharpness, clarity, color balance, (“the image may be blurry or have poor color (e.g., due to low light level). Using image analysis, the brightness, contrast, clarity, and/or similar image quality metrics of the image may be determined.” Adair, col. 8, lines 7-11)
Lagassey and Adair are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lagassey in light of Adair’s operations for quality of images. One would have been motivated to do so because it can improve in indirect feedback. (Adair, col. 1, lines 19-20)
Regarding claim 9, Lagassey teaches wherein the evaluation determines whether the imaging device was obstructed from imaging. (“The imaging system may comprise a plurality of video cameras directed at various portions of a location near an electrical traffic signal, wherein a first video camera is activated for a predetermined time period and each subsequent video camera is activated upon deactivation of an active video camera such that only one the video camera is activated at a given time.” Lagassey, para. [0151])
Regarding claim 11, Lagassey does not teach wherein the analytical analysis evaluates one or more audio characteristics relating to audio quality.
Adair teaches wherein the analytical analysis evaluates one or more audio characteristics relating to audio quality. (“The audio data may include representations of utterances from one or more users. The indirect feedback detector 222 may be configured to determine whether a portion of audio data can be used for to detect indirect feedback. The determination may include analyzing the quality of the audio data (e.g., volume, noise, sample rate, etc.) and comparing the quality to one or more audio quality thresholds indicating a suitable level for the audio data for detecting indirect feedback and generating a feedback response based thereon.” Adair, col. 8, lines 17-27)
Lagassey and Adair are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lagassey in light of Adair’s audio quality. One would have been motivated to do so because it can improve in indirect feedback. (Adair, col. 1, lines 19-20)
Regarding claim 12, Lagassey teaches wherein the audio characteristics of the analytical analysis evaluates audio clarity, a presence of static, and audio legibility relative to a respective predetermined standard. (“In order to differentiate accident-related sounds from ordinary sounds that occur at a traffic location, baseline or threshold acoustic signatures of various accident sounds (or models, algorithms, or descriptions thereof, or matched filters therefor) are stored in the control unit, and all acoustical data received from the microphones are measured and compared against these threshold acoustic signatures to determine if they are ordinary sounds, preliminary sounds or qualifying sounds. For example, the sounds received may match an acoustic signature of skidding tires (preliminary sounds) or the acoustic signature of a vehicle crashing into another vehicle, or other sounds common at an accident scene such as a vehicle crashing into an object or hitting a pedestrian (qualifying sounds). Any acoustic data received by the control unit with an acoustic level matching the stored threshold levels will automatically trigger the process of storing accident-related data according to the following parameters.” Lagassey, para. [0113])
Regarding claim 19, Lagassey teaches A remote imaging device monitoring system, comprising: a crash event detection and response system having a plurality of crash event response vehicles (“incident monitoring, for example to directly or inferentially determine whether an accident has occurred.” Lagassey, para. [0005]) and (“The person at the monitoring center (“the operator”) can then determine the location of and assess the accident scene, notify the proper authorities and relay the information needed by said authorities so they can dispatch the appropriate emergency response.” Lagassey, para. [0087])
each equipped with one or more imaging devices, (“the control unit transmits the location and still or moving video images of the accident scene which are displayed,” Lagassey, para. [0086])
each said imaging device associated with a unique identifier and for imaging a respective video with an audio stream at a site of a crash event (“The imaging system may comprise a plurality of video cameras directed at various portions of a location near an electrical traffic signal, wherein a first video camera is activated for a predetermined time period and each subsequent video camera is activated upon deactivation of an active video camera such that only one the video camera is activated at a given time. This configuration permits the system to operate with a limited set of resources, for example a single multiplexed video input. The imaging system may also comprise a plurality of video cameras directed at various portions of a location, in which the processor produces a combined output representing a synthetic representation of the location.” Lagassey, para. [0151])
and a communications device for communicating the respective imaging through a telecommunications network as a message; (“as a basic function of the MITS, is a vehicle accident detection and data recordation and transmission system that places one or more video cameras, microphones and data collection and transmission apparatus in proximity to traffic intersections, or other desired locations, to monitor local conditions, and, for example, to detect, store, and archivally retain accident-related images and sounds, together with other accident-related data such as time and location, and to relay data to real-time monitoring centers” Lagassey, para. [0072])
a monitoring controller configured for receiving said message and for storing said message indexed with the respective unique identifier in an operational status database; (“simultaneously or shortly before or after the location data is transmitted, at least a still or live image of the desired location 1 showing the accident scene is transmitted to the monitoring center 45 and at least the location of the accident is displayed, preferably on an electronic map together with at least one image of the desired location 1 so the operator at the monitoring center 45 can evaluate the accident scene to determine the appropriate level of response.” Lagassey, para. [0201]) and (“a communications system for selectively communicating the stored conditions to a remote monitoring center after predicting a likely occurrence of an incident” Lagassey, para. [0153])
