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 non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on July 24, 2024, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of current application 18/782,127 (hereinafter ‘127) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipatory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,717 (hereinafter ‘717). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims if the current application ‘127 are just broader than the claims presented in Pat. ‘717. The claimed concepts in the current application ‘127 are fully encompassed/anticipated by Pat. ‘717. For example, independent claim 1 of ‘717 fully encompass the current application’s (‘127) independent claims 1 and 16. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 of current application ‘127 are also fully encompassed by claims 1-5 of Pat. No. ‘717. See Table 1 below. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language/limitations of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, non-functional and non-structural field-of-use language, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. The Applicant may have reworded some of the limitations of the independent and dependent claims but the concepts claimed in the current application are all also presented in the claims of patent ‘717.
Table 1 (exemplary):
18/782,127 (current application)
Pat. No. 12,073,717
Claims: 1 (independent), 8-11
Claim: 1
Claim: 16 (independent)
Claim: 1
Claims: 2, 17
Claim: 2
Claims: 3, 18
Claim: 3
Claims: 4-6, 19
Claim: 4
Claims: 7, 20
Claim: 5
The claimed concepts in the current application ‘127 is fully encompassed/anticipated by Patent ‘717.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-15 are directed to a system (i.e. machine) and claims 16-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15 and 17-20) recite obtaining/receiving information/data (the information is known abstract information – license plate, vehicle data, owner, information regarding involved parties/entities (government), what legal issue occurred (parking issue, etc.,), ticket information, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to gain/produce more data (e.g. other abstract information is obtained by comparing, etc., - address, registration, ticket creation, hearings, and decisions on hearing/contesting tickets), and providing/displaying this determined data for further decision making and human actions (and providing results of those decision and actions). The limitations of independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15 and 17-20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activities as fundamental economic principles or practices and also towards commercial or legal interactions (violations, and resolving tickets due to the violations, and/or actions from these violations – parking ticket violations and resolution are both commercial and legal interactions). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (see listing below), in the context of the independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20), the independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activities as fundamental economic principles or practices and also towards commercial or legal interactions (violations, and resolving tickets due to the violations, and/or actions from these violations – parking ticket violations and resolution are both commercial and legal interactions)). The old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations used in the claims (and in the specification) by the Applicant are in the following list/listing (additional elements):
system, automated, memory, web-based computing system, processor, electronic apparatus, transmitting various information and notifications (sending abstract information through general-purpose/generic old and well-known type web/internet and network), websites, electronic ticket (abstract information online), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-15); and
automated, systems, electronic ticket (abstract information online), web-based computing systems, online, transmitting various information and notifications (sending abstract information through general-purpose/generic old and well-known type web/internet and network), etc., (in independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-20).
(hereinafter the above list/listing will be referred to as “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” in the rest of the §101 rejection – i.e. whenever “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” is used/stated in the rest of the §101 rejection it is referring to and incorporates the above list/listing).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) do not include additional elements (see list/listing above) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant's application (for example, see Applicant's specification at, for example, figs. 1, 2a-d, paras. 0037-0040 and paras. 0048-0054 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant' s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (see list/listing above) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 16) and dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection fully includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims (2-15, 17-20) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – as shown above), data analysis and manipulation to gain/produce more data (e.g. other abstract information is obtained by comparing, etc., - address, registration, ticket creation, hearings, and decisions on hearing/contesting tickets), and providing/displaying this determined data for further decision making and human actions (and providing results of those decision and actions). These dependent claims are directed towards covers methods of organizing human activities as fundamental economic principles or practices and also towards commercial or legal interactions (violations, and resolving tickets due to the violations, and/or actions from these violations – parking ticket violations and resolution are both commercial and legal interactions). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements (see list/listing above) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection/explanation above.
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 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 1-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogaard et al., (US 2013/0073347) in view of Dutta et al., (US 2003/0055701).
