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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 requires the first server (with a first processor to execute the first instruction) to determine whether or not the receiving information is processed in the first server on the basis of the received information, and performing processing on the received information when it is determined that the received information is processed in the first server. This claim is unclear to the examiner, because it appears that the processing is performed by the first server twice. If it is determined that the received information is processed in the first server, then the limitation performs processing on the information again, and it is unclear to the examiner. The limitation is clear if it was determined that the first server performs processing on the received information when it is determined (by the first server) that the information has not been processed yet, and therefore processing is performed. However the other way around (i.e. performing processing on the information received that has already been processed) is unclear. As currently presented, the claim fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. The examiner will interpret this claim as determining whether or not the received information is processed in the first server and performing processing by the first server. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-19 and 23 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-19 and 23 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A server system comprising: a first server configured to receive information from at least one of a mobile body, an on-road facility, and a roadside device; and a second server configured to receive the information from the first server
wherein the first server comprises at least one first memory storing first instructions and at least one first processor configured to execute the first instructions to
receive information from at least one of the mobile body, the on-road facility, and the roadside device,
determine whether or not to transmit the received information to the second server on the basis of the received information,
and transmit the information to the second server when it is determined to transmit the information to the second server
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation “determine whether or not to transmit the received information to the second server on the basis of the received information” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination based on received information. Since this determination can be done in the mind, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claims 19 and 23
Claim 2:
wherein the information comprises video data, and the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server on the basis of the video data.
Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the received video data and making a determination on whether or not to transmit the information. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 3:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not a road surface appears in the video data, and determine to transmit the information to the second server when determining that a road surface appears.
Regarding claim 3, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the received video data and making a determination on whether or not to transmit the information based on whether the road surface appears. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 4:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to obtain a ratio of a road surface appearing in the video data, and determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server on the basis of the obtained ratio.
Regarding claim 4, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the received video data and making a determination on whether or not to transmit the information based on a ratio of road surface appearing in the video. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 5:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to check presence or absence of at least one of a shadow on a road surface and a puddle on the road surface appearing in the video data, and determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server according to presence or absence of at least one of the shadow and the puddle on the road surface.
Regarding claim 5, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the received video data and making a determination on whether or not to transmit the information based on a presence/absence of a shadow/puddle on the road surface. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 6:
determine whether or not a person appears in the video data, and determines determine not to transmit the information to the second server when determining that a person appears.
Regarding claim 6, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the received video data and making a determination on whether or not to transmit the information based on a determination that a person appears. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 7:
wherein the second server comprises at least one second memory storing second instructions, and at least one second processor configured to execute the second instructions to analyze the received information.
Regarding claim 7, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user analyzing received information Since this limitation can be done by a user doing an analysis, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 8:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server depending on whether or not the information is information that can be analyzed by the at least one second processor
Regarding claim 8, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining whether or not to transmit the information to the second server depending on whether the info can be analyzed by a second processor. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 9:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server depending on whether or not the at least one second processor analysis means can analyze the information with accuracy of a predetermined accuracy or more.
Regarding claim 9, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining whether or not to transmit the information to the second server depending on whether the info can be analyzed accurately by a second processor. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 10:
wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute the second instructions to analyze at least one of a road surface condition, an accident situation, and a disaster occurrence situation.
Regarding claim 10, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user analyzing a road surface condition, an accident situation, and a disaster occurrence. Since this limitation can be done by a user analyzing a video, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 11:
wherein the second server further comprises a storage means for storing the received information and an analysis result
Regarding claim 11, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an analysis result, which is a step that can be done in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 12:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not the information is information related to a known analysis result analyzed by the at least one second processor, and determine not to transmit the information to the second server when determining that the information is information related to the known analysis result.
