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 .
Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Copending Application No. 18/669,689
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/669,689. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/669,689 discloses a method for automatically detecting at least one anomaly inside of a conduit in real-time computing.
Claim 1 of the instant application discloses a method for automatically detecting at least one anomaly inside of a conduit. Claim one of the instant application is composed of claims 1 and 9 of the copending application 18/669,689 which recite similar features and are not distinct..
Claims in the instant application are not patentable distinct because they are broader with respect to the copending application claims. Many decisions support the fact that a broad or generic claim is obvious from a specific claim, i.e. an obvious variation. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993); In re Vogel and Vogal, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Berg (CA FC) 46 USPG2d 1226 (3/30/1998); Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1865 (CA FC 2001). It is well settled that omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining element perform the same function as before. This notion is supported by In re Karlson, 136 USPG 184 (1963); In re Nelson, 95 USPQ 82 (CCPA 1952); and In re Eliot, 25 USPQ 111 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claims 2-21, claims 2-21 of Application No. 18/669,689, discloses similar features further claimed.
This is a provisional obvious nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to ineligible software per se.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 recite "a computer readable medium; a program stored on a computer readable medium; and a computer program product stored on a computer readable media... " respectively, without any positive recitation of hardware structure within the scope of the claimed system e.g. the computer program is [intended] "to cause the processor to" perform functions. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1, 11 and 18 are found to be directed to ineligible software per se (see MPEP 21.06.03(I)).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.
Applicant is suggested to amend claims 1, 11 and 18 by adding the limitation “non- transitory” to the claim to overcome the non-statutory subject matter rejections.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 do not cure the deficiencies as described above, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 3 and 20 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.
Claims 3 and 20 recite the word “judging and judge” in lines 3 respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bound of this word because it is unclear against what parameter the system “judges”. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated byTofte et al. (US 2024/0142329 A1, hereinafter Tof).
Regarding claim 1, Tof discloses a method for automatically detecting at least one anomaly inside of a conduit (see abstract), comprising steps of:
moving an optical imaging device of a system inside of the conduit (i.e. pipe) (see abstract and para. 0069);
viewing at least one anomaly (i.e. blockages/leakeages) inside of the conduit with the optical imaging device (see abstract and para. 0016);
outputting a video stream by the optical imaging device with the at least one anomaly to a user interface of the system (see para. 0167);
executing an anomaly detection program, by a controller of the system, from a computer readable medium in response to the at least one anomaly being viewed by the optical imaging device (see fig. 2 & 5), wherein the controller is caused to: automatically detect the at least one anomaly with a machine learning protocol of the anomaly detection program (see para. 0011, 0059, 0167); and apply an alert to the at least one anomaly on the video stream (see para. 0010, 0130 and 0149).
Regarding claim 11, Tof discloses a system for automatically detecting at least one anomaly inside of a conduit, comprising:
an optical imaging device (see abstract);
a controller operatively in communication with the optical imaging device (see para. 0167); a global positioning system (GPS) operably engaged with the optical imaging device and is operatively in communication with the controller (see para. 0021 and 0049); and
an anomaly detection program stored on a computer readable medium that is executable by the controller; wherein when the controller executes the anomaly detection program, the controller is instructed to automatically detect the at least one anomaly inside of the conduit and is instructed to record a location of the at least one anomaly with the GPS in response to the optical imaging device viewing the at least one anomaly inside of the conduit (see para. 0049, 0135-0136).
Regarding claim 18, Tof discloses a computer program product stored on a computer readable media and executable by a controller of a system for automatically detecting at least one anomaly inside of a conduit:
executing, by the controller, a first step to automatically detect the at least one anomaly with a machine learning protocol of an anomaly detection program in response to the at least one anomaly being viewed on a video stream outputted by an optical imaging device of the system (see para. 0049, 0078 and 0135-0136); and
executing, by the controller, a second step to automatically apply an alert to the at least one anomaly on the video stream (see para. 0010, 0130 and 0149).
