DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the claim recites “presence of a fallen object on the road,” Examiner is interpreting the term “fallen” as a term of degree. It is unclear how it is determined if an object has fallen on the road, is placed on the road, or is just an object on the road. For the purposes of examination the Examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring an object on the road. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “subsequent to the circuitry having detected overspeed traveling.” However, the detection of overspeed traveling is introduced in claim 4, from which claim 5 does not depend. Therefore it is unclear how an action can occur subsequent to an action which has not taken place. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “subsequent to the circuitry having detected wrong-way traveling.” However, the detection of wrong-way traveling is introduced in claim 4, from which claim 6 does not depend. Therefore it is unclear how an action can occur subsequent to an action which has not taken place. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “subsequent to the circuitry having detected….” However, the detection of specific events is introduced in claim 4, from which claim 8 does not depend. Therefore it is unclear how an action can occur subsequent to an action which has not taken place. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “subsequent to the circuitry having detected….” However, the detection of specific events is introduced in claim 4, from which claim 10 does not depend. Therefore it is unclear how an action can occur subsequent to an action which has not taken place. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “ a sensor” and “a plurality of cameras” which are also positively claimed in claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 fails to add any limitations to the detection device of claim 1 and is a duplicate.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the mental process of detecting an event without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps “select, in accordance with a content of the event detected by the circuitry, a camera that captures an image regarding the event out of a plurality of cameras installed on the road” and “ instruct the camera selected by the circuitry to perform image capturing.” Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites additional limitation “acquire sensor information from a sensor, the sensor being configured to transmit an electromagnetic wave to a road and receive the electromagnetic wave reflected by a target object to detect the target object, circuitry being configured to detect an event set in advance based on the acquired sensor information” which amounts to data gathering and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application. Under step 2B, the claim recites additional “circuitry” which amounts to generic computer processing components and fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 follows the same logic as claim 1 above.
Claim 11 follows the same logic as claim 1 above, with additional limitations of “the sensor” and “a plurality of cameras” which fail to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 2 adds limitations of detecting a plurality of events set in advance based on the sensor information, this is a mental process fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 3, adds a limitation of an event location, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 4 adds the types of events which may be detected. These are a mental process and fail to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 5 adds selecting a camera after detecting overspeeding. This is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 6 adds selecting a camera after detecting a wrong way driver. This is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 7 adds determining different frame rates, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 8 adds limitations of selecting different frame rates for different events, this is a mental process which fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 9 adds detecting detailed information, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 10 adds detecting a license plate after detecting the event, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5, and 9-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seifert (WO 2020/141504).
Regarding claim 1, Seifert teaches:
A detection device (Seifert, page 31, processor) comprising:
circuitry (Seifert, page 31, processor) configured to
acquire sensor information from a sensor, the sensor being configured to transmit an electromagnetic wave to a road and receive the electromagnetic wave reflected by a target object to detect the target object, (Seifert page 12, deploy radar units, which together establish a field of view of at least a portion of a network of roads. See also page 17, Radar units detect vehicles, measure their speed, and continuously track all speeding vehicles moving in the radar field of view or all moving vehicles in the field of view) the circuitry being configured to detect an event set in advance, based on the acquired sensor information; (Seifert page 17, configure radar e.g. use the configuration file in the radar to determine which car to incriminate by configuring the high speed and unambiguity thresholds (events set in advance) in the tracker algorithm resident within the radar)
select, in accordance with a content of the event detected by the circuitry, a camera that captures an image regarding the event out of a plurality of cameras installed on the road; (Seifert page 21, the communication protocol via which the radar subsystem communicated with the camera typically stipulates an exact time which the radar may send the camera, at which the camera is to shoot the image, in order to capture the speeding vehicle according to a time tag the tickets will deliver… See also page 22, the radar subsystem may command all, or a subset or a single most suitable camera, to image the speeding vehicle) and
instruct the camera selected by the circuitry to perform image capturing. (Seifert page 21, the communication protocol via which the radar subsystem communicated with the camera typically stipulates an exact time which the radar may send the camera, at which the camera is to shoot the image, in order to capture the speeding vehicle according to a time tag the tickets will deliver)
Regarding claim 2, Seifert teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the events set in advance are present, (Seifert page 17, configure radar e.g. use the configuration file in the radar to determine which car to incriminate by configuring the high speed and unambiguity thresholds (events set in advance) in the tracker algorithm resident within the radar) and