Regarding claim 12, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination based on an analysis result. Since this limitation can be done by a user that is making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 13:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server also on the basis of information acquired from an external source
Regarding claim 13, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination based on information acquired from an external source. Since this limitation can be done by a user that is making a determination, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 14-17:
Regarding claims 14-17, the server system being a road maintenance management system does not change the limitations that uses the server from being abstract. The same rational applies to what the server system comprises (claims 15 and 17), and the same rational applies to whether the server is closer to a source than another server (claim 16).
Claim 18:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to: determine whether or not the received information is processed in the first server on the basis of the received information, and perform processing on the received information when it is determined that the received information is processed in the first server.
Regarding claim 18, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination based on information received, and performing processing when it is determined that the received info is processed in the first server. Since this limitation can be done by a user that is making a determination and performing processing (i.e. in the human mind), then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A server system comprising: a first server configured to receive information from at least one of a mobile body, an on-road facility, and a roadside device; and a second server configured to receive the information from the first server
wherein the first server comprises at least one first memory storing first instructions and at least one first processor configured to execute the first instructions to
receive information from at least one of the mobile body, the on-road facility, and the roadside device,
determine whether or not to transmit the received information to the second server on the basis of the received information,
and transmit the information to the second server when it is determined to transmit the information to the second server
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving” and “transmitting” information, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step and the transmitting step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving and transmitting information). Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The same rational applies to independent claims 19 and 23.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “receiving” and “transmitting” data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving and transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The step of “receiving” and “transmitting data is taught in the primary reference Kami JP2016038715A, see at least Para. 0091. Accordingly, the steps of collecting data and transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-12, 14, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kami et al. JP2016038715A (henceforth Kami)
Regarding claim 1,
Kami discloses:
A server system comprising: a first server configured to receive information from at least one of a mobile body, an on-road facility, and a roadside device; and a second server configured to receive the information from the first server (See at least Para. 0091, “The transmitting device 100 receives the measurement data transmitted from the measuring device 300, performs calculation of the information value on the received measurement data, and determines whether to transmit it to the management device 200, if necessary. Send the measurement data to 200.” The transmitting device 100 receives measurement data from the measurement device 300, wherein the measurement device is provided in a vehicle (see Para. 0101). The second server is the management device 200 that receives information from the transmitting device 100 (i.e. a first server). Further see Para. 0031, “transmitting the present positional information to another server apparatus,” and Para. 0129, “The management server 20 corresponds to the management device 200 in the above embodiment”.) wherein the first server comprises at least one first memory storing first instructions and at least one first processor configured to execute the first instructions to (See at least Para. 0044, wherein the first server includes a CPU.)
receive information from at least one of the mobile body, the on-road facility, and the roadside device, (See at least Para. 0091, wherein the first server receives information from a vehicle (i.e. a mobile body).)
determine whether or not to transmit the received information to the second server on the basis of the received information, and transmit the information to the second server when it is determined to transmit the information to the second server (See at least Para. 0091, “The transmitting device 100 receives the measurement data transmitted from the measuring device 300, performs calculation of the information value on the received measurement data, and determines whether to transmit it to the management device 200, if necessary. Send the measurement data to 200.”It is determined whether or not to transmit the received information to the second server on the bases of the received information, and then the information is transmitted to the second server when it is determined to transmit the information to the second server.)
Regarding claim 7,
Kami discloses:
wherein the second server comprises at least one second memory storing second instructions, and at least one second processor configured to execute the second instructions to analyze the received information
(See at least Para. 0035, wherein the second server (i.e. the management apparatus 200) includes a data processing unit 202. In Para. 0058, “ the data processing unit 202 processes predicted data of the received measurement data or unreceived measurement data.” The second server can analyze the received information. Additionally, see Para. 0040.)