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 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(s) 2-4, 12-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tof and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0373047 A1, hereinafter Zhan. Used herein as a translation of original filed application CN 20210522292 (May 13, 2022)).
Regarding claim 2, Tof discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of executing an anomaly detection program by the controller further comprises: outputting the video stream to an application program interface (see para. 0167).
However, Tof fails to disclose transcoding the video stream, by a video transcoding process of the anomaly detection program, from a first video format to a second video format; and outputting the video stream having the second video format to the machine learning protocol.
Zhan discloses transcoding video streams, by a video transcoding process, from a first video format to a second video format; and outputting the video stream having the second video format to the machine learning protocol (see para. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tof’s invention to incorporate video transcoding and outputting the video stream as taught by Zhan for the benefit of being able to live stream the video information to different terminals which can reach multiple audiences (see Zhan fig. 6 element 612).
Regarding claim 3, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the step of automatically detect the at least one anomaly from the machine learning protocol further comprises: judging the second video format of the video stream by a video quality analyzer of the machine learning protocol (see Zhan para. 0134, the system determines if the target data is obtained).
Regarding claim 4, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the step of automatically detect the at least one anomaly from the machine learning protocol further comprises: determining a type of anomaly of the at least one anomaly by a conduit assessor of the machine learning protocol (see Tof para. 0078 and 0085); wherein the conduit assessor is loaded with pipe, lateral, and manhole assessment coding guidelines (see Tof para. 0004, 0017, 0136 and 0137, the system assesses the entire environment once the robot ball is inside the pipe or sewer system using lidar and camera vision as an example).
Regarding claim 12, Tof discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the anomaly detection program further comprises: an application program interface (see para. 0167). However, Tof fails to disclose a video transcoding architecture operatively in communication with the application program interface; and a machine learning protocol operatively in communication with the application program interface and the video transcoding architecture.
Zhan discloses a video transcoding architecture operatively in communication with the application program interface; and a machine learning protocol operatively in communication with the application program interface and the video transcoding architecture (see para. 0013 and 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tof’s invention to incorporate video transcoding as taught by Zhan for the benefit of being able to live stream the video information to different terminals which can reach multiple audiences (see Zhan fig. 6 element 612).
Regarding claim 13, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the machine learning protocol comprises: a video quality analyzer operatively in communication with the video transcoding architecture (see Zhan para. 0134, the system determines if the target data is obtained).
Regarding claim 14, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the machine learning protocol further comprises: a conduit assessor operatively in communication with the video transcoding architecture and configured with pipe, lateral, and manhole assessment coding guidelines (see Tof para. 0004, 0017, 0136 and 0137, the system assesses the entire environment once the robot ball is inside the pipe or sewer system using lidar and camera vision as an example).
Regarding claim 17, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the anomaly detection program further comprises: a video database operatively in communication with the video transcoding architecture and the machine learning protocol (see Zhan para. 0045).
Regarding claim 19, Tof discloses the computer program product of claim 18, further comprising: executing, by the controller, a third step to output the video stream to an application program interface (see para 0167). However, Tof fails to disclose executing, by the controller, a fourth step to transcode the video stream, by a video transcoding process of the anomaly detection program, from a first video format to a second video format; and executing, by the controller, a fifth step to output the video stream having the second video format to the machine learning protocol.
Zhan discloses a step to transcode the video stream, by a video transcoding process of the anomaly detection program, from a first video format to a second video format; and executing, by the controller, a step to output the video stream having the second video format to the machine learning protocol (see para. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tof’s invention to incorporate video transcoding and outputting the video stream as taught by Zhan for the benefit of being able to live stream the video information to different terminals which can reach multiple audiences (see Zhan fig. 6 element 612).
Claim(s) 5-10, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tof, further in view of Zhan and further in view of Scharpf (US 2023/0186410 A1, hereinafter Scha)
Regarding claim 5, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the method of claim 2. However, Tof in view of Zhan fails to disclose wherein the step of automatically detect the at least one anomaly from the machine learning protocol further comprises: determining the at least one anomaly is a cross-bore defined in the conduit by a cross-bore analyzer of the machine learning protocol.