As per claim 1, Bogaard discloses a system for providing an automated motor vehicle notifications and services system (figs. 2A-B; ¶¶ 0005-0008 [capable of capturing, storing and managing citation information across multiple jurisdictions, locally, nationally and even internationally…providing timely notification of citations]), the system comprising: a memory having instructions stored thereon (¶¶ 0006-0008 [memories]);
a web-based computing system; and a processor configured to execute the instructions on the memory to cause an electronic apparatus (figs. 2A-B; ¶¶ 0023-0025 [user equipment 120 may be a desk top computer, a laptop computer, a smart phone, or other mobile devices capable of accessing the website via the Internet], 0027-0029 [computer-based devices, internet, , etc.,]) to:
transmit a photograph of a license plate and an electronic parking ticket to the web- based computing system (Figs, 2A-B [information transmitted though network and internet]; ¶¶ 0028 [capture the vehicle identification information…camera…photograph…license plate; see with 0027 [system 110 will communicate with other devices via the Internet]; with ¶¶ 0043 [system notifying parking supplier or the government agency (authorities/officials) with information regarding ticket], 0049 [discusses transmitting information regarding parking ticket and actions to citation issuing agency (officials/authorities) so they can take appropriate action]]; see also 0042-0046 and 0053-0055);
wherein the web-based computing system comprises:
a first website associated with a parking authority; a second website associated with a state motor vehicle authority; and a third website associated with a local entity/government (see fig. 2A [shows all the sites connected]; also see ¶¶ 0003-0004 [authority…website; website…jurisdiction (city, state or municipality)], 0017-0021 [local and state authorities…government agency (local, state, federal – see Fig. 2A)…online…website…internet], 0023 [citation management…website], 0044-0045);
wherein the system provides integrated access to the first website, the second website, and the third website of the web-based computing system without an artificial separation between a plurality of associated governmental institutions (see citations above with Fig. 2A [shows web-based computing with integrated access to all the websites (connected via internet); also Applicant does not describe or define what “artificial separation” means (only uses the term once in the specification) and in the fig. 2A there is no artificial separation and the entire system is connected (and works) via the internet; see with 0018-0021 [shows online working of the system]]).
Bogaard does disclose local, state, federal government entities (see citations above) but does not explicitly state court (although a court is a type of government entity).
Analogous art Dutta discloses court and website associated with court (as part of the system) (for example, see fig. 8 with ¶¶ 0040-0044 [appropriate court…web address…e-court server…e-court web page]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard court and court system connected via a network to other entities/etc., as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 2, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes instructions to accept payment of a fine from an owner of a violating vehicle (¶¶ 0005 [payment of citations…parking and traffic violations…online payments system], 0010, 0019 [[access the aforementioned website hosted by server 18 and navigate to the appropriate webpage for paying fines…go through the prescribed steps to pay the fine ;with 0022 [citation payment function and a user account information management…enter the credit card information into the appropriate fields on the webpage and confirm payment…webpage…provide a receipt for the payment and the transaction would be complete]]).
As per claim 3, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes instructions to accept a request to challenge the electronic parking ticket from an owner of a violating vehicle (¶¶ 0049 [contesting…citation…owner…believes that a citation was issued in error…the citation management system may present the owner with a secondary display (not shown) that permits the owner to identify and/or attach evidence that the citation was issued in error; see also Bogaard claims 6, 41-42]).
As per claim 4, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1 and discloses electronic parking tickets (see citations above for claims 1-2). However, Bogaard does not state scheduling a hearing for litigating a violation associated with the electronic ticket.
Analogous art Dutta discloses scheduling a hearing for litigating a violation associated with the electronic traffic ticket (¶¶ 0006 [processing tickets utilizing internet], 0041 [set a court date to appear in court to contest the citation], 0044-0046 [schedule a court date…traffic citation…assign a particular court, judge, and court date to a case]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard scheduling a hearing for litigating a violation associated with the electronic traffic ticket as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve (including contest) the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (schedule a court date for a hearing to contest a parking/traffic ticket is a very old and well-known concept) of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 5, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 4 and owner of violating vehicle (offender) with information transmitted through the system to the violator (Fig. 2A and see citations above for claim 1-2 and also see ¶¶ 0014-0015, 0021-0023, 0033-0035). However, Bogaard does not explicitly state transmit notice of the hearing (from court) to an offender/accused.
Analogous art Dutta discloses information transmitted from the court to and offender/accused and the information can be scheduling information (¶¶ 0036-0038 [citation information is then transferred to the appropriate e-court server corresponding to the court having jurisdiction which may then docket the case (scheduling) and send an e-mail notification to the e-mail address of the accused; see with 0041 [set a court date…updates…scheduled time]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard scheduling a hearing for litigating a violation associated with the electronic traffic ticket as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve (including contest) the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (schedule a court date for a hearing to contest a parking/traffic ticket is a very old and well-known concept) of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 6, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 4, and further discloses the processor further executes instructions to transmit various information to parking authorities/officials associated with generation of the electronic parking ticket (Fig. 2A [information transmitted though network and internet to parking authorities/officials]; 0027 [system 110 will communicate with other devices via the Internet]; with ¶¶ 0043 [system notifying parking supplier or the government agency (authorities/officials) with information regarding ticket], 0049 [discusses transmitting information regarding parking ticket and actions to citation issuing agency (officials/authorities) so they can take appropriate action]; see also 0042-0046 and 0053-0055). However, Bogaard does not explicitly state the information is a court hearing.
Analogous art Dutta discloses the government entity can be a court and where the information is from a court and/or court hearing (¶¶ 0038, 0041-0046).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard government entity can be a court and where the information is from a court and/or court hearing as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process and contest parking tickets/violations using the old and well-known concept of accused using courts and provide efficient ways to resolve/contest the parking tickets/violation in a court setting since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Dutta (using a court to contest and resolve traffic/parking tickets is old and well-known and the network communication used by courts to send information is also old and well-known technology) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 7, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the processor further executes instructions to provide notice of an outcome of the hearing (contestation) to the owner of the violating vehicle and other entities including the parking authority and state motor vehicle authority (Bogaard’s claim 6 [signal carrying a decision associated with the contesting of the citation; transmitting a notification signal to end user equipment, the transmitting notification signal carrying information regarding the decision] and see with Fig. 2A and ¶¶ 0049 [contesting citation…(decision made)…update the owner's citation history by indicating that the citation was reversed and, using the owner notification function described above, the citation management system 110 will then notify the owner…reverse the citation]; see with 0053 [note that entities to which information is transmitted include DMV - transmit a signal to the citation management system 110, wherein the signal contains information relating to the moving violation and vehicle identification. The signal may be transmitted directly to the citation management system 110 or indirectly through another system, such as a local, state or federal agency system 140 (e.g., a system associated with a state Department of Motor Vehicles or DMV), as illustrated in FIG. 2B.]). Although there is a hearing/contestation and decision in Bogaard and the owner of the violating vehicle, the parking authority, and the state motor vehicle authority are informed of the decision (as they are all connected and communicate through the network and system discussed above), Bogaard does not explicitly state hearing and outcome as pertaining to a court hearing and court information transmitted in the network.
Analogous art Dutta (processing traffic tickets, appeals, fines and using DMV web connection – Dutta’s Abstract and Summary) discloses court hearing (and court decisions) and court information transmitted in the network to various entities (for example see, Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 0035, 0041-0045 [various information including decision by the judge that is transmitted through the network to various entities]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard discloses court hearing (and court decisions) and court information transmitted in the network to various entities as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process and contest parking tickets/violations using the old and well-known concept of accused using courts and provide efficient ways to resolve/contest the parking tickets/violation in a court setting since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Dutta (using a court to contest and resolve traffic/parking tickets is old and well-known and the network communication used by courts to send information is also old and well-known technology) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 8, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to obtain the photograph of the license plate (¶ 0028 [capture the vehicle identification information…camera…photograph…license plate]).
As per claim 9, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to accept an input defining a violation associated with a violating vehicle and to generate the electronic parking ticket from a parking official (see citations above for claim 1 and also see ¶¶ 0017 [parking or traffic violation; see with 0027-0028 [citation management system…devices…enter…vehicle identification information into…device 130, which may be a hand-held device…device 130 may record the vehicle identification information along with the certain details associated with the violation]]).
As per claim 10, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to obtain an online address of the second website associated with the state motor vehicle authority in a state matching the license plate (see citations above for claim 1-2 and 9 and see with ¶¶ 0053 [violations…local, state or federal agency system 140…system associated with a state Department of Motor Vehicles or DMV; see with 0018-0019 [websites/webpages of various entities including local and state authorities as shown in figs. 2A-B] and 0023]; figs. 2A-B, 3).
As per claim 11, Bogaard discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to transmit the photograph and the electronic parking ticket to the second website associated with the state motor vehicle authority (Figs. 2A-B [violation information passed from parking entity to government entities; see with paras. 0020-0023 [citation management system 110, as shown, is capable of communicating with several devices via the Internet. These devices may include user equipment 120, parking supplier equipment 130 and, possibly, other devices 140, such as network servers or equipment associated with local, state, federal or international authorities]]; see with ¶¶ 0028-0030 [citation management system…devices…enter…vehicle identification information into…device 130, which may be a hand-held device…device 130 may record the vehicle identification information along with the certain details associated with the violation]], 0043-0045 [citation management system…notify…government agency – see with 0053 [violations…local, state or federal agency system 140…system associated with a state Department of Motor Vehicles or DMV; see with 0018-0019 [websites/webpages of various entities including local and state authorities as shown in figs. 2A-B] and 0023]).
