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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 and 22 were currently pending. Claims 1, 7-13, and 16-19 are amended. Claims 2-3, 15, 20 and 22 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-14, and 16-19 are currently pending.
Claim Objections to claim 19 has been moot in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant submit an amendment to the abstract of the disclosure, however, the amendment is not sufficient to overcome the objection. Therefore, the objection to the abstract is sustained.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitschele (US 20080319837 A1, hereinafter “Mitschele”) in view of LEBLANC et al. (US 20210180784 A1, hereinafter “LEBLANC”).
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) Mitschele discloses a monitoring system (Title, abstract; implied in parking meter with cameras) comprising a post (0025; Figure 5; ‘payment units 130’) with an inner wall defining an elongate cavity (0025; Figure 5; ‘payment units 130’ implied in square tube shown), at least a top part of the elongate cavity receiving therein at least part of a chassis, the chassis housing (002; Figure 54; single housing onto post):
a computing device (0018; Figure 4; ‘microcontroller’);
a communication subsystem accessible to the computing device to enable communication with a remote computing device (0019-0025 and 0029; Figures 1-5; ‘communication module’);
a first camera sensor in communication with the computing device and arranged to capture images of an area near the post (0025; Figures 4 and 9; ‘camera 118’), the first camera sensor is configured to capture images and make the images accessible to the computing device (0032; Figures 6-7; “[0032] In a typical configuration, an initial payment grace period, for example, up to 3 minutes, is provided to allow the driver to exit the vehicle and make payment. The microcontroller in payment unit 20 will be programmed to issue a parking violation and license image capture automatically after a vehicle has been sensed in a parking stall and the initial payment grace period has passed without payment. When the vehicle enters the parking space, the in-ground sensor 16 communicates the presence of the vehicle to unit 18 or 20 which takes a digital image of the license plate and commences the timer. A digital image of the license plate may be taken immediately on detection of the vehicle to avoid situations where the license is obscured or not visible when the violation event has occurred. After the timer has determined that the initial payment grace period has been exceeded without payment, then a parking violation is issued using the previously captured image and/or a second newly-captured image.”);
a power source configured to supply power to the computing device, the communication subsystem, and the first camera sensor (0018; Figure 4; “[0018] … Solar panels 32 provide power to charge a battery. LED lights 34 may be provided for operation of the camera in low lighting conditions. Pole units 18 have the same functionality as payment units 20 but lack the payment acceptance mechanism. Rather than using individuals pole units, two secondary units 90 can be supported off payment unit 82 by supporting arms 92 (FIG. 4).”), the power source including
a battery is configured to supply power to the computing device, the communication subsystem, and the first camera sensor (0018; Figure 4; “[0018] … Solar panels 32 provide power to charge a battery. LED lights 34 may be provided for operation of the camera in low lighting conditions. Pole units 18 have the same functionality as payment units 20 but lack the payment acceptance mechanism. Rather than using individuals pole units, two secondary units 90 can be supported off payment unit 82 by supporting arms 92 (FIG. 4).”), and
a solar panel is disposed on or mounted to the post and configured to charge the battery (0018; Figure 4; “[0018] … Solar panels 32 provide power to charge a battery. LED lights 34 may be provided for operation of the camera in low lighting conditions. Pole units 18 have the same functionality as payment units 20 but lack the payment acceptance mechanism. Rather than using individuals pole units, two secondary units 90 can be supported off payment unit 82 by supporting arms 92 (FIG. 4).”).
Mitschele failed to disclose implicitly the power source including a watchdog component being configured to,
receive power supply status signals from the power source; and
control supply of power to the computing device responsive to the received power supply status signals.
LEBLANC, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows the power source including a watchdog component being configured to,
receive power supply status signals from the power source (0025, 0031 and 0043-0045; Figures 5-9; “[0044] ... wireless network communications interface 114 is adapted to form a network node among similar said wireless network communications interfaces from neighboring streetlight cameras; such network node may comprise 915 MHz long-range radio links for communicating the operation status data (light output, power levels, sensor data, etc.) of the streetlight, and may comprise UWB short-range radio links for communicating optical data (still photographs, video streaming, etc.) of the streetlight, and may comprise 4G-LTE cellular gateway radio links for communicating data to an IP network. ...”); and
control supply of power to the computing device responsive to the received power supply status signals ((0025, 0031 and 0043-0045; Figures 5-9; please the rejection above).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art to combine the power supply (level) controller as shown in LEBLANC in the pay parking system of Mitschele in order to make ensure the monitoring systems are functional and are operating properly.