Regarding claim 8:
Kami discloses:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server depending on whether or not the information is information that can be analyzed by the at least one second processor
(See at least Para. 0029, “The information value calculation means 103 calculates the value (hereinafter referred to as information value) as information of the acquired measurement data. The information value may, for example, quantitatively represent the prediction difficulty of the measurement data in the management device 200. In this case, it may be an index that increases the value as information as prediction of the measurement data is difficult in the management device 200. The information value calculation means 103, for example, estimates accuracy obtained by actually performing prediction of the measurement data based on the measurement data transmitted to the management apparatus 200 so far, and the amount of measurement data for which transmission was continuously missed” and Para. 0030, “The transmission determination information is information used to determine whether to transmit measurement data to the management apparatus 200”. It is determined whether or not the first server transmits information to the second server depending on whether the second processor can analyze the information with accuracy.)
Regarding claim 9,
Kami discloses:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not to transmit the information to the second server depending on whether or not the at least one second processor can analyze the information with accuracy of a predetermined accuracy or more
(See at least Para. 0029, “The information value calculation means 103 calculates the value (hereinafter referred to as information value) as information of the acquired measurement data. The information value may, for example, quantitatively represent the prediction difficulty of the measurement data in the management device 200. In this case, it may be an index that increases the value as information as prediction of the measurement data is difficult in the management device 200. The information value calculation means 103, for example, estimates accuracy obtained by actually performing prediction of the measurement data based on the measurement data transmitted to the management apparatus 200 so far, and the amount of measurement data for which transmission was continuously missed” and Para. 0030, “The transmission determination information is information used to determine whether to transmit measurement data to the management apparatus 200”. It is determined whether or not the first server transmits information to the second server depending on whether the second processor can analyze the information with accuracy.)
Regarding claim 10,
Kami discloses:
wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute the second instructions to analyze at least one of a road surface condition, an accident situation, and a disaster occurrence situation.
(See at least Para. 0042, wherein the noise data on a road is a road surface condition.)
Regarding claim 11,
Kami discloses:
wherein the second server further comprises a storage for storing the received information and an analysis result
(See at least Para. 0035, wherein the second server (i.e. the management apparatus 200) comprises a storage (see Para. 0036) for storing the received information and an analysis result (i.e. processed data).)
Regarding claim 12,
Kami discloses:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to determine whether or not the information is information related to a known analysis result analyzed by the at least one second processor, and determine not to transmit the information to the second server when determining that the information is information related to the known analysis result.
(See at least Para. 0126, “the transmission device 100 is configured to include the reference data storage unit, the transmission control information generation unit, and the data processing unit. The transmission device 100 can determine the measurement data required to interpolate other measurement data from a part of the measurement data in the management device 200 without transmitting”.)
Regarding claim 14,
Kami discloses:
wherein the server system is a road maintenance management system. (See at least Para. 0042 and Para. 0145.)
Regarding claim 18,
Kami discloses:
wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the first instructions to: determine whether or not the received information is processed in the first server on the basis of the received information, and perform processing on the received information when it is determined that the received information is processed in the first server (See at least Para. 0109, wherein the first server performs processing, and determines whether to transmit the newly acquired measurement data to the second server.)
Regarding claim 19,
Kami discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 23,
Kami discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
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 2-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kami in view of Zhou et al US20230100827A1 (henceforth Zhou).
Regarding claim 2,
Kami discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Kami discloses a determination whether or not to transmit the information to the second server, but does not specifically state that it is based on the video data.
However, Zhou teaches:
Wherein the information is video data (See at least Para. 0100 and Para. 0108-0109 “The client computing devices may also include a camera for recording video stream”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to include “wherein the information is video data” since “such information may be provided to vehicles across a fleet of vehicles, such as part of a general system update or based on current or projected weather conditions to assist scheduling and routing of the fleet”. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data (i.e. video data) to assist scheduling and routing of vehicle fleets. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data to other vehicles via a server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Zhou. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,
Kami discloses a determination whether or not to transmit the information to the second server, but does not specifically that the information includes whether or not a road surface appears in the video data.