As per claim 14, Bogaard discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to transmit the photograph and the electronic parking ticket to a web-based driver notification computing system instructing the driver notification computing system to serve notice of the electronic ticket on an owner of a violating vehicle from the third website associated with the local government entity (see citations above for claim 1-2 and 9 and figs. 2A-B; see with ¶¶ 0027-0030 [photograph the vehicle's license plate…transmit a signal via the Internet to the citation management system 110, where the signal contains encoded information that includes the vehicle identification information and the information detailing the violation (e.g., the nature of the violation, the location of the violation, time/date of the violation, and any fine or fee associated therewith)… upon receiving a signal from parking supplier device 130 that contains information including the vehicle identification information and information detailing the violation, the citation management system 110, exercising the citation capture, store and management function, will first attempt to map the information associated with the received signal to an existing account…notify the owner of the vehicle that a violation has occurred; see with 0033 [exercise the owner notification function and notify the owner of the vehicle that a violation has occurred…notify the owner by any one or more of a number of means, in accordance with the owner contact information and contact preference information stored in the database…notify the owner by sending an email to a specified email address, a short message service (SMS) text message to a specified mobile telephone number, a multimedia message, a voice message or a combination thereof]], 0053 [violations…local, state or federal agency system 140…system associated with a state Department of Motor Vehicles or DMV; see with 0018-0019 [websites/webpages of various entities including local and state authorities as shown in figs. 2A-B] and 0023]; figs. 2A-B, 3).
Bogaard does disclose local, state, federal government entities (see citations above) but does not explicitly state court (although a court is a type of government entity).
Analogous art Dutta discloses court and website associated with court (as part of the system) (for example, see fig. 8 with ¶¶ 0040-0044 [appropriate court…web address…e-court server…e-court web page]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard court and court system connected via a network to other entities/etc., as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 15, Bogaard discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of governmental institutions comprise the parking authority, the state motor vehicle authority, and the local government entity (see citations above for claim 1-2 and 9 and figs. 2A-B; see with ¶¶ 0017-0018 [local and state authorities…notifying a person of a citation relating to a parking or traffic violation], 0021 [citations management system…local, state, federal or international authorities; see with 0038, 0040, 0043 [discussing citation issuing agency]], 0049 [citation issuing agency], 0027-0030 [parking supplier…violation of the rules governing the corresponding parking facility (e.g., a parking lot or parking space)…parking facility may be a government facility, such as a parking space on a city street, or a privately owned and/or operated parking lot or garage…transmit a signal via the Internet to the citation management system 110, where the signal contains encoded information that includes the vehicle identification information and the information detailing the violation (e.g., the nature of the violation, the location of the violation, time/date of the violation, and any fine or fee associated therewith)… upon receiving a signal from parking supplier device 130 that contains information including the vehicle identification information and information detailing the violation, the citation management system 110, exercising the citation capture, store and management function, will first attempt to map the information associated with the received signal to an existing account], 0053 [violations…local, state or federal agency system 140…system associated with a state Department of Motor Vehicles or DMV; see with 0018-0019 [websites/webpages of various entities including local and state authorities as shown in figs. 2A-B] and 0023]; figs. 2A-B, 3; see also paras. 0052 [police…citation…issuing agency]).
Bogaard does disclose local, state, federal government entities and citation issuing agencies (see citations above), however, Bogaard does not explicitly state court (although a court is a type of government entity).
Analogous art Dutta discloses court and website associated with court (as part of the system) (for example, see fig. 8 with ¶¶ 0040-0044 [appropriate court…web address…e-court server…e-court web page]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard court and court system connected via a network to other entities/etc., as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogaard et al., (US 2013/0073347) in view of Dutta et al., (US 2003/0055701), further in view of Higgins (US 2004/0252193).
As per claim 12, Bogaard in view of Dutta discloses the system according to claim 1, however, neither Bogaard nor Dutta state wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to verify the license plate matches a violating vehicle through the second website.
