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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10-13, and 16-19 have been amended.
Claims 6, 9, and 14-15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 16-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 9-13, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application are not directed to an abstract idea, but instead are directed to a concrete improvement to an existing technology, such as an improved system which addresses issues of previous systems including, for example, issues of increased processing load and poor efficiency of the computer resources of the system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement in this case is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
In contrast, the claims of the current application are similar to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result (TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48), wherein the courts have indicated not to be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a control apparatus’, ‘a user apparatus’, ‘an information processing apparatus’, ‘hardware’, ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite the additional elements of ‘a camera’. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering identifying data for later use), and amounts to mere tools for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The ‘camera' is considered to be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional element previously known to the industry. The specification describes the ‘camera’ as “a camera control unit executes typical processing of a camera function including image capture and obtains image data from an image capture apparatus” (¶51-56), with no additional technical details on the operation of the elements. Thus, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 13-16, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 19 recite(s) a system and series of steps for communicating vehicle parking information, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal interactions between people. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘accepting a subscribe request of a topic…; ‘detect a detection target…’; ‘transmit a publish instruction of the topic…’; ‘publish a message via a topic’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a control apparatus’, ‘a user apparatus’, ‘an information processing apparatus’, ‘hardware’, ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite the additional elements of ‘a camera’. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering identifying data for later use), and amounts to mere tools for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The ‘camera' is considered to be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional element previously known to the industry. The specification describes the ‘camera’ as “a camera control unit executes typical processing of a camera function including image capture and obtains image data from an image capture apparatus” (¶51-56), with no additional technical details on the operation of the elements. Thus, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16-18 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for communicating vehicle parking information, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal interactions between people. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 16-19 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumcad (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190173951), in view of Sharma (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20250128698), in further view of Yu (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220269701).
In regards to claim 1, Sumcad teaches A control method of a control apparatus that operates as a broker in a publish-subscribe communication system (Sumcad: ¶3-17, ¶33-60), the control method comprising: accepting a subscribe request of a topic including identification information of a detection target from a user apparatus that operates as a subscriber (Sumcad: ¶41-43, ¶63-65, ¶68, ¶74-77, ¶82-86, ¶96-98).
Although Sumcad teaches after the subscribe request is accepted, transmitting a publish instruction of the topic to an information processing apparatus that can operate as a publisher (Sumcad: ¶46, ¶60-65, ¶68, ¶70, ¶82-86, ¶96-98), the reference does not explicitly state publishing a message in response to a detected target.
However, Sumcad and Sharma together teach a publisher that publishes a message via the topic in a case where the detection target is detected and that has not started publishing processing as the publisher (Sumcad: ¶70-71, ¶87-91, ¶99-105; Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the target detection and publication, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
Additionally, although Sharma teaches wherein the detection target is a moving body (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13), the information processing apparatus includes a camera that obtains captured image data of the moving body detected (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13), the references do not explicitly state wherein the message includes information indicating the position of the camera.
However, Sharma and Yu together teach the message includes the captured image data of the moving body and information indicating the position of the camera that detected the moving body (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13; Yu: ¶41-42, ¶47-50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image data and camera data, as taught by Yu, into the system and method of Sumcad and Sharma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide “a real-time picture of the monitored object… captured by a camera” and “perform identification, counting, occupancy status identification and/or real-time location tracking” (Yu: ¶42 & ¶45).
In regards to claim 2, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sumcad further teaches receiving the message of the topic from the information processing apparatus; and transferring the received message to the user apparatus (Sumcad: ¶70-71, ¶87-91, ¶99-105).
In regards to claim 3, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sumcad further teaches in a case where the subscribe request is accepted, registering the topic included in the subscribe request as a topic to publish (Sumcad: ¶41-43, ¶57, ¶63-65, ¶68, ¶70, ¶74-77, ¶82-86, ¶96-98).
In regards to claim 4, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 3. Sumcad further teaches in a case where a registration release request of the topic is accepted from the user apparatus, deregistering the topic included in the subscribe request from the topic to publish (Sumcad: ¶66, ¶69, ¶77, ¶94-95, ¶106).
In regards to claim 5, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sumcad further teaches accepting an unsubscribe request of the topic from the user apparatus; and transmitting an instruction to stop publishing a message via the topic to the information processing apparatus (Sumcad: ¶66, ¶69, ¶77, ¶94-95, ¶106).
In regards to claim 7, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sharma further teaches wherein the moving body is a vehicle, and the identification information corresponds to a vehicle registration number of the vehicle (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the detection target, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 8, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sumcad and Sharma further teach wherein the message includes at least one of position information of the information processing apparatus, identification information of the information processing apparatus, and position information of the moving body (Sharma: ¶38, ¶79-86, ¶100-101, ¶108, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, ¶153, ¶179, ¶187, Fig. 13; Sumcad: ¶54).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the location information, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 10, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sharma further teaches obtaining image data of the moving body from the user apparatus, and transmitting the image data to the information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus detects the moving body on a basis of the image data (Sharma: ¶36, ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, ¶160-162, ¶176, ¶184, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image data, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 11, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the method of claim 1. Sharma further teaches wherein the communication system is an automated valet parking system, and further comprising: transmitting information designating a movement destination of the moving body to the moving body (Sharma: ¶64-103, ¶137-141).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the automated valet parking, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 12, Although Sumcad teaches An information processing apparatus including hardware that can operate as a publisher in a publish-subscribe communication system and can obtain information for detecting a detection target from outside, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions (Sumcad: ¶3-17, ¶33-65, ¶68, ¶70-71, ¶74-77, ¶82-91, ¶96-105), the reference does not explicitly state a detecting unit configured to detect the target.
However, Sumcad and Sharma together teach detect a detection target using the hardware; and publish a message via a topic corresponding to the detection target in a case where a publish instruction of a message is received from a control apparatus operating as a broker via the topic including identification information corresponding to the detection target and the detection target is detected (Sumcad: ¶46, ¶60-65, ¶68, ¶70-71, ¶82-91, ¶96-105; Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the target detection and publication, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
Additionally, although Sharma teaches wherein the detection target is a moving body (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13), the hardware includes a camera, in detecting the detection target, captured image data of the moving body is obtained using the camera and the moving body is detected on a basis of the captured image data obtained (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13), the references do not explicitly state wherein the message includes information indicating the position of the camera.
However, Sharma and Yu together teach in publishing the message, the message including the captured image data of the moving body and information indicating the position of the camera that detected the moving body is published (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13; Yu: ¶41-42, ¶47-50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image data and camera data, as taught by Yu, into the system and method of Sumcad and Sharma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide “a real-time picture of the monitored object… captured by a camera” and “perform identification, counting, occupancy status identification and/or real-time location tracking” (Yu: ¶42 & ¶45).
In regards to claim 13, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the apparatus of claim 12. Sumcad further teaches receive an instruction to stop publishing the topic from the control apparatus, and wherein publishing of a message via the topic is stopped according to the received publishing stop instruction (Sumcad: ¶66, ¶69, ¶77, ¶94-95, ¶106).
In regards to claim 16, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the apparatus of claim 12. Sharma further teaches wherein the moving body is a vehicle, the identification information includes a vehicle registration number of the vehicle, and in detecting the detection target, the vehicle registration number of the vehicle is identified via image processing (Sharma: ¶36, ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, ¶160-162, ¶176, ¶184, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle detection, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 17, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the apparatus of claim 12. Sharma further teaches wherein in detecting the detection target, image data of the moving body is obtained from the control apparatus, and the moving body is detected on a basis of a comparison of the captured image data and the image data (Sharma: ¶36, ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, ¶160-162, ¶176, ¶184, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the target detection, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 18, Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu teach the apparatus of claim 12. Sharma further teaches wherein the communication system is an automated valet parking system, and the information processing apparatus is a plurality of information processing apparatuses provided in a parking area (Sharma: ¶64-103, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, ¶137-141, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the automated valet parking, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad, Sharma, and Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
In regards to claim 19, Sumcad teaches A control apparatus that operates as a broker in a publish-subscribe communication system, the control apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions (Sumcad: ¶3-17, ¶33-60), which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the control apparatus to: accept a subscribe request of a topic including identification information corresponding to a detection target from a user apparatus that operates as a subscriber (Sumcad: ¶41-43, ¶63-65, ¶68, ¶74-77, ¶82-86, ¶96-98).
Although Sumcad teaches after the subscribe request is accepted, transmit a publish instruction of the topic to an information processing apparatus that can operate as a publisher (Sumcad: ¶46, ¶60-65, ¶68, ¶70, ¶82-86, ¶96-98), the reference does not explicitly state publishing a message in response to a detected target.
However, Sumcad and Sharma together teach a publisher that publishes a message via the topic in a case where the detection target is detected and that has not started publishing processing as the publisher (Sumcad: ¶70-71, ¶87-91, ¶99-105; Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the target detection and publication, as taught by Sharma, into the system and method of Sumcad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide efficient, dynamic, and scalable management of physical spaces in cites for emerging mobility services” (Sharma: ¶29).
Additionally, although Sharma teaches wherein the detection target is a moving body (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13), the information processing apparatus includes a camera that obtains captured image data of the moving body detected (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13), the references do not explicitly state wherein the message includes information indicating the position of the camera.
However, Sharma and Yu together teach the message includes the captured image data of the moving body and information indicating the position of the camera that detected the moving body (Sharma: ¶86, ¶110-112, ¶115, ¶118-122, Fig. 13; Yu: ¶41-42, ¶47-50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image data and camera data, as taught by Yu, into the system and method of Sumcad and Sharma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide “a real-time picture of the monitored object… captured by a camera” and “perform identification, counting, occupancy status identification and/or real-time location tracking” (Yu: ¶42 & ¶45).
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 WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628