Regarding claim 4. (Previously Presented) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 1. Mitschele further discloses wherein the computing device comprises an image data processing module to process the captured images and determine an edge computing output (0019 and 0029; Figures 1, 5 and 9; Internet remote server, later processing, “[0029] The in-ground vehicle sensors and wireless cameras shown in FIGS. 5 through 9 may also be used without a payment acceptance module to provide a self-enforcement monitoring of no-park zones. In that case the vehicle stall 114 represents a no-parking zone. The stationing of a vehicle in the no-parking zone will be detected by the in-ground sensor 116, which sends a wireless signal to a stand-alone controller 130, which may be located nearby, or via wireless internet connection to a remote server. After a certain time period the controller/server checks if the vehicle remains in the space. If it does the controller/server causes the in-ground camera 118 to take a picture of the vehicle license plate which is transmitted along with the date and time to the controller/server and then to the central station to prepare a violation ticket which is sent in the mail to the owner of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 5. (Original) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 4. Mitschele further discloses wherein the edge computing output is transmitted by the communication subsystem to the remote computing device (0017; Figures 1-2; “[0017] Referring to FIG. 1, municipal street 10 has curb 12 and a plurality of marked parking spaces 14, each with an in-ground vehicle sensor 16 and each marked with a unique identifier such as a number or alphanumeric. An example of such as in-ground sensor is the GROUND-HOG.TM. manufactured by Nu-metrics which is a wireless, self-contained, in-ground traffic monitor which transmits a wireless signal upon detection of a vehicle. Associated with each parking space 14 is either a pole unit 18 or payment unit 20, shown in further detail in FIG. 2 and as described below.”).
Regarding claim 6. (Previously Presented) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 1. Mitschele further wherein an orientation of the first camera sensor is configurable to vary a field of view of the first camera sensor (inherent for digital cameras to have field of view of and also configurable to vary a FOV of any given digital camera ).
Regarding claim 7. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 1. Mitschele further discloses wherein the monitoring system further comprises one or more of: an audio sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an air quality sensor, a ground vibration sensor, a soil moisture sensor, a motion detection sensor, a Bluetooth radio (0024; Figure 5; “[0024] Referring to FIG. 5, a further embodiment of the pay parking system is disclosed in which the digital cameras are located in in-ground housings rather than on posts. A municipal street 100 has curb 112 and a plurality of marked parking spaces 114 separated by dividing lines 115, each with an in-ground vehicle sensor 116, as described above. Each space or stall 114 is marked with a unique number 113. The in-ground sensor is a wireless, self-contained, in-ground traffic monitor which transmits a wireless signal upon detection of a vehicle. Associated with each parking space 114 is also an in-ground wireless camera 118 (FIG. 9) which incorporates in housing 120 a digital camera 122, which also comprises a microcontroller, wired or wireless communication device and battery. A solar panel (not shown) may be included to charge the battery. ...”).
