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 .
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be directed to significantly more than the exception itself. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74624 (Dec. 16, 2014). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 7 are directed to gathering data, identifying and associating the data, without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims 1 and 7 recite acquiring an investigation result including at least one of text data, imaging data, and audio data in investigation at an investigation date and time, which refer to gathering data under insignificant Extra-solution activity specifically pre-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), acquiring first imaging data and second imaging data imaged, also referring to gathering data as insignificant pre-solution activity, identifying an investigation position at the investigation date and time based on at least one of the first imaging data and the second imaging data acquired by the second acquisition processing, referring to mental process of observing, evaluating and judging of displayed data, the position on the display thereon, as one of the concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)), and associating data including: investigation result, the second imaging data, and the investigation position, which also refers to mental process of observing, analyzing and making an opinion, as associating the given data and the identified position. Therefore, the claims 1 and 7 meet step 2A prong one for reciting an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 7 are further considered under step 2A prong two for reciting additional elements that integrates to practical application. Some of limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the limitations in the claims that may remotely relate to one of the conditions above would be using a particular machine. However, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Specifically, the gathering data and displaying the data are one of ordinary function of computers, and these functions are not particular to a single machine or computer (See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)-(III)). Whether the machine’s involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. (See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, claims 1 and 7 fail step 2A Prong two to include a practical application.
Claims 1 and 7 are finally tested for step 2B for reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under this step, the claims are evaluated for additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept that requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05 (I) (A)) include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Based the cited conditions above, Examiner is unable to identify one or more elements in the claims that meet any one or more of the conditions. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 fail step 2B as well, and hence the claims are eligible under 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim reciting a database for storing feature information and position information of an object is accessible, and in the identification processing, when the first imaging data includes a second object whose second feature information matches feature information of a first object in the database, the processor determines position information, referring to mental process of comparing and matching gathered data by observation, analyzing and judging. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 101.
Regarding claim 3, similar observations of gathering more data and comparing and judging of the data, under mental process, as in claim 2 is applied to this claim as well. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 101
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites conditional limitation, when the first imaging data does not include a second object whose second feature information matches first feature, however, the second imaging data includes fourth feature that matches third feature information, the processor determines position information of the third object as an investigation position at the investigation date and time, further referring to gathering more data under Extra-solution activity comparing the given data by mental process as discussed previous claims above. The claim adds nothing significant and therefore, not eligible under 101.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In the instant case, the preamble in the method the claim 7, recites a method that is performed by an investigation support device including a processor, storage and a program, followed by the method comprising the processor . . .. These citations are vague and confusing because it is unclear what feature or element is further limited by this language. Additionally, it is unclear whether an infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means (See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,100,332 B2 to Hasegawa et al (hereinafter ‘Hasegawa’).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses an investigation support device (column 2, lines 52-54, wherein an investigation assist system 100 according to FIG. 2) comprising: a processor configured to execute a program (Fig. 2, processors 52, 62, 72, 82 and PRC1); and a storage device configured to store the program (column 11, lines 26-30, wherein the memory 92 is constituted using, for example, a RAM (random access memory) and a ROM (read only memory), stores a program required for executing the operation of the client terminal 90, and temporarily saves data or information generated during the operation.), wherein the processor is configured to execute first acquisition processing of acquiring an investigation result including at least one of text data, imaging data, and audio data in investigation at an investigation date and time (column 12, lines 29-32, wherein the external database D10 is, for example, a database managed by external organizations other than the police station, which permits access from the client terminal 90 in the police station. The external database D10 is configured to include the blacklisted face database D11, the stolen vehicle database D12 and the vehicle license database D13, inherently as stored investigation results), second acquisition processing of acquiring first imaging data imaged from a front of an investigator at the investigation date and time and second imaging data imaged from a back of the investigator at the investigation date and time (column 6, lines 61-66, column 8, lines 1-8 and Fig. 3, wherein the investigation assist system 100 includes the intersection camera 10, the vehicle capturing camera 20, as capturing image data of all vehicles at the intersections, the outdoor camera 30, an external video input device 40, a record server 50, the vehicle/person search server 60, the face search server 70, the LPR search server 80, the client terminal 90, as the investigator inside any vehicle being in front or back of another vehicle that is being investigated, and an external database D10, and wherein four vehicle capturing cameras 20 are arranged at each of the intersections A, B, C, D, E and F, as an example of a camera (second camera). For example, at the intersection A, the vehicle capturing camera 20a1, inherently as one of capturing first or second imaging data, is fixedly installed on an L-shaped pole (not shown) standing at a shoulder of the main arterial road MRD1, and constantly captures a license plate, inherently and an occupant's face of a vehicle entering the intersection A from the east with an angle of view AGa1, as the direction of imaging data), identification processing of identifying an investigation position at the investigation date and time based on at least one of the first imaging data and the second imaging data acquired by the second acquisition processing (column 4, lines 47-55, wherein the client terminal 90, as the investigator in the vehicle, generates a candidate report of the suspect using the person search result sent from the vehicle/person search server 60 as operated by the operator. The candidate report includes, for example, a plurality of combinations containing a date and a location (that is, the intersection), at which the incident has occurred, as identified date and location of the investigation position, a thumbnail image of a candidate person, as one or more accompanied image data related to the incident, for at least one of the three suspects, and a direction in which he/she has fled at the corresponding intersection.), and association processing of associating the investigation result acquired by the first acquisition processing, the second imaging data, and the investigation position identified by the identification processing with the investigation date and time (column 5, lines 41-47, wherein the face search server 70 sends to the client terminal 90 the analysis result including a face image of a face satisfying the search conditions (suspect's face) with a date and a location on and at which the face image has been captured, by the face search corresponding, inherently as associating the investigation result in a database, to the information acquisition request for a face sent from the client terminal 90). While Hasegawa may not specifically disclose the second acquisition processing acquiring a front and back image of the investigator of the vehicle, Hasegawa clearly discloses an investigation system that a reported escaping vehicle, by the reporting vehicle of terminal 90, escaping a scene, can be at any location/position proximate to the reporting vehicle e.g. in the front or behind the vehicle i.e. the investigator (column 4, lines 15-27, wherein receiving the calling in step St1, the operator inputs or checks various conditions based on information acquired from the calling (see FIGS. 9 to 11), as search conditions of the whole appearance of the suspect, with a client terminal 90 (see FIG. 2), and thus a vehicle; person search server 60 (see FIG. 2) is requested to search the three suspects (St2). The vehicle/person search server 60 performs a person search for three suspects in response to the request from the client terminal 90, and extracts and returns to the client terminal 90 a person search result including a thumbnail image of at least one of the three suspects in association with a direction in which he/she has fled at the corresponding intersection). Therefore, based on the vehicle capturing cameras 20 discussed above, capturing images of all vehicles within an intersection at the presence of the vehicle/investigator as requesting/reporting based on the vehicle e.g. in front of or behind the investigator vehicle, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate, by the association processing, the most appropriate image i.e. the font or the back, or both, of the suspect vehicle, for a given application.
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa discloses wherein a database storing feature information and position information of an object is accessible (Column 18, lines 58-67, wherein the database 61 records the captured video sent from each of the intersection cameras 10, the vehicle capturing cameras 20, the outdoor cameras 30, and the external video input device 40, in association with identification information (in other words, location information on the intersection where the corresponding camera is installed) of the camera capturing such a captured video and information on a date when the video has been captured.), and in the identification processing, when the first imaging data includes a second object whose second feature information matches feature information of a first object in the database, the processor determines position information of the first object as an investigation position at the investigation date and time (column 20, lines 9-22, wherein in a case of the vehicle/person search server 60, the video analysis unit 65 acquires, as the video analysis result, model, type, color, license plate, as the second feature of the second object i.e. the vehicle, and face image of the occupant (for example, the suspect of the incident, or the suspect and his/her companion) of the vehicle shown in the captured video, as well as a traveling direction when the vehicle passes through the intersection. The video analysis unit 65 can determine the traveling direction when the vehicle passes through the intersection based on, for example, temporal difference between frames of several captured images. The traveling direction indicates, for example, whether the vehicle went straight ahead, turned left, turned right, or made a U-turn at the intersection. The video analysis unit 65 records the video analysis result in association with a date and a location, inherently as available location information upon correlation of the captured video, on and at which the video used for the video analysis has been captured (that is, a location, as the feature information, of the installation site, as the first object, i.e. the intersection or the road where the camera is installed) in the database 61).
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa discloses wherein in the identification processing, when the first imaging data includes a plurality of the second objects whose second information matches first feature information of the first object in the database (column 4, lines 38-46, wherein the client terminal 90 displays the person search result including the thumbnail image, as the first object images in the database, of at least one of the three suspects, as the plurality of the second objects, is association with the direction in which he/she has fled at the corresponding intersection (St3). For example, the client terminal 90 displays the thumbnail image of at least one of the three suspects in association with the direction in which he/she has fled at the corresponding intersection, obtained from the video captured by the intersection camera 10 (see FIG. 12).) and the second imaging data includes a fourth object whose fourth feature information matches third feature information of a third object in the database, (column 5, lines 25-35, wherein based on the information on the person who is visually confirmed and selected as a potential suspect, as fourth object, by the witness, using the analysis result of a face, as the third feature, of the potential suspect, as the third object in the database, out of the person search results sent from the vehicle/person search server 60, an information acquisition request for faces similar to such a face (St6), as the third feature of the suspect. At this time, the face search server 70 finds potentially similar thumbnail image, which shows a person appeared in the video captured by the outdoor camera 30 (see FIG. 2) registered in the face search server 70 (i.e. the search is successful)) the processor determines, based on position information of the third object, position information of a second object identified from the plurality of second objects as an investigation position at the investigation date and time (column 6, lines 14-20, wherein the client terminal 90 executes the face search, as the fourth feature, using data of the face image of the suspect obtained, as the forth object, in step St6 or step St7, or alternatively, sets a real-time alarm for the suspect's face (in other words, sets a trap to arrest the suspect by the face search) (see FIG. 14 or 15), thereby estimating or confirming a current location of the suspect (St9).).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa discloses wherein a database storing feature information and position information of an object is accessible, and in the identification processing, when the first imaging data does not include a second object, as the vehicle occupant, whose second feature, as the occupant’s face, information matches first feature, as the occupant’s face in the database, information of a first object, as the occupant, in the database and the second imaging data includes a fourth object, as the vehicle, whose fourth feature information, as the license plate number, matches third feature information, as the stored plate number, of a third object, as the stored vehicle, in the database (column 41, lines 3-6, wherein in addition, even in a case where the suspect's face is not visible in the captured video, the investigation assist system 100 can track the suspect based on the license plate of the escaping vehicle.), the processor determines position information of the third object as an investigation position at the investigation date and time (column 40, lines 49-55, wherein he server (for example, the vehicle/person search server 60) searches for persons using the video analysis result of the videos captured by each of the intersection cameras 10, and the vehicle capturing cameras 20, and the outdoor cameras 30 corresponding to an intersection at the location on the date, included in the first search condition).
Regarding the method claim 7, please refer to the corresponding device claim 1 above for further teachings.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of JP 2020095596 A to Tetsuya et al (hereinafter ‘Tetsuya’) (Please refer to the attached USPTO translation version).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute reproduction processing of reproducing combined imaging data obtained by combining the first imaging data and the second imaging data (column 4, lines 47-55, wherein the client terminal 90 generates a candidate report of the suspect using the person search result sent from the vehicle/person search server 60 as operated by the operator. The candidate report includes, for example, a plurality of combinations containing a date and a location (that is, the intersection), at which the incident has occurred, a thumbnail image of a candidate person for at least one of the three suspects, and a direction in which he/she has fled at the corresponding intersection.), and display processing of displaying the combined imaging data reproduced by the reproduction processing (column 4, lines 59-60, wherein the police terminal T10 displays the candidate report of the escaping vehicle sent from the client terminal 90). Hasegawa does not specifically disclose a time axis indicating a reproduction time length by the reproduction processing, and an icon related to the investigation result arranged at a reproduction position corresponding to the investigation date and time on the time axis. Tetsuya discloses a time axis indicating a reproduction time length by the reproduction processing, and an icon related to the investigation result arranged at a reproduction position corresponding to the investigation date and time on the time axis (Page 21, Para 4, and Fig. 9, wherein detailed information includes shooting date/time, file size, recording time, event trigger, driver name, vehicle speed/acceleration information, current position information, and image. Information about acceleration is displayed in a graph with time as the horizontal axis, as the time axis. The current position information of the vehicle is indicated by an icon of the vehicle displayed at a position corresponding to the current position on the map. An operation panel for performing operations such as playing, stopping, and enlarging a moving image is displayed below the area for displaying an image). Hasegawa and Tetsuya are combinable because they both disclose vehicle monitoring and management system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the climes invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the time axis indicating a reproduction time length by the reproduction processing, and an icon related to the investigation result arranged at a reproduction position corresponding to the investigation date and time on the time axis, of Tetsuya’s device with Hasegawa’s so that to provide a detailed recording information of the vehicle by position (Page 21, Para 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Tetsuya and further in view of JP 2018133055 A to Sunao et al (hereinafter ‘Sunao’) (Please refer to the attached USPTO translation version).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa and Tetsuya do not specifically disclose wherein in the display processing, when the icon displayed by the display processing is selected, the processor displays the investigation result. Sunao discloses in the display processing, when the icon displayed by the display processing is selected, the processor displays the investigation result (Page 13, Para 1- 3, wherein when the user performs an operation such as selecting and double-clicking the icon 504 on the distributed trajectory image 353 with the mouse, the reception unit 43 specifies the in-vehicle device 10 corresponding to the icon 504. Accept data distribution request, as the investigation result data. Further, the reception unit 43 may adopt a configuration for receiving input such as an event time, an event type, and a priority from a user. When the configuration is adopted, the user can search for desired event video data by inputting event time, event type, priority, and the like to the client terminal 40, and wherein the communication unit 41 transmits a distribution request to the moving image collection device 30 and receives distributed data, as the investigation result. Specifically, when the receiving unit 43 receives a request from the user, the communication unit 41 transmits a trajectory image 353 or event moving image data distribution request to the moving image collection device 30). Hasegawa, Tetsuya and Sunao are combinable because they all disclose vehicle monitoring and management system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the climes invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the in the display processing, when the icon displayed by the display processing is selected, the processor displays the investigation result, of Sunao’s device with Hasegawa’s and Tetsuya’s so that to request all data regarding the selected vehicle (Page 13, Para 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00 PST.
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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672