DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosales et al (US 20200184811 A1) in view of Alvarez et al (US 20200026289 A1) and further view of Cardona et al (US 20240001912 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosales discloses a traffic flow measurement system (Rosales fig. 4; [0050], “FIG. 4 illustrates a physical layout of a roadside network 400 (a system) … measurement of traffic flow (to measure traffic flow)”) comprising:
a first sensor configured to acquire detection result of a measurement area of a traffic flow (Rosales fig. 4; [0050], “sensors, e.g., 406A (a first sensor to acquire a detection result of a measurement area of a traffic flow)”);
a second sensor configured to acquire detection result of the measurement area (Rosales fig. 4; [0050], “sensors, e.g., … 406B (a second sensor to acquire a detection result of the measurement area) … (collectively referred to as 402), sensors,”);
a server device connected to the first and second sensors and configured to perform a traffic flow analysis operation based on the detection results of the first and second sensors (Rosales [0047], “The data from these sensors 228 may then be aggregated and analyzed by any combination of the sensors 228 … sent … to the server 206”).
Rosales does not disclose (highlighted missing feature where applicable)
a first sensor configured to acquire a two-dimensional detection result of a measurement area of a traffic flow;
a second sensor configured to acquire a three-dimensional detection result of the measurement area
However, Alvarez discloses disclose (highlighted missing feature where applicable)
a first sensor configured to acquire a two-dimensional detection result of a measurement area of a traffic flow (Alvarez [0044], “array of sensors 225 to collect various information relating to the exterior of the vehicle and the surrounding environment… two-dimensional (2D) cameras”);
a second sensor configured to acquire a three-dimensional detection result of the measurement area (Alvarez [0044], “array of sensors 225 to collect various information relating to the exterior of the vehicle and the surrounding environment … three-dimensional (3D) or stereo cameras”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosales with Alvarez to incorporate 2D and 3D traffic detection data for an area. This would have been done to gather detailed information on traffic regions and utilize the data to generate accurate information on the traffic in the regions.
Rosale in view of Alvarez does not disclose
a terminal device which is connected to the server device via a network and displays a result of the traffic flow analysis operation, wherein the server device:
generates, based on the result of the traffic flow analysis operation, an object behavior image that visualizes time-series data indicating changes in a state of a moving body;
generates a traffic flow viewer screen in which the object behavior image is overlaid on a sensor image based on the detection result of each of the first and second sensors; and
transmits the traffic flow viewer screen to the terminal device.
However, Cardona discloses
a terminal device which is connected to the server device via a network and displays a result of the traffic flow analysis operation (Cardona [0101], “the system 100 may (i) display (e.g., via … a client coordinating with the server 140 [not shown]) the first and second sets of road segment parameters via a user interface according to a chronological order … to identify one or more vehicle events”; ), wherein the server device:
generates, based on the result of the traffic flow analysis operation, an object behavior image that visualizes time-series data indicating changes in a state of a moving body (Cardona [0101], “a user interface according to a chronological order determined based upon the set of timestamps with which the plurality of road segment parameters have been timestamped (time-series data indicating changes in a state of a moving body) … analyze the first and second sets of road segment parameters to identify one or more vehicle events, each characterized by a subset of the plurality of road segment parameters.”; [0102] “An exemplary user interface that may be used to display the parameters is shown in, and described with respect to, FIG. 9 (see for example, fig. 9-904 object behavior).”);
generates a traffic flow viewer screen in which the object behavior image is overlaid on a sensor image based on the detection result of each of the first and second sensors (Cardona fig. 9; [0103], “the first and second set of parameters may be analyzed to identify a subset of parameters representing a vehicle event. As an example, a set of parameters from the vehicle sensors (e.g., speed, heading, brake status, steering wheel orientation, etc.) and a set of parameters from an infrastructure device (e.g., a traffic signal status, a radar gun, a motion sensor, etc.) may each correspond to a vehicle driving through an intersection (e.g., while speeding, while running a red light, while driving through a yellow light, before/during/after being involved in an accident with another vehicle, etc.).”); and
transmits the traffic flow viewer screen to the terminal device (Cardona [0101], “a client coordinating with the server 140”; [0102], “exemplary user interface (exemplary traffic flow viewer screen to the terminal device) that may be used to display the parameters is shown in, and described with respect to, FIG. 9.”; [0104], “Exemplary vehicle events may include … one or more vehicles simply driving through a road segment (traffic flow) in question.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosales further with Cardona to implement a client-server system for traffic flow analysis and display. This would have made Rosales more versatile by providing traffic service to a variety of user devices.
Claim 6 recites a method which corresponds to the function performed by the system of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the method of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-5, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claims as recited.
Conclusion
See the notice of references cited (PTO-892) for prior art made of record, including art that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612