However, Zhou teaches:
the information includes whether or not a road surface appears in the video data (See at least Para. 0100, wherein the information includes a road surface appearing in the video data.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to include “the information includes whether or not a road surface appears in the video data” since “such information may be provided to vehicles across a fleet of vehicles, such as part of a general system update or based on current or projected weather conditions to assist scheduling and routing of the fleet”. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data (i.e. video data) to assist scheduling and routing of vehicle fleets. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data to other vehicles via a server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Zhou. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Kami discloses a determination whether or not to transmit the information to the second server, but does not specifically state “checking presence or absence of at least one of a show on a road surface and a puddle on the road surface appearing in the video data, and wherein the information includes presence or absence of at least one of the shadow and the puddle on the road surface”.
However, Zhou teaches:
checking presence or absence of at least one of a show on a road surface and a puddle on the road surface appearing in the video data, and wherein the information includes presence or absence of at least one of the shadow and the puddle on the road surface (See at least Para. 0100, wherein the presence of a wet roads and puddles is identified, such that it can be provided to vehicles across a fleet of vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to include “checking presence or absence of at least one of a show on a road surface and a puddle on the road surface appearing in the video data, and wherein the information includes presence or absence of at least one of the shadow and the puddle on the road surface” since “such information may be provided to vehicles across a fleet of vehicles, such as part of a general system update or based on current or projected weather conditions to assist scheduling and routing of the fleet”. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data (i.e. video data) to assist scheduling and routing of vehicle fleets. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data to other vehicles via a server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Zhou. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6,
Kami discloses a determination whether or not to transmit the information to the second server, but does not specifically state that the information includes a person appearing in the video data.
However, Zhou teaches:
the information includes a person appearing in the video data
(See at least Para. 0100, “pedestrians or bicyclists” and “pedestrian detector”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to include “the information includes a person appearing in the video data” since “such information may be provided to vehicles across a fleet of vehicles, such as part of a general system update or based on current or projected weather conditions to assist scheduling and routing of the fleet”. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data (i.e. video data) to assist scheduling and routing of vehicle fleets. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data to other vehicles via a server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Zhou. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kami and Zhou further in view of Kato Hiroyuki et al. JP2019159840A (henceforth Kato).
Regarding claim 4,
Kami and Zhou discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 above.
Kami discloses including determining whether or not to transmit information to the second server on the basis of information, but does not specifically state “obtaining a ratio of a road surface appearing in the video data”, “wherein the information is the obtained ratio”.
However, Kato teaches:
obtaining a ratio of a road surface appearing in the video data and wherein the information is the obtained ratio
(See at least Para. 0019, “A plane in contact with The ratio of the road surface area included in the video imaged by each camera (21, 22, 23) (that is, the vertical direction of each camera) may be selected as appropriate.” Wherein a road surface ratio is obtained.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Kato to include “obtaining a ratio of a road surface appearing in the video data”, and “wherein the information is the obtained ratio” in order to determine whether or not to transmit the information to another server, such that information that is not needed is not transferred unnecessarily to the server. This would create a more robust system for transmitting data to a server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Kato. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kami in view of Furusawa JP2009245017A.
Regarding claim 13,
Kami discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above, including determining whether or not to transmit information to the second server on the basis of information, but Kami does not specifically state wherein the information is acquired from an external source. However, Furusawa teaches:
wherein the information is acquired from an external source
(See at least Para. 0045, “Data transmitted to the user terminal 21 connected to the second network 22 that is a closed network is first received by the first server 10 and whether or not it matches a predetermined format, etc. It is checked whether the message is proper. Accordingly, it is possible to effectively prevent an inflow of unauthorized data including a computer virus or the like from a malicious third party or the like.” Wherein the information is acquired from an external source (i.e. third party).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to include “wherein the information is acquired from an external source” in order to prevent unauthorized data including a computer virus (Para. 0045, Furusawa). This would create a more robust secure system that prevents malicious unauthorized data. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Furusawa. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kami in view of Mani et al. US10693913B2 (henceforth Mani).
Regarding claim 15,
Kami discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Kami does not specifically state “wherein the server system is configured as a server system comprising a plurality of servers separated into a plurality of layers, and the first server is a server in a layer lower than the second server”.