Analogous art Higgins discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to verify the license plate matches a violating vehicle through the second website (¶¶ 0053 [image…vehicle…license plate…transmitted…to the verification module…vehicle license plate information, the details of the vehicle and its owner are then accessed at an appropriate motor vehicles department…database; see with 0121-0125 [verification module…plate…image…verification step] and 0128-0131 [executes a plate look-up from the DMV database and verification at DMV on verification screen using the provided license plate information]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard in view of Dutta wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to verify the license plate matches a violating vehicle through the second website as taught by analogous art Higgins in order to have accurate and appropriate information and to accurately process violations and tickets since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Higgins (verifying information through another database or server (using online web-based network and interfaces) is old and well-known) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogaard et al., (US 2013/0073347) in view of Dutta et al., (US 2003/0055701), further in view of Davies et al., (US 2015/0138001).
As per claim 13, Bogaard in view of Dutta discloses the system of claim 1, however, neither Bogaard nor Dutta state wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to notify a responsible agent through the first website associated with the parking authority to dispatch a tow truck to remove a violating vehicle.
Analogous art Davies disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to notify a responsible agent through the first website associated with the parking authority to dispatch a tow truck to remove a violating vehicle (Fig. 6 [tow truck dispatch by parking management system (in contact with parking space manager/owner/attendant)]; ¶¶ 0012-0020 [managing parking…notification system that automatically sends event notifications to authorized agents, including the vehicle owner, parking space owner, and parking lot manager, regarding changes to the parking space status…[0018] f) One or more optional video security cameras that allow an authorized person to view the parking area from an external Internet connected location…enforcement module…issues parking tickets…sends out status alert messages to authorized enforcement agents…request that a tow-truck be dispatched; see with 0077, 0115, 0161 [parking patrol vehicle drives through the parking lot (106), and notices that the display device (100) shows the message: `unauthorized vehicle`, then a parking ticket is generated, a tow-truck is summoned, and the vehicle (104) is towed. Optionally, the system (99) can be configured to automatically generate a towing event email or text message, and a remote operator can respond by reviewing the web camera data feed, and then initiate a call to a tow-truck operator dispatch]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Bogaard in view of Dutta wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic apparatus to notify a responsible agent through the first website associated with the parking authority to dispatch a tow truck to remove a violating vehicle as taught by analogous art Davies in order to effectively and efficiently enforce laws and tackle/reduce parking violations since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Davies (notifying and dispatching tow trucks and getting vehicles towed for parking/traffic violations is an old and well-known enforcement and punishment technique) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
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 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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US 2009/0026254) in view Davies et al., (US 2015/0138001), further in view of Nerayoff et al., (US 2014/0039987).
As per claim 16, Johnson discloses a providing an automated motor vehicle notifications and services system (Abstract; ¶¶ 0008-0009 [parking monitor…communication…vehicle parking status…vehicle communicates…over wireless wide area network…communicate information…send…ticket…parking tickets], 0010-0011), the 10method comprising:
obtaining information of a vehicle license plate for a violating vehicle (¶¶ 0028-0029 [information relating to vehicle…license plate…parking enforcement…vehicle…is in violation…RFID tag (to obtain information of vehicle including license plate)], 0032, 0036 [(obtaining)…license plate number…identifying information from RFID tag (using scanner where the RFIS tag includes license plate number)]);
accepting input defining a violation associated with the violating vehicle to generate an electronic parking ticket (¶¶ 0009 [communicate with a database to retrieve information related to a vehicle to send a ticket to the vehicle owner], 0029-0030 [parking enforcement…violation…issue a ticket to owner vie e-mail (generate parking ticket and send electronic parking ticket electronically via e-mail)… facilitate communication between the scanner 18 and the database 30. For example, the parking attendant could send a request to the program 32 via the portable scanner 18 to query the database 30 for an RFID number. Upon retrieval of the query, the program 32 would automatically send an e-mail 42 to the vehicle owner with a reference to an online parking ticket, via a link for example, wherein the owner could access the parking ticket and pay the appropriate fines associated with the ticket]);
transmitting the vehicle information (RFID tag information including license plate information) and the electronic parking ticket to a web-based 15computing system associated with a parking authority (¶¶ 0029-0030 [parking enforcement…violation…issue a ticket to owner vie e-mail (generate parking ticket and send electronic parking ticket electronically via e-mail)… facilitate communication between the scanner 18 and the database 30. For example, the parking attendant could send a request to the program 32 via the portable scanner 18 to query the database 30 for an RFID number. Upon retrieval of the query, the program 32 would automatically send an e-mail 42 to the vehicle owner with a reference to an online parking ticket, via a link for example, wherein the owner could access the parking ticket and pay the appropriate fines associated with the ticket], 0033-0035 [ticket 43 provides several payment options to the recipient of the ticket. As shown by element 47, the recipient could pay via a website over the internet by inputting the ticket number 49 into a designated field of the website. The website could then cross-reference the ticket number entered by the ticket recipient with the corresponding information in the database 30 to retrieve information relating to the payment (e.g. the cost of the ticket). Conventionally, several methods of payment are available over the internet including: payment via credit card; direct banking account transfer; payment via a third-party service, such as PayPal; or the like. The website would allow the ticket recipient to pay the ticket using one or more of the aforementioned methods, or via any other method recognized by one skilled in the art…[t]he ticket recipient could also pay the ticket via telephone 51 via similar payment methods…automatically transacting the ticket]);
obtaining an online address matching the license plate (¶¶ 0028 [RFID tag 12 used in accordance with the system 10 of the present invention. The tag 12 associates with a vehicle 14, as shown in FIG. 1, and is exemplarily located within the vehicle compartment. The tag contains a media portion 35 used to store information relating to the vehicle, and an antenna element 37 for wirelessly receiving and transmitting signals. Element 36 represents an exemplary list of information that may be stored in the RFID tag 12. The tag 12 may contain information relating to the vehicle, for example the registration and the license plate number, and/or information relating to the vehicle owner, such as the owner's name, address, e-mail address]);
transmitting the vehicle information (RFID tag information including license plate information) and electronic ticket to recipient(s) (see citations above and also see ¶¶ 0008 [transmit information above the vehicle and parking status (using RFID tags/other devices over network)], 0027-0028 [transmit vehicle information from the RFID tag 12 to a database 30. A software program 32 may also communicate with the database 30 to transmit vehicle information stored in the database 30 to one or more recipients…RFID tag 12 used in accordance with the system 10 of the present invention. The tag 12 associates with a vehicle 14, as shown in FIG. 1, and is exemplarily located within the vehicle compartment. The tag contains a media portion 35 used to store information relating to the vehicle, and an antenna element 37 for wirelessly receiving and transmitting signals. Element 36 represents an exemplary list of information that may be stored in the RFID tag 12. The tag 12 may contain information relating to the vehicle, for example the registration and the license plate number, and/or information…various types of information], 0030-0033, 0037-0038);
notifying a responsible agent to dispatch a tow truck to remove the violating vehicle (¶¶ 0010 [communicate…information…to a tow service], 0036-0037 [parking lot agent/attendant...issue tow request for the vehicle]); and
transmitting the vehicle information (RFID tag information including license plate information) and the electronic parking ticket to a web-based 25driver notification computing system instructing the driver notification computing system to serve notice of the electronic ticket on an owner of the violating vehicle (¶¶ 0009 [send ticket to the vehicle owner], 0029-0031 [ facilitates parking enforcement between an operator of the portable scanner 18 and the owner of the vehicle…the vehicle 14 corresponding to the RFID tag 12 is in violation of a rule and that the user of the scanner, a parking attendant…issue a ticket to the owner of the vehicle via e-mail…attendant can use the portable scanner 18 to communicate with the RFID tag 12 to obtain the RFID number encoded there within. The scanner 18 can then be used to access a software program 32 through a wide-area network 28, such as the internet, via a wireless access point…automatically send an e-mail 42 to the vehicle owner with a reference to an online parking ticket, via a link for example, wherein the owner could access the parking ticket and pay the appropriate fines associated with the ticket]).
Johnson does not explicitly state photograph of a vehicle license plate; verifying the license plate matches the vehicle; and when the license plate does not match the violating vehicle, notifying a responsible agent to dispatch a tow truck to remove the violating vehicle.
Analogous art Davies discloses obtaining photograph of a vehicle license plate for a violating vehicle (Abstract [notification module to manage automatic notification and ticketing of vehicles that are not authorized to be parked in the parking space]; ¶¶ 0011-0012 [detect parking violations…identifying a vehicle…license plate recognition (LPR) system], 0046 [vehicle detection and recognition…camera…capturing images of the license plate], 0049, 0011-0012, 0161 [`unauthorized vehicle`, then a parking ticket is generated], 0073 [monitors the parking space activities…identification of parking violations], 0059-0063 [vehicle license plate has been read and validated by the license plate recognition module…parking restrictions…vehicle is illegally parked]);
verifying the license plate matches the vehicle (¶¶ 0199 [images of the license plate license plate detection system to verify accuracy of a license plate number determined by the license plate recognition module], 0059-0063 [vehicle license plate has been read and validated by the license plate recognition module…parking restrictions…vehicle is illegally parked]); and
when the license plate does not match the violating vehicle, notifying a responsible agent to dispatch a tow truck to remove the violating vehicle (¶¶ 0198 [various returned plate numbers can then be checked against the currently downloaded database looking for a match. If the license plate is still not recognized, then additional systems can be brought into use…[i]f the license plate detection server also cannot identify the vehicle (104), then a separate alarm might be triggered… cannot match the license plate, the situation…monitored…tow-truck…called to remove the vehicle]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson photograph of a vehicle license plate; verifying the license plate matches the vehicle; and when the license plate does not match the violating vehicle, notifying a responsible agent to dispatch a tow truck to remove the violating vehicle as taught by analogous art Davies in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Davies would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Johnson in view of Davies does disclose obtain addresses (regular and email) and matching license plate information and owner information (verification and sending tickets, etc.,) (see citations above for Johnson and Davies). However, neither Johnson nor Davies explicitly state the license plate indicates an out of state vehicle registration, using state motor vehicle authority in a state for information, and transmitting information to the appropriate state motor 20vehicle authority.
Analogous art Nerayoff discloses when the license plate indicates an out of state vehicle registration, obtaining an online address associated with a state motor vehicle authority in a state matching the license plate (¶¶ 0040-0048 [license plate image(s)…license plate number along with state/province of issue…state/province data]); and transmitting information to the appropriate state motor 20vehicle authority (¶¶ 0091 [information…to…state-run motor vehicle agency…issuing parking citation]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson in view of Davies state the license plate indicates an out of state vehicle registration, using state motor vehicle authority in a state for information, and transmitting information to the appropriate state motor 20vehicle authority as taught by analogous art Nerayoff in order to communicate with well-known type/government licensing agencies’ and their database (and government agencies give license plates, and hold vehicle data) as it would be an efficient to do so for this type of information so as to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Nerayoff (it is well-known that parking tickets and even traffic violations require information of vehicle registration/plates and owners from government motor vehicle departments so as to inform and process the violation tickets for all parties involved) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 17, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the method further accepts payment of a fine from the owner of the violating vehicle (¶¶ 0031 [owner…parking ticket…pay the appropriate fines associated with the ticket…vehicle owner], 0033-0034 [payment…of the ticket…pay via website]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US 2009/0026254) in view Davies et al., (US 2015/0138001), further in view of Nerayoff et al., (US 2014/0039987), further in view of Wang (US 2016/0232785).
As per claim 18, Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff discloses the method according to claim 16, but they do not explicitly state wherein the method further accepts a request to challenge the parking ticket from the owner of the violating vehicle.
Wang discloses wherein the method further accepts a request to challenge the parking ticket from the owner of the violating vehicle (¶¶ 0056 [violation…ticket…vehicle…parking], 0084 [users receive ticket…dispute…the ticket], 0107 [users…disputing tickets], 0113).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff wherein the method further accepts a request to challenge the parking ticket from the owner of the violating vehicle as taught by analogous art Wang in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to a fair and accurate resolution of the ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wang (it is well-known that parking tickets and even traffic violations can be disputed and those options are available for a resolving a vehicle violation/ticket) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 20, Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff discloses the method according to claim 6, and they further disclose providing notices/notifications through communications to owner of the violating vehicle, the parking authority, and the state motor vehicle authority (see citations above for rejection of claims 16-17). However neither Johnson nor Davies nor Nerayoff explicitly state wherein the method further provides notice of an outcome of a hearing.
Wang discloses providing outcome of a hearing (¶ 0107 [results of their hearing for their ticket]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff providing outcome of a hearing as taught by analogous art Wang in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to a fair and accurate resolution of the ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US 2009/0026254) in view Davies et al., (US 2015/0138001), further in view of Nerayoff et al., (US 2014/0039987), further in view of Dutta et al., (US 2003/0055701), further in view of Delatte et al., (US 2005/0187807).
As per claim 19, Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff discloses the method according to claim 18, and Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff transmits notices/notifications to the parking official associated with the generation of the 5parking ticket (see citations of claims 16-17). But neither Johnson nor Davies nor Nerayoff explicitly state wherein the method further: schedules a hearing for litigating the violation associated with the parking ticket; transmits notice of the hearing to the owner of the violating vehicle; and transmits notice of the hearing to the parking official associated with the generation of the parking ticket.
Analogous art Dutta discloses scheduling a hearing for litigating a violation associated with the electronic traffic ticket (¶¶ 0006 [processing tickets utilizing internet], 0041 [set a court date to appear in court to contest the citation], 0044-0046 [schedule a court date…traffic citation…assign a particular court, judge, and court date to a case]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff scheduling a hearing for litigating a violation associated with the electronic traffic ticket as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve (including contest) the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (schedule a court date for a hearing to contest a parking/traffic ticket is a very old and well-known concept) of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Analogous art Dutta discloses transmitting notice of the hearing to the owner of the violating vehicle (shows information transmitted from the court to and offender/accused and the information can be scheduling information in ¶¶ 0036-0038 [citation information is then transferred to the appropriate e-court server corresponding to the court having jurisdiction which may then docket the case (scheduling) and send an e-mail notification to the e-mail address of the accused; see with 0041 [set a court date…updates…scheduled time]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff transmitting notice of the hearing to the owner of the violating vehicle as taught by analogous art Dutta in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve (including contest) the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (schedule a court date for a hearing to contest a parking/traffic ticket is a very old and well-known concept) of Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Although Dutta discloses transmitting notice of hearing associated with the generation of the parking ticket (see citations above and see ¶¶ 0006 [processing tickets utilizing internet], 0041 [set a court date to appear in court to contest the citation], 0036-0038 [citation information is then transferred to the appropriate e-court server corresponding to the court having jurisdiction which may then docket the case (scheduling) and send an e-mail notification to the e-mail address of the accused; see with 0041 [set a court date…updates…scheduled time]]), neither Johnson nor Davies nor Nerayoff nor Dutta explicitly state transmitting to an official.
Analogous art Delatte discloses transmitting notice of hearing to officials (¶¶ 0005 [notifying officials (police officers)…appear in court…notifications…officer who has received such notice then goes to court at the scheduled time…traffic tickets (cases can involve traffic ticket disputes)], 0007, 0009 [court scheduling…online scheduling and notification…police officers (officials); see with 0033-0035]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Johnson in view of Davies further in view of Nerayoff further in view of Dutta transmitting notice of hearing to officials as taught by analogous art Delatte in order to efficiently process parking tickets and provide efficient ways for the owner and other parties to resolve (including contest) the parking ticket since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (informing officials/officers of court dates/schedules on cases they may need to appear or are involved in is an old and well-known concept in the legal system) of Delatte would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Wirsz (US 2010/0149334): Provides a police officer the ability to capture and review traffic violations observed using one or more strategically located cameras. The system incorporates a database of state and local motor vehicle laws and when the officer determines a violation has occurred the system automatically fills in the relevant statute or code for the violation, the correct legal language describing the violation, and the fine for that violation. Driver's license and vehicle information is also automatically filled in. The officer can override the issuance of a citation and indicate that only a warning or Reminder be issued instead. The citation, warning or Reminder notice is saved in the system for further processing and subsequent mailing. The system now transmits the citation, warning or Reminder notice data to servers at the service provider for mailing, the municipal department which collects the fines, as well as the police department's traffic division, for inclusion in their respective databases. This reduces paperwork, and data entry processing, further saving time and expense. Whether a citation, warning or Reminder notice is issued, the system and method of the invention significantly expand the area of coverage of a police officer in monitoring traffic and detecting violations, and allows the officer to issue more citations, warnings or Reminders within a given time period than is now possible. This makes the officer more efficient and potentially increases revenue because of the issuance of more citations. More importantly, it makes drivers more conscious of their actions and promotes vehicular safety.
Jackson (US 5,432,508): Parking for vehicles is facilitated, monitored and controlled by using sensors to determine the availability of vacant parking spaces and by indications to alert vehicle operators at a substantial distance of the availability a vacant space. A computer controlled system monitors the sensors and controls the delivery indicator signals. Data regarding parking occupancy is used to inform drivers entering the facility and prospective users, via a telephone interface, of the availability of parking. The telephone interface further allows users to reserve parking spaces and charge the cost of the reserved space.
Dutta et al., (US 2003/0055701): Illustrates processing traffic tickets is provided. In one embodiment, a department of motor vehicle (DMV) server receives, from a portable law enforcement data processing system via a network, citation data and stores the citation data. The DMV server then determines and notifies a court of jurisdiction of the citation data and receives, via the network, instructions from a client representing an accused about how the accused would like to proceed with the case. Based on the instructions received on behalf of the client, the DMV server modifies the citation data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/GURKANWALJIT SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625