Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on November 15, 2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“exception action device”; “monitoring controller”; “imaging analyzer”; and “audio analyzer” in claims 19-27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Although the claims do not use the word “means,” the nonce term “section” coupled solely with functional language does not connote sufficient structure to a POSITA. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-27 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/509,943 (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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1–27 are directed to a process (method claims) and a system (apparatus claims), which are categories of invention eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea)
The claims are directed to methods and systems for remote monitoring and verification of imaging devices, which involve steps of collecting, evaluating, and reporting data regarding the operational status and quality of imaging devices. Such activities represent abstract ideas (i.e., mental processes and organizing human activity). The claims are directed to the following limitations (paraphrased from claim 1 as representative):
Providing a vehicle with imaging devices and a communications device.
Associating a unique identifier with each imaging device.
Evaluating video/audio messages from each imaging device.
Attending to correction upon determination of an exception.
Storing and indexing messages in a database.
Analyzing image/audio quality relative to standards.
Reporting exceptions for servicing or replacement.
These steps, when considered as a whole, recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity and mental processes, specifically the gathering, analysis, and reporting of data for equipment status monitoring. The Federal Circuit has found similar activities to be abstract ideas (see Electric Power Group and In re TLI Communications).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and imaging devices performing routine functions. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer, imaging device, or any other technology or technical field.
The claims recite generic components such as “imaging devices,” “communications device,” “operational status database,” “controller,” and “analyzer.” The functions performed by these components (collecting, evaluating, reporting) are described at a high level and do not require any specialized hardware or an improvement to the functioning of the computer or imaging devices themselves. There is no indication that the claims apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely implementing it on generic technology. The claims do not effect a transformation or otherwise add a meaningful limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: “Significantly More” (Inventive Concept)
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims use generic hardware in a conventional manner to perform generic data gathering, analysis, and reporting. The additional elements (imaging devices, communications device, database, controller, analyzer) are recited at a high level of generality and are described as performing their conventional functions. The claims do not include any unconventional hardware or a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The combination of elements performs routine and conventional functions (data collection, analysis, reporting) as would be performed by generic computing equipment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. Thus, the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, the claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-18 and 20-27, the dependent claims add further limitations such as communicating messages at operational start (claim 2); storing messages indexed by unique identifier (claim 3); evaluating by visual display or audio sounding (claims 4–5); analytical analysis of image/audio quality (claims 6–12); comparing evaluations over time (claim 13); analyzing operational status, power supply (claims 14–15); periodic interrogation and exception reporting (claims 16–18, 21–22); quality assessment and deviation from standards (claims 23–26); and comparing multiple evaluations (claim 27). These limitations specifying particular steps or parameters for data gathering, analysis, storage, comparison, and reporting regarding the operational status and quality of imaging devices. These steps represent abstract ideas (mental processes and organizing human activity).
The dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely implement the abstract idea using generic hardware and conventional functions. The dependent claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, imaging device, or any other technology or technical field.
Furthermore, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The limitations are directed to routine and conventional activities performed by generic hardware.
Accordingly, claims 2–27 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelski (US 2020/0068192) in view of Lagassey (2017/0026893).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19: Pelski teaches a system and method for monitoring the health of a plurality of video devices, determining a health state for each device based on device data, logging device status/events, generating alerts and automated corrective actions in response to unhealthy status, and providing a user interface for monitoring and management (see, e.g., Abstract; [0004], [0047]–[0054], Figs. 1–4).
associating in an operational status database a unique identifier with each respective one of the one or more imaging devices (each device tracked, unique IDs, [0037], [0050]);
evaluating a selected video and audio imaging message from a respective one of the imaging devices communicated to the central controller (health state determined by analytics/rules, [0038], [0047], [0051]);
upon determination of an exception in the video and audio imaging from a predetermined standard, attending to correction (alert, auto or manual resolution, [0004], [0039], [0054]).
Pelski does not teach 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; Pelski is directed to building/facility surveillance cameras, not vehicle-mounted imaging devices for crash event response.
However, Lagassey teaches a modular, vehicle-based imaging system for crash/event detection, including vehicle-mounted cameras/microphones, unique device identification, remote communication, diagnostics, and management (see, e.g., Abstract; [0052]–[0147], Figs. 1–13). Further, Lagassey teach providing a crash event response vehicle with one or more imaging devices for imaging video and audio at a site of a crash event (vehicle-mounted cameras/mics for crash/event detection, [0052]-[0147]) and a communications device for communicating imaged video and audio as a message to a central controller (vehicle sends data to remote server, [0073], [0099], [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pelski’s analytics-based, automated health monitoring and exception workflow with the vehicle-based imaging system of Lagassey, for the purpose of ensuring reliable, remotely managed operation of vehicle-mounted imaging devices in a crash event response fleet. The motivation is to improve reliability, uptime, and maintainability of mobile imaging systems, as is already done for distributed fixed cameras in Pelski.
Regarding Claim 2: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, wherein the selected video and audio imaging message is communicated upon operational start of a respective one of the one or more imaging devices (Pelski, device status at startup, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 3: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, 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 (Pelski, logs messages/events by device ID, [0050], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 4: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, wherein the evaluation is based on a visual display of the video imaging of selected video and audio imaging message (Pelski, UI for device status, [0054], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 5: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, wherein the evaluation is based on an audio sounding of the audio imaging of the selected video and audio imaging message (Pelski, alerts, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 6: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, wherein the evaluation is based on an analytical analysis of the video imaging of selected video and audio imaging message (Pelski, analytics/rules for health, [0038], [0051]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 23: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 6, wherein the analytical analysis evaluates one or more image characteristics relating to image quality (Pelski, analytics/rules, [0038], [0051]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 24: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process recited in claim 7, wherein the image characteristics of the analytical analysis evaluates image sharpness, clarity, color balance, and focus relative to a respective predetermined standard (Pelski, analytics/rules, [0038], [0051]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 25: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 7, wherein the evaluation determines whether the imaging device was obstructed from imaging (Pelski, periodic polling, [0037], [0047]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 26: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, wherein the evaluation is based on an analytical analysis of the audio imaging of the selected video and audio imaging message (Pelski, rules/thresholds, [0051], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 11: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, wherein the analytical analysis evaluates one or more audio characteristics relating to audio quality (Pelski, historical logs, [0050], [0056]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 27: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process recited in claim 11, wherein the audio characteristics of the analytical analysis evaluates audio clarity, a presence of static, and audio legibility relative to a respective predetermined standard (Pelski, [0050], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 13: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, 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 (Pelski, [0050], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 14: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, further comprising analyzing an operational status of the respective one of the one or more imaging devices (Pelski, health status analytics, [0038], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 15: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 14, wherein the operational status analysis comprises evaluating power supply capacity of the response vehicle (Pelski, device power status, [0051]).
Regarding Claims 16 and 20: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 1, 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 (Pelski, periodic polling, [0037], [0047]).
Regarding Claims 17 and 21: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 16, wherein the central controller communicates the request to the respective one of the one or more imaging devices on a periodic schedule (Pelski, periodic polling, [0037], [0047]).
Regarding Claims 18 and 22: Pelski in view of Lagassey teach the process as recited in claim 17, 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 (Pelski, logs exceptions, [0050], [0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627