out of the plurality of the events set in advance, the circuitry detects one or a plurality of the events, based on the sensor information. (Seifert page 17, Radar units detect vehicles, measure their speed, and continuously track all speeding vehicle moving in the radar field of view or all moving vehicles in the radar field of view)
Regarding claim 3, Seifert teaches:
The detection device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of the events set in advance include an event capable of occurring in a target region where the sensor acquires the sensor information. (Seifert page 12, deploy radar units, which together establish a field of view of at least a portion of a network of roads)
Regarding claim 5, Seifert teaches:
The detection device according to any one of claims 1, wherein subsequent to the circuitry having detected overspeed road traveling by a vehicle as the event, the circuitry selects, out of the plurality of cameras, a camera (Seifert page 21, the communication protocol via which the radar subsystem communicated with the camera typically stipulates an exact time which the radar may send the camera, at which the camera is to shoot the image, in order to capture the speeding vehicle according to a time tag the tickets will deliver… See also page 22, the radar subsystem may command all, or a subset or a single most suitable camera, to image the speeding vehicle) of which an image capturing target is a region downstream in a traveling direction of the road with respect to a target region where the sensor acquires the sensor information. (Seifert page 23, determine the edge that the speeding car is on, then retrieve from memory the next camera that the car will encounter)
Regarding claim 9, Seifert teaches:
The detection device according to any one of claims 1, further comprising a detailed circuitry configured to, based on the image captured by the camera selected by the circuitry, detect detailed information of the event detected by the circuitry. (Seifert page 24 In real-time, near real-time, or off-line, image processing unit finds license plate in camera-generated image of vehicle, and reads license plate number)
Regarding claim 10, Seifert teaches:
The detection device according to claim 9,
wherein subsequent to the circuitry having detected overspeed road traveling by a vehicle at a speed exceeding a legal speed or a designated speed, wrong-way traveling of a vehicle on the road, or parking of a vehicle on the road, as the event set in advance, (Seifert page 21, the communication protocol via which the radar subsystem communicated with the camera typically stipulates an exact time which the radar may send the camera, at which the camera is to shoot the image, in order to capture the speeding vehicle according to a time tag the tickets will deliver… See also page 22, the radar subsystem may command all, or a subset or a single most suitable camera, to image the speeding vehicle)
the detailed detection circuitry detects information regarding a number plate of a target vehicle as the detailed information. (Seifert page 24 In real-time, near real-time, or off-line, image processing unit finds license plate in camera-generated image of vehicle, and reads license plate number)
Regarding claim 11, Seifert teaches:
A detection system comprising:
the sensor; (Seifert page 12, deploy radar units)
a plurality of the cameras; (Seifert page 11, deploy at least one camera, e.g. cameras 1-N of Fig 2) and
the detection device according to claim 1. (Please see a full discussion of claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 12, Seifert teaches:
A detection method comprising:
acquiring with circuitry sensor information from a sensor, the sensor being configured to transmit an electromagnetic wave to a road and receive the electromagnetic wave reflected by a target object to detect the target object, (Seifert page 12, deploy radar units, which together establish a field of view of at least a portion of a network of roads. See also page 17, Radar units detect vehicles, measure their speed, and continuously track all speeding vehicles moving in the radar field of view or all moving vehicles in the field of view) and of detecting an event set in advance, based on the acquired sensor information; (Seifert page 17, configure radar e.g. use the configuration file in the radar to determine which car to incriminate by configuring the high speed and unambiguity thresholds (events set in advance) in the tracker algorithm resident within the radar)
selecting with circuitry, in accordance with a content of the detected event, a camera that captures an image regarding the event out of a plurality of cameras installed on the road; (Seifert page 21, the communication protocol via which the radar subsystem communicated with the camera typically stipulates an exact time which the radar may send the camera, at which the camera is to shoot the image, in order to capture the speeding vehicle according to a time tag the tickets will deliver… See also page 22, the radar subsystem may command all, or a subset or a single most suitable camera, to image the speeding vehicle) and
instructing with circuitry the selected camera to perform image capturing. (Seifert page 21, the communication protocol via which the radar subsystem communicated with the camera typically stipulates an exact time which the radar may send the camera, at which the camera is to shoot the image, in order to capture the speeding vehicle according to a time tag the tickets will deliver)
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Xing (“Evaluation of Roadside Wrong-Way Warning systems with Different Types of Sensors”) and Rappel (US 2021/0341303).
Regarding claim 4, Seifert teaches:
The detection device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of the events set in advance include at least one of:
overspeed road traveling by a vehicle, at a speed exceeding a legal speed or a designated speed; (Seifert page 17, Radar units detect vehicles, measure their speed, and continuously track all speeding vehicle moving in the radar field of view or all moving vehicles in the radar field of view)
Seifert fails to teach:
wrong-way traveling of a vehicle on the road;
parking of a vehicle on the road;
a congestion of the road; and
presence of a fallen object on the road.
Xing teaches:
wrong-way traveling of a vehicle on the road; (Xing, Section 2, the system consists of sensors for detecting wrong-way vehicles….once the system detects a vehicle going the wrong way it will activate a video system and record the incident one minute each before and after the detection of the wrong-way vehicle)
Before the time of filing, it would have been to add the wrong way detection of Xing to the traffic monitoring system of Seifert. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of traffic monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to reduce the risk of drivers on the road. See Xing Section 1.