and an exception action device for attending to correction of the respective imaging device upon determining an unsatisfactory quality of the video and audio stream of the respective message. (“If a qualifying sound is not detected within a predetermined amount of time after a preliminary sound is detected, the stored audio and video signals that followed the preliminary sound may be discarded and the control unit resumes waiting for the next preliminary or qualifying sound to be detected.” Lagassey, para. [0084])
However, Lagassey does not teach an imaging analyzer for evaluating the respective message as to a quality of the video imaged by a respective imaging device and for evaluating a quality of an audio stream recorded by said respective imaging device;
Adair teaches an imaging analyzer for evaluating the respective message as to a quality of the video imaged by a respective imaging device and for evaluating a quality of an audio stream recorded by said respective imaging device; (“Using image analysis, the brightness, contrast, clarity, and/or similar image quality metrics of the image may be determined.” Adair, col. 8, lines 9-11) and (“The audio data may include representations of utterances from one or more users. The indirect feedback detector 222 may be configured to determine whether a portion of audio data can be used for to detect indirect feedback. The determination may include analyzing the quality of the audio data (e.g., volume, noise, sample rate, etc.) and comparing the quality to one or more audio quality thresholds indicating a suitable level for the audio data for detecting indirect feedback and generating a feedback response based thereon.” Adair, col. 8, lines 17-27)
Lagassey and Adair are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lagassey in light of Adair’s operations for quality of images and audio. One would have been motivated to do so because it can improve in indirect feedback. (Adair, col. 1, lines 19-20)
Regarding claim 20, Lagassey teaches whereupon operational startup of the respective imaging device initiates imaging for a predetermined period and communicating the message to the monitoring controller. (“The communication means is also used by the control unit for initiating contact with a remote location for the purpose of reporting and transferring accident related data to the designated remote location, and for receiving command and control signals from said remote location.” Lagassey, para. [0079]) and (“when the transceiver has established a connection with the remote location (“the Monitoring Center”), the control unit initially transmits the location and at least one still image or live video image of the accident scene from at least one of the video cameras.” Lagassey, para. [0128])
Regarding claim 21, Lagassey teaches further comprising the monitoring controller configured for periodically interrogating each of the plurality of imaging devices for communicating a message. (“A still image followed by a live image can be also used so that the location and image of the accident can be quickly transmitted for visual assessment by the operator in determining an appropriate response, followed by periodic still or live images to allow the operator to continue to monitor the situation and report to the authorities.” Lagassey, para. [0201])
Regarding claim 22, Lagassey teaches further comprising the monitoring controller configured for communicating to a servicer a notice of non- response by a respective imaging device to the periodic interrogation requesting communication of the message. (“The system may provide a time-out which ceases communications attempts after a predetermined amount of time lapses, to avoid undue communication system burden in the event of a failure. If communication is not immediately established, there are a number of options available. To the extent possible, the remote unit may store data internally until communications are established.” Lagassey, para. [0125])
Regarding claim 23, Lagassey does not teach further comprising an analyzer for evaluation of an image characteristic relating to image quality for deviation from a pre-determined standard.
Adair teaches further comprising an analyzer for evaluation of an image characteristic relating to image quality for deviation from a pre-determined standard. (“Using image analysis, the brightness, contrast, clarity, and/or similar image quality metrics of the image may be determined.” Adair, col. 8, lines 9-11)
Lagassey and Adair are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lagassey in light of Adair’s operations for quality of images. One would have been motivated to do so because it can improve in indirect feedback. (Adair, col. 1, lines 19-20)
Regarding claim 24, refer to the explanation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 25, Lagassey does not teach further comprising an audio analyzer for evaluation of an audio characteristic relating to audio quality for deviation from a pre-determined standard.
Adair teaches further comprising an audio analyzer for evaluation of an audio characteristic relating to audio quality for deviation from a pre-determined standard. (“The audio data may include representations of utterances from one or more users. The indirect feedback detector 222 may be configured to determine whether a portion of audio data can be used for to detect indirect feedback. The determination may include analyzing the quality of the audio data (e.g., volume, noise, sample rate, etc.) and comparing the quality to one or more audio quality thresholds indicating a suitable level for the audio data for detecting indirect feedback and generating a feedback response based thereon.” Adair, col. 8, lines 17-27)
Regarding claim 26, refer to the explanation of claim 12.
Regarding claim 27, refer to the explanation of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARDIS SOHRABY whose telephone number is (571)270-0809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am till 6pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PARDIS SOHRABY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664