Regarding claim 8. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 1. Mitschele further discloses wherein the computing device is in communication with a low power sensor,
the low power sensor is configured to detect occurrence of an activity of interest (0018; Figure 1; implicit, “[0018] Payment unit 20 has the functionality of the parking meter … includes, in its head 22 mounted on pole 24, a microcontroller, a timer coupled with and controlled by the microcontroller, and a payment acceptance mechanism coupled with the microcontroller. The payment acceptance mechanism can be configured to accept payment by coin, credit card or both for use of the associated parking space 14 and has a keypad tp permit the vehicle operator to enter information such as the parking space identifier. A communications modem is coupled with and controlled by the microcontroller. Two digital cameras 30 are focused on associated parking spaces 14 and are coupled with and controlled by the microprocessor. By providing two cameras per unit 18, 20 in situations where parking is parallel to the curb, the system can be used in jurisdictions where vehicles have only a single license plate. Solar panels 32 provide power to charge a battery. LED lights 34 may be provided for operation of the camera in low lighting conditions. Pole units 18 have the same functionality as payment units 20 but lack the payment acceptance mechanism. Rather than using individuals pole units, two secondary units 90 can be supported off payment unit 82 by supporting arms 92 (FIG. 4).”), and
responsive to the detection of occurrence of the activity of interest, the computing device is configured to initiate capture of the images by the first camera sensor (0018; Figure 1; implicit, “[0018] Payment unit 20 has the functionality of the parking meter described in International application no. PCT/CA99/00896. It includes, in its head 22 mounted on pole 24, a microcontroller, a timer coupled with and controlled by the microcontroller, and a payment acceptance mechanism coupled with the microcontroller. The payment acceptance mechanism can be configured to accept payment by coin, credit card or both for use of the associated parking space 14 and has a keypad tp permit the vehicle operator to enter information such as the parking space identifier. A communications modem is coupled with and controlled by the microcontroller. Two digital cameras 30 are focused on associated parking spaces 14 and are coupled with and controlled by the microprocessor. By providing two cameras per unit 18, 20 in situations where parking is parallel to the curb, the system can be used in jurisdictions where vehicles have only a single license plate. Solar panels 32 provide power to charge a battery. LED lights 34 may be provided for operation of the camera in low lighting conditions. Pole units 18 have the same functionality as payment units 20 but lack the payment acceptance mechanism. ...”).
Regarding claim 9. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 1. Mitschele further discloses wherein the chassis further houses or is connected to a second camera sensor in communication with the computing device (0018; Figure 1; functional arrangement, field of view, FOV); and
the first camera sensor is configured to capture images of a first field of view and the second camera sensor is configured to capture images of a second field of view (0018; functional arrangement, field of view, FOV, “[0018] … Two digital cameras 30 are focused on associated parking spaces 14 and are coupled with and controlled by the microprocessor. By providing two cameras per unit 18, 20 in situations where parking is parallel to the curb, the system can be used in jurisdictions where vehicles have only a single license plate. …”).
Regarding claim 10. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 9. Mitschele further discloses wherein the first field of view partially overlaps with the second field of view (0018; Figure 1; functional arrangement, field of view, FOV); and
the computing device is configured to perform data fusion operations on the images of the first field of view captured by the first camera sensor and images of the second field of view captured by the the second camera sensor to determine an inference regarding an event of interest in the captured images of the first field of view and the captured images of the second field of view (0018; Figure 1; functional arrangement, field of view, FOV, “[0018] … Two digital cameras 30 are focused on associated parking spaces 14 and are coupled with and controlled by the microprocessor. By providing two cameras per unit 18, 20 in situations where parking is parallel to the curb, the system can be used in jurisdictions where vehicles have only a single license plate. …”).
Regarding claim 11. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 10. Mitschele further discloses wherein the inference regarding the event of interest in the captured images of the first field of view and the captured images of the second field of view includes an inference of detection of an object (0020; Figure 1; “[0020] … digital camera 30 may function as both a vehicle sensor and vehicle identification means. By utilizing appropriate shape-distinguishing software, the image detected by the camera can be used to detect the presence or absence of a vehicle in the parking space 14. Camera 30 may be an infrared camera to function in low light situations.”).
Regarding claim 12. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 11. Mitschele further discloses wherein the object includes a vehicle, and the inference further includes a vehicle identification number (0018; Figure 1; parking space identifier, “[0018] Payment unit 20 has the functionality of the parking meter described … includes, in its head 22 mounted on pole 24, a microcontroller, a timer coupled with and controlled by the microcontroller, and a payment acceptance mechanism coupled with the microcontroller. The payment acceptance mechanism can be configured to accept payment by coin, credit card or both for use of the associated parking space 14 and has a keypad tp permit the vehicle operator to enter information such as the parking space identifier. A communications modem is coupled with and controlled by the microcontroller. Two digital cameras 30 are focused on associated parking spaces 14 and are coupled with and controlled by the microprocessor. By providing two cameras per unit 18, 20 in situations where parking is parallel to the curb, the system can be used in jurisdictions where vehicles have only a single license plate. Solar panels 32 provide power to charge a battery. LED lights 34 may be provided for operation of the camera in low lighting conditions. Pole units 18 have the same functionality as payment units 20 but lack the payment acceptance mechanism. Rather than using individuals pole units, two secondary units 90 can be supported off payment unit 82 by supporting arms 92 (FIG. 4).”).
Regarding claim 14. (Original) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 9. Mitschele further discloses wherein the first field of view is different from the second field of view (0018; Figure 1; wherein each camera facing different parking spot).
Regarding claim 16. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 1. Mitschele further discloses wherein the watchdog component is further configured to:
receive computing device status signals from the computing device (0018; Figure 1);
process the received computing device status signals to determine a functional status of the computing device (0018; Figure 1); and
transmit a reset signal to the computing device responsive to determining that the functional status of the computing device indicates a malfunction (0018; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 7. Mitschele further discloses wherein the watchdog component is further configured to:
receive temperature data from the temperature sensor or humidity data from the humidity sensor (0024; Figure 5);
process the received temperature data or the humidity data to determine whether temperature conditions or humidity conditions exist that are unsuitable for operation of the computing device (0024; Figure 5); and
terminate supply of power to the computing device responsive to the determining that the temperature conditions or the humidity conditions are unsuitable for operation of the computing device (0024; Figure 5; “[0024] Referring to FIG. 5, … the pay parking system is disclosed in which the digital cameras are located in in-ground housings rather than on posts. A municipal street 100 has curb 112 and a plurality of marked parking spaces 114 separated by dividing lines 115, each with an in-ground vehicle sensor 116, as described above. Each space or stall 114 is marked with a unique number 113. The in-ground sensor is a wireless, self-contained, in-ground traffic monitor which transmits a wireless signal upon detection of a vehicle. Associated with each parking space 114 is also an in-ground wireless camera 118 (FIG. 9) which incorporates in housing 120 a digital camera 122, which also comprises a microcontroller, wired or wireless communication device and battery. A solar panel (not shown) may be included to charge the battery. Wireless communication can be via wilan, wifi, Bluetooth, gsm/gprs or other wireless protocol, and the units are addressable with an IP address. The vehicle sensor and camera could be incorporated into the single housing 120.”).
Regarding claim 18. (Currently Amended) Claim 18 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 1. Claim 18 further recite system for urban sensing that is an inherent feature of pay parking system of Mitschele. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasoning of obviousness as used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 19. (Currently Amended) Claim 19 recites the system of claim 18, wherein the chassis is slidably receivable in the elongate cavity while allowing the camera sensor to capture images of a vicinity of the post.
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to incorporate the slidable chassis to the camera sensor in order to increase the safety and protection of the monitoring camera.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitschele in view of LEBLANC as applied to claims 1 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Hudson (US 20200312044 A1, hereinafter “Hudson”).
Regarding claim 13. (Currently Amended) Mitschele in view of LEBLANC shows the monitoring system of claim 11, wherein the object includes a person, as shown in the rejection to claims 1 and 9-12 above.
Mitschele in view of LEBLANC failed to show the inference further includes a face region of the person in an image captured by the first camera sensor or an image captured the second camera sensor.
Hudson, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows the monitoring system wherein the object includes a person, and the inference further includes a face region of the person in an image captured by the first camera sensor or an image captured the second camera sensor (0079 and 0120; Figures 10-11 and 16; “[0079] The cameras can be high-definition cameras, used to capture images and video. In one example usage, meters are placed about every forty feet along a street. The two street-facing cameras on the back of the meter head are furnished with wide-angle lenses that allow them to capture a broad field of view. Thus, all street activity can be captured, including vehicles, crowds, faces in crowds, suspicious objects and banned substances. While the street-facing cameras are recording street activity, the front-facing cameras are trained on the sidewalk adjacent the cameras to capture activity occurring on the sidewalk. Images can be used by law enforcement with vehicle and facial recognition applications to search for persons of interest and determine location and stealthily monitor such persons. Alternatively, when a face match is found a notification can be sent out and/or alarm triggered.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the facial recognition as shown by Hudson in the monitoring system of Mitschele in view of LEBLANC in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring the facility by increasing the level of security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-14 and 16-19 have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASMAMAW TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW TARKO/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482