Seifert and Xing fail to teach:
parking of a vehicle on the road;
a congestion of the road; and
presence of a fallen object on the road.
Rappel teaches:
parking of a vehicle on the road; (Rappel [200] event a particular location such as traffic congestions, a pothole, a broken down vehicle blocking a travel path)
a congestion of the road; (Rappel [200] event a particular location such as traffic congestions, a pothole, a broken down vehicle blocking a travel path)
and
presence of a fallen object on the road. (Rappel [0196] The roadway conditions may include general objects, such as a box)
Before the time of filing, it would have been to add the road condition of Rapel to the traffic monitoring system of Seifert and Xing . The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of traffic monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to improve navigation on the road. See Rappel [0003]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xing (“Evaluation of Roadside Wrong-Way Warning systems with Different Types of Sensors”).
Regarding claim 6, Seifert teaches:
the circuitry selects, out of the plurality of cameras, a camera of which an image capturing target is a region upstream in a traveling direction of the road with respect to a target region where the sensor acquires the sensor information. (Seifert page 23, determine the edge that the speeding car is on, then retrieve from memory the next camera that the car will encounter)
Seifert fails to teach:
The detection device according to any one of claims 1, wherein subsequent to the circuitry having detected wrong-way traveling of a vehicle on the road as the event,
Xing teaches:
The detection device according to any one of claims 1, wherein subsequent to the circuitry having detected wrong-way traveling of a vehicle on the road as the event, (Xing, Section 2, the system consists of sensors for detecting wrong-way vehicles….once the system detects a vehicle going the wrong way it will activate a video system and record the incident one minute each before and after the detection of the wrong-way vehicle)
Before the time of filing, it would have been to add the wrong way detection of Xing to the traffic monitoring system of Seifert. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of traffic monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to reduce the risk of drivers on the road. See Xing Section 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cordell (US 2020/0254876).
Regarding claim 7, Seifert fails to teach:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein in accordance with the event detected by the circuitry, the circuitry determines, as an image capturing condition for the camera selected by the circuitry , either of a first image capturing condition under which image capturing is performed at a predetermined number of frames, and a second image capturing condition under which image capturing is performed at a number of frames larger than the predetermined number of frames, and issues an instruction to perform image capturing under the determined image capturing condition.
Cordell teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein in accordance with the event detected by the circuitry, the circuitry determines, as an image capturing condition for the camera selected by the circuitry , either of a first image capturing condition under which image capturing is performed at a predetermined number of frames, and a second image capturing condition under which image capturing is performed at a number of frames larger than the predetermined number of frames, and issues an instruction to perform image capturing under the determined image capturing condition. (Cordell [0057] For example, the frame rate may be adjusted based on the speed of the automobile, such as lowering the rate if it is being driven at a slow speed. If the automobile speeds up, the frame rate could be increased correspondingly.)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the frame adjustment of Cordell to the traffic monitoring of Seifert. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of road monitoring. The motivation to combine the references is to control the amount of data generated. See Cordell [0059].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert and Cordell as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Rappel (US 2021/0341303).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seifert and Cordell teaches:
the circuitry determines the first image capturing condition as the image capturing condition for the camera selected by the circuitry, and issues an instruction to perform image capturing under the determined first image capturing condition (Cordell [0057] For example, the frame rate may be adjusted based on the speed of the automobile, such as lowering the rate if it is being driven at a slow speed. If the automobile speeds up, the frame rate could be increased correspondingly.), and
subsequent to the circuitry having detected overspeed road traveling by a vehicle at a speed exceeding a legal speed or a designated speed or wrong-way traveling of a vehicle on the road, as the event set in advance, (Seifert page 17, Radar units detect vehicles, measure their speed, and continuously track all speeding vehicle moving in the radar field of view or all moving vehicles in the radar field of view) the instruction unit determines the second image capturing condition as the image capturing condition for the camera selected by the circuitry, and issues an instruction to perform image capturing under the determined second image capturing condition. (Cordell [0057] For example, the frame rate may be adjusted based on the speed of the automobile, such as lowering the rate if it is being driven at a slow speed. If the automobile speeds up, the frame rate could be increased correspondingly.)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the frame adjustment of Cordell to the traffic monitoring of Seifert. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of road monitoring. The motivation to combine the references is to control the amount of data generated. See Cordell [0059].
The combination fails to teach:
wherein subsequent to the circuitry having detected parking of a vehicle on the road, a congestion of the road, or presence of a fallen object on the road, as the event set in advance,
Rappel teaches:
wherein subsequent to the circuitry having detected parking of a vehicle on the road, a congestion of the road, or presence of a fallen object on the road, as the event set in advance, (Rappel [200] event a particular location such as traffic congestions, a pothole, a broken down vehicle blocking a travel path)
Before the time of filing, it would have been to add the road condition of Rapel to the traffic monitoring system of Seifert and Cordell. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of traffic monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to improve navigation on the road. See Rappel [0003]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666