However, Mani teaches:
wherein the server system is configured as a server system comprising a plurality of servers separated into a plurality of layers, and the first server is a server in a layer lower than the second server
(See at least Column 2, lines 56-67, “Fog computing is a distributed approach of cloud implementation that acts as an intermediate layer from local networks (e.g., IoT networks) to the cloud (e.g., centralized and/or shared resources, as will be understood by those skilled in the art). That is, generally, fog computing entails using devices at the network edge to provide application services, including computation, networking, and storage, to the local nodes in the network, in contrast to cloud-based approaches that rely on remote data centers/cloud environments for the services. To this end, a fog node is a functional node that is deployed close to fog endpoints to provide computing, storage, and networking resources and services”. The intermediate layer is a layer higher and a layer lower than the above and lower layer respectively.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Mani to include “wherein the server system is configured as a server system comprising a plurality of servers separated into a plurality of layers, and the first server is a server in a layer lower than the second server” in order to remove extra computations away from the cloud in order to decrease the overall overhead of the network to increase efficiency (See Column 1, lines 13-40, Mani). This would further create a more robust server system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Mani. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16,
Kami does not specifically state “wherein the first server is arranged in a position closer to an acquisition source of the information than the second server”.
However, Mani teaches:
wherein the first server is arranged in a position closer to an acquisition source of the information than the second server.
(See at least Column 2, lines 56-67, “Fog computing is a distributed approach of cloud implementation that acts as an intermediate layer from local networks (e.g., IoT networks) to the cloud (e.g., centralized and/or shared resources, as will be understood by those skilled in the art). That is, generally, fog computing entails using devices at the network edge to provide application services, including computation, networking, and storage, to the local nodes in the network, in contrast to cloud-based approaches that rely on remote data centers/cloud environments for the services. To this end, a fog node is a functional node that is deployed close to fog endpoints to provide computing, storage, and networking resources and services”. The fog node (i.e. the first server) is arranged in a position closer to an acquisition source (i.e. endpoints) than the second server.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Mani to include “wherein the first server is arranged in a position closer to an acquisition source of the information than the second server” in order to remove extra computations away from the cloud in order to decrease the overall overhead of the network to increase efficiency (See Column 1, lines 13-40, Mani). This would further create a more robust server system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Mani. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17,
Kami does not specifically state “wherein the plurality of servers separated into the plurality of layers are functionally divided by each layer”.
However, Mani teaches:
wherein the plurality of servers separated into the plurality of layers are functionally divided by each layer.
(See at least Column 2, lines 56-67, “Fog computing is a distributed approach of cloud implementation that acts as an intermediate layer from local networks (e.g., IoT networks) to the cloud (e.g., centralized and/or shared resources, as will be understood by those skilled in the art). That is, generally, fog computing entails using devices at the network edge to provide application services, including computation, networking, and storage, to the local nodes in the network, in contrast to cloud-based approaches that rely on remote data centers/cloud environments for the services. To this end, a fog node is a functional node that is deployed close to fog endpoints to provide computing, storage, and networking resources and services”. The plurality of servers are functionally divided by each layer.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kami to incorporate the teachings of Mani to include “wherein the plurality of servers separated into the plurality of layers are functionally divided by each layer” in order to remove extra computations away from the cloud in order to decrease the overall overhead of the network to increase efficiency (See Column 1, lines 13-40, Mani). This would further create a more robust server system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kami and Mani. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stein et al. US9892328B2 discloses a driver assistance system including a camera connectible to a processor. First and second image frames are captured from the field of view of the camera. Corresponding image points of the road are tracked from the first image frame to the second image frame. Image motion between the corresponding image points of the road is processed to detect a hazard in the road. The corresponding image points are determined to be of a moving shadow cast on the road to avoid a false positive detection of a hazard in the road or the corresponding image points are determined not to be of a moving shadow cast on the road to verify detection of a hazard in the road. (See abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the sta