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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-15, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/2024 and 10/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 6-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0174071 A1, Wasner (hereinafter Wasner).
As to claim 1, Wasner discloses a vehicle management device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor (pars 0033-0034, computer program product) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a first image captured at a first time using one or more cameras that capture an image of a vehicle to be rented to a user and a second image captured at a second time after the first time using the cameras (Fig 11; pars 0021-0022, 0024, 0030, acquire images of previously captured and stored and captured after rental returned by cameras);
acquire vehicle type information of the vehicle (Fig 1; par 0101, type of vehicle);
perform a comparison of the first image and the second image by using image processing logic corresponding to the acquired vehicle type information (Fig 11; pars 0009, 0014, 0031-0033, 0072-0073, 0101, comparison of images with respect to identification of the vehicle, including type, tire, etc.); and
detect damage caused to the vehicle based on a result of the comparison (pars 0040, 0052, 0055, 0060, 0063, detecting any damage or change of the vehicle via images comparison).
Although Wasner discloses or teaches above functions and features in more than one embodiment, consider Wasner’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to combine Wasner’s teachings together to provide a motor vehicle inspection product and device to automatically detect any change and damage of a motor vehicle.
As to claim 2, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
divide each of the first image and the second image into a first area including only a background, a second area including both the background and the vehicle, and a third area including only the vehicle according to the vehicle type information (Figs 1, 20; pars 0021, 0029, 0037, 0051, 0060, 0063, 0072, images being divided to top, bottom, left, right views of vehicle), and
perform a comparison of the second area of the first image with the second area of the second image (Fig 11; pars 0014, 0031-0032, 0068, comparison of areas of top, left, right, and/or bottom of the vehicle images), and
perform a comparison of the third area of the first image with the third area of the second image (pars 0035, 0044, 0072, comparison of area indicating identification information).
As to claim 6, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire identification information of the vehicle, and acquire the vehicle type information based on the acquired identification information (pars 0027, 0035-0036, 0061, 0071-0072, 0102, 0112).
As to claim 7, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 6 wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire vehicle type information associated with the acquired identification information from a database that stores the identification information and the vehicle type information (Fig 2; pars 0015, 0054, 0071, 0102, 0112, license plate captured).
As to claim 8, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the identification information from an image of a number plate of the vehicle included in the first image and the second image (Fig 2; pars 0015, 0054, 0071, 0102, license plate captured).
As to claim 10, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 1, wherein the first time is a time before the vehicle is rented to the user (Fig 11, stored image (e.g. before the vehicle being rented; pars 0009, 0014, 0033), and the second time is a time when the user returns the vehicle (pars 0040, 0113, image captured on returned rental car at either local or remote locations).
As to claim 11, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 1, wherein the first image is captured at a departure store at the time of departure, and the second image is captured at a return store at the time of return (pars 0040, 0113-0114).
As to claim 12, it is a system claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 13, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 14, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing program executed to perform functions and features of claim 1. It is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasner in view of US 2022/0358757 A1, Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu).
As to claim 3, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect. using the first image as a reference, how much the second image has changed from the first image in the comparison between the first image and the second image. Liu, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches to detect and quantify changes on the object, such as damage caused to an automobile in an accident, change characteristics of the object, such as the relative size of and the type of damage to an automobile indicated in the images (Figs 1-3; pars 0006, 0008, 0014-0020).
Therefore, consider Wasner and Liu’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Liu’s teachings in Wasner’s device to detect and/or determine damage of rental car based on degree of change on car’s image.
As to claim 4, Wasner as modified discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the vehicle is damaged when an amount of change from the first image to the second image is equal to or larger than a threshold (Liu: Fig 2: pars 0058-0060, 0095).
As to claim 5, Wasner as modified discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to; acquire color information of the vehicle, and change the threshold according to the color information (Liu: pars 0008, 0011, 0037, 0058-0059, 0067, 0079).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasner in view of US 2019/0095877 A1, Li (hereinafter Li).
As to claim 9, Wasner discloses the vehicle management device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose to acquire a vehicle name of the vehicle as the vehicle type information. Li, in the same or similar filed of endeavor, further teaches identifying rental vehicle make and model (e.g. name) as the vehicle type information (pars 0014, 0027, 0031-0032, 0053-0054).
Therefore, consider Wasner and Li’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Li’s teachings in Wasner’s device to identify the right vehicle and compare the images for detecting potential damages.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662