Scha discloses determining the at least one anomaly is a cross-bore defined in the conduit by a cross-bore analyzer of the machine learning protocol (see abstract and para. 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tof in view of Zhan to incorporate cross bore analysis for the purpose of detecting any abnormality such as an unintentional utility intersection (i.e. gas or electric) within the inspected location.
Regarding claim 6, Tof in view of Zhan and Scha discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the step of executing the anomaly detection program by the controller further comprises: storing the video stream having the first format in a first storage component of the video transcoding process (see Zhan para. 0092, 0110-0111 and 0119); transcoding the video stream from the first format to a second format by a video transcoder; and storing the video stream having the second format in a second storage component of the video transcoding process (see Zhan para. 0059, 0110-0111 and 0119).
Regarding claim 7, Tof in view of Zhan and Scha discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the step of executing the anomaly detection program by the controller further comprises: outputting the video stream with the second format to a transcode information component (see Zhan abstract and para. 0092 and 0119); and outputting the video stream to a database of the anomaly detection program (see para. 0045, 0051 and 0092).
Regarding claim 8, Tof in view of Zhan and Scha discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the step of executing the anomaly detection program by the controller further comprises: outputting the video stream with the second format to the machine learning protocol (see Zhan para. 0092).
Regarding claim 9, Tof in view of Zhan and Scha discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: outputting the database to the machine learning protocol (see Zhan para. 0092); and training the machine learning protocol with the database (see para. 0092 and 0238).
Regarding claim 10, Tof in view of Zhan and Scha discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: outputting a report of the at least one anomaly detected by the system (see Tof para. 0051 and 0052).
Regarding claim 15, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the system of claim 12. However, Tof in view of Zhan fail to disclose wherein the machine learning protocol further comprises: a cross-bore analyzer operatively in communication with the video transcoding architecture and configured with cross-bore assessment guidelines.
Scha discloses a cross-bore analyzer operatively in communication with the video transcoding architecture and configured with cross-bore assessment guidelines (see abstract and para. 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tof in view of Zhan to incorporate cross bore analysis for the purpose of detecting any abnormality such as an unintentional utility intersection (i.e. gas or electric) within the inspected location.
Regarding claim 16, Tof in view of Zhan and Scha discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the video transcoding architecture comprises: a first storage component operatively in communication with the application program interface (see Zhan para. 0092, 0110-0111 and 0119); a video transcoder operatively in communication with the first storage component; a second storage component operatively in communication with the first storage component and the machine learning protocol (see Zhan para. 0059, 0110-0111 and 0119); and a video transcoding service operatively in communication with the second storage component (see Zhan para. 0059, 0110-0111 and 0119).
Regarding claim 20, Tof in view of Zhan discloses the computer program product of claim 19, wherein the step of executing the first step by the controller further comprises: executing, by the controller, a third step to judge the second video format of the video stream by a video quality analyzer of the machine learning protocol (see Zhan para. 0092); executing, by the controller, a fourth step to determine a type of anomaly of the at least one anomaly by a conduit assessor of the machine learning protocol (see Tof para. 0078 and 0085), wherein the conduit assessor is loaded with pipe, lateral, and manhole assessment coding guidelines (see Tof para. 0004, 0017, 0136 and 0137, the system assesses the entire environment once the robot ball is inside the pipe or sewer system using lidar and camera vision as an example).
However, Tof in view of Zhan fail to disclose executing, by the controller, a fifth step to determine the at least one anomaly is a cross-bore defined in the conduit by a cross-bore analyzer of the machine learning protocol.
Scha discloses determining at least one anomaly is a cross-bore defined in the conduit by a cross-bore analyzer of the machine learning protocol (see abstract and para. 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tof in view of Zhan to incorporate cross bore analysis for the purpose of detecting any abnormality such as an unintentional utility intersection (i.e. gas or electric) within the inspected location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights