Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 7 claimed a program recording medium. It can be interpreted as a transitory electromagnetic waves or propagating signals. It fails to fall within a statutory category of invention. It is not a process occurring as a result of executing the software, a machine programmed to operate in accordance with the software nor a manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the software in a manner which enables the software to act as a computer component and realize its functionality. It is also clearly not directed to a composition of matter. Therefore, it is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are directed an idea for detecting and transmitting occurrence of an accident which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7:
The claims in the instant application include:
acquire an image obtained by imaging a monitoring target object from image storage storing the image for a predetermined period;
detect occurrence of an accident that has caused damage to the monitoring target object based on a change of the image;
select, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, a first image before the occurrence of the accident from the image storage; and
transmit, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, the first image and information regarding a portion where the change of the monitoring target object is detected to a predetermined terminal.
Regarding “detect occurrence of an accident that has caused damage to the monitoring target object based on a change of the image”, it can be interpreted as a human can observe/analyze images for a predetermined period, and detect occurrence of an accident that has caused damage to the monitoring target object based on a change of the image. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “select, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, a first image before the occurrence of the accident,” it can be interpreted as the human can select, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, a first image before the occurrence of the accident. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “transmit, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, the first image and information regarding a portion where the change of the monitoring target object is detected,” it can be interpreted as the human can deliver this message and image to a corresponding party (personal, office, etc.) for the occurrence of the accident. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are mental processes.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
acquire an image obtained by imaging a monitoring target object from image storage storing the image for a predetermined period;
transmit to a predetermined terminal;
device, processor, memory, and recording medium.
Regarding “acquire an image obtained by imaging a monitoring target object from image storage storing the image for a predetermined period”, it is considered as a data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding “Regarding “transmit to a predetermined terminal”, it is considered as a general data transmitting of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding “device, processor, memory, and recording medium”, they are computer hardware / software. It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., data gathering, transmitting, device, processor, memory, and recording medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g., data gathering, transmitting, device, processor, memory, and recording medium) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., data gathering, transmitting, device, processor, memory, and recording medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 5, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claim 1 because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claim 1, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; "is ... ", "receive ... ", “store …”, “select …”, and “transmit …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (Korean Patent Application Publication KR 2020-0126764, IDS), in view of Hatakeyama et al (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2020-118141, IDS), hereinafter referred as Hatakeyama.
Regarding claim 1, Koo discloses an information providing device (Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (Fig. 1, storage unit 120); and
one or more processors (Fig. 1, control unit 140) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an image obtained by imaging a monitoring target object from image storage storing the image for a predetermined period (Fig. 3, S100, page 5, para. 4, “the vehicle monitoring apparatus 100 in the parking lot may acquire a monitoring image for the parking area of interest at every predetermined period (S100)”; since there is a comparison of the monitoring image of the current period and the monitoring image of the immediately preceding period, it is apparent that images are stored/ buffered to perform the comparison);
detect occurrence of an accident that has caused damage to the monitoring target object based on a change of the image (Fig. 3, S120, page 5 – 6);
select / generate, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, an abnormal state notification (Fig. 3, S140, page 6, para. 8); and
transmit, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, the abnormal state notification and information regarding a portion where the change of the monitoring target object is detected to a predetermined terminal (Fig. 3, S140, page 6, para. 8).
However, Koo fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein select, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, a first image before the occurrence of the accident from the image storage; and transmit the first image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Hatakeyama discloses a blade inspection system (abstract). In addition, Hatakeyama discloses the system wherein select, in a case where the occurrence of the accident has been detected, a first image before the occurrence of the accident from the image storage; and transmit the first image (Figs. 12 – 13, pages 7 – 9, section <<Additional functions>>, in case where the occurrence of damage (lightning strikes), select and transmit reference data (image 31), and other relevant information to determine the damage. Also page 10, para. 7, “further transmits the reference data 31).
Both Koo and Hatakeyama served purpose of damage monitoring and detection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further comparing and discovering how the accident is (KSR scenario A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the detection result of Koo and for a further transmitting and compare the reference image of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield the predictable result of better determining the result of damaging.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Koo disclose the device wherein the monitoring target object is any one of a land fixture and a parked vehicle (Fig. 3, S100, page 5, para. 3 - 4, parking lot), and the image storage receives the image from a first camera configured to image the monitoring target object and stores the image for the predetermined period (Fig. 3, S100, page 5, para. 4, “the vehicle monitoring apparatus 100 in the parking lot may acquire a monitoring image for the parking area of interest at every predetermined period (S100)”; since there is a comparison of the monitoring image of the current period and the monitoring image of the immediately preceding period, it is apparent that images are stored/ buffered to perform the comparison).
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 1), Koo disclose the device further comprising wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
select / generate, in a case where the occurrence of the damage has been detected, a damage state notification (page 5, para. 7, “due to exterior damage …”, Fig. 3, S140, page 6, para. 8); and
transmit the damage normal state notification to the predetermined termina (Fig. 3, S140, page 6, para. 8).
However, Koo fails to explicitly disclose select a second image showing a vehicle that has caused the accident from the image storage; and transmit the second image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Hatakeyama discloses a blade inspection system (abstract). In addition, Hatakeyama discloses the system wherein select a second image showing a vehicle that has caused the accident from the image storage; and transmit the second image (Figs. 12 – 13, pages 7 – 9, section <<Additional functions>>, in case where the occurrence of damage (lightning strikes), select and transmit damage photographing data (image 32)).
Both Koo and Hatakeyama served purpose of damage monitoring and detection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further comparing and discovering how the accident is (KSR scenario A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the detection result of Koo and for a further transmitting and compare the reference image of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield the predictable result of better determining the result of damaging.
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 3), Koo disclose the device wherein
the image storage means receives a vehicle image before the accident of the vehicle that has caused the accident from a second camera arranged at a predetermined position (page 2, para. 2 from bottom, “a plurality of cameras for the parking area are installed inside the parking lot, and an image of the parking area may be acquired in real time by the installed cameras”) and stores the vehicle image for the predetermined period (Fig. 3, S100, page 5, para. 4, “the vehicle monitoring apparatus 100 in the parking lot may acquire a monitoring image for the parking area of interest at every predetermined period (S100)”; since there is a comparison of the monitoring image of the current period and the monitoring image of the immediately preceding period, it is apparent that images are stored/ buffered to perform the comparison), and
wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute the instructions to:
select / generate an abnormal state notification for the accident of the vehicle that has caused the accident, (Fig. 3, S140, page 6, para. 8); and
transmit the abnormal state notification to a predetermined terminal (Fig. 3, S140, page 6, para. 8).
However, Koo fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein select a third image before the accident that has caused the accident from the image storage; and transmit the third image to the predetermined terminal.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Hatakeyama discloses a blade inspection system (abstract). In addition, Hatakeyama discloses the system wherein select a third image before the accident that has caused the accident from the image storage; and transmit the third image to the predetermined terminal (Figs. 12 – 13, pages 7 – 9, section <<Additional functions>>, in case where the occurrence of damage (lightning strikes), select and transmit reference data (image 31), and other relevant information to determine the damage. Also page 10, para. 7, “further transmits the reference data 31).
Both Koo and Hatakeyama served purpose of damage monitoring and detection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further comparing and discovering how the accident is (KSR scenario A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the detection result of Koo and for a further transmitting and compare the reference image of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield the predictable result of better determining the result of damaging.
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Koo disclose the device wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute the instructions to:
select a terminal of a manager of the damaged monitoring target object as the predetermined terminal based on monitoring target object information including manager information including at least a contact of the monitoring target object (page 9 – 10, the terminal T of the vehicle owner).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, they are corresponding to claim 1, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights