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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record, as a single reference or as a combination, fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 1, in particular, “a wireless cellular network connection module in the device housing that is configured to stream the generated live video via the wireless cellular network connection module to, and transmit the electronic reports generated by the image analyzer to, a remote mobile device based on detected proximity of the remote mobile device to a potential traffic hazard, traffic issue or safety issue.” Thus, claims 1-18 are found to be novel and unobvious over prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 19, the applicant argues that Detmold fails to discloses “a wireless cellular network connection module in the device housing that is configured to stream the generated live video via the wireless cellular network connection module” on the basis that par. [0085] of Detmold allegedly, “does not indicate that this sensed data is communicated via streaming the live video to the remote computing device, much less streaming particularly via the wireless cellular network connection module.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional citations of Detmold in the 35 USC § 103 rejection below clarify that Detmold does disclose “a wireless cellular network connection module in the device housing that is configured to stream the generated live video via the wireless cellular network connection module.” For example, par. [0085] recites, “communicate sensed data, inferences based on the sensed data, detected events or other observations or output of data processing operations to the remote computing device 380 through the gateway device 360 over the network 370 … The gateway device 360 may communicate using a wired or wireless link 361”; also par. [0087] describes the network 370 as wireless. Therefore, all the sensed data and detected event information can be sent wirelessly from the monitoring system 100 to the remote computing device 380 as shown in figure 3. Additionally, par. [0104]-[0106] describes providing a continuous video or image feed “method 600 involves the periodic transmission of images captured by the camera sensors of the monitoring system 100 to the remote computing device 380 … Alternatively, the computing device 310 may receive a continuous video or an image feed … At 620, the computing device 310 transmits the image data received at 610 to the remote computing device 380”.
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 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333880 A1 to Detmold et al. (hereinafter “Detmold”) in view of US 20200107008 A1 to Hur et al. (“Hur”).
Consider claim 19, Detmold discloses a method comprising:
at least one video camera in a device housing of a vehicle traffic monitoring device, the at least one video camera viewing scenes outside the device housing and generating live video of the viewed scenes in at least a
an image analyzer in the device housing performing local analytics of the live video (par. [0062]: “The object detection module 324 may comprise program code to analyse camera sensor data and perform object detection operations on the camera sensor data”);
the image analyzer generating electronic reports regarding frames of the live video based on the local analytics performed by the image analyzer (par. [0102] and 540 of FIG. 5: “the computing device 310 may determine compliance of a vehicle with the parking conditions of the parking area in the vicinity of post 120 and transmit the determined compliance output to the remote computing device 380”; also par. [0070]: “congestion detection on roads”);
a wireless cellular network connection module in the device housing streaming the generated live video via the wireless cellular network connection module; and the wireless cellular network connection module transmitting the electronic reports regarding the frames generated by the image analyzer (par. [0085] and fig. 3: “The monitoring system 100 may be configured to communicate sensed data, inferences based on the sensed data, detected events or other observations or output of data processing operations to the remote computing device 380 through the gateway device 360 over the network 370 [. . .] The gateway device 360 may communicate using a wired or wireless link 361”; par. [0080]: the sensed data includes images; par. [0087]: the network 370 also maybe wireless; par. [0099]: “the computing device 310 may receive a continuous video or an image feed from the camera sensor(s)”; par. [0104]-[0106] and fig. 6: “method 600 involves the periodic transmission of images captured by the camera sensors of the monitoring system 100 to the remote computing device 380 [. . .] Alternatively, the computing device 310 may receive a continuous video or an image feed [. . .] At 620, the computing device 310 transmits the image data received at 610 to the remote computing device 380”).
Detmold fails to explicitly disclose generating live video of the viewed scenes in at least a high-definition (HD) resolution.
In analogous art of video transmission, Hur discloses generating live video of the viewed scenes in at least a high-definition (HD) resolution (par. [0578]: “For example, data (e.g., including video/image bitstream, metadata, etc.) output from a transmission apparatus (e.g., 360-degree video transmission apparatus) may be transmitted to a reception apparatus (e.g., 360-degree video reception apparatus) through the 5G communication”; par. [0587]: “for example, real time HD video may be requested in a device of a specific type for surveillance”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Detmold in view of the above teachings of Hur in order to transmit HD video for surveillance purposes.
Consider claim 20, modified Detmold discloses the method of claim 19, and Detmold further teaches: the image analyzer detecting in frames of the live video one or more characteristics of one or more vehicles on a road adjacent to the vehicle traffic monitoring device; the image analyzer determining whether there exists a potential traffic hazard, traffic issue or safety issue based on the detected one or more characteristics of the one or more vehicles; and the image analyzer including in the electronic reports data indicative of the determination whether there exists a potential traffic hazard, traffic issue or safety issue (par. [0069]-[0070]: “The object detection module 324 may continue to analyse subsequently captured images to detect objects in the captured images and transmit the object detection output to the event detection module 325. The event detection module 325 may analyse the object detection output to determine whether the previously detected vehicle is not detected anymore [. . .] The object detection module 324 and the event detection module 325 may together be configured to perform various monitoring operations including congestion detection on roads” ;par. [0085]: “The monitoring system 100 may be configured to communicate sensed data, inferences based on the sensed data, detected events or other observations or output of data processing operations to the remote computing device 380).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484