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 § 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 7 recites the limitation "the relevant jurisdiction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 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 13 recites “the score of multiple license plates identified from the collected images” in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 only recites “the license plate” recognized/checked/identified at lines 5-6 and “the score of the license plate” in the last line. The recital of “the score of multiple license plates identified from the collected images” in lines 2-3 of claim 13 therefore renders the claim indefinite. Examiner notes that in-order for scoring the multiple license plates identified from the collected images step in claim 13, the multiple license plates should be positively identified in claim 1. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the score of multiple license plates identified from the collected images" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is eligible under Step 1 for being directed to a process.
Independent claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims recite:
“identifying license plate characters from the collected images; checking if the license plate satisfies a predefined rule; assigning a score to the license plate based on a rule that the license plate satisfies; determining a level of suspicion that the vehicle is used for surveillance of a specific object based on the score of the license plate.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mental process of evaluating data and generating an inference result based on judgement, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements: “collecting images from cameras;”- This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein the cameras are installed on mobile objects. - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein the cameras are installed on static agents. “ - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein the images are part of a video stream.” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they do not recite the additional elements:
“wherein the characters include letters and numbers. ” - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mental process of evaluating data and generating an inference result based on judgement, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, the claim do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein the identifying comprises using optical character recognition (OCR) techniques.” - This limitation amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 6 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein an output of the identifying process is a string of characters normally used in a language used by the relevant jurisdiction. ” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a post-solution activity of data outputting for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein determining the level of suspicion comprises assigning a specific customer with a specific group, the specific group represents a likelihood that the specific customer is under surveillance.” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“further comprises identifying an anomaly event of the license plate and changing a score of the license plate according to the anomaly event.” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre and post solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 10:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claims 1 and 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“further comprises increasing an anomaly detection counter of the license plate.
” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 11:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1 and 10.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein the anomaly detection counter represents a number of times the license plate was recognized on a specific time frame.” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claims 1 and 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein the anomaly event is identified according to a timing of identifying the license plate and a number of appearances of the license plate in a session. ” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 12 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 13:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein determining a level of suspicion that a vehicle is used for surveillance of a first object is based on the score of multiple license plates identified from the collected images” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 13 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 14:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“further comprises storing multiple lists, each list is associated with another object and includes one or more license plates having a suspicion level of surveillance of each object.” - This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 14 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 15:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“further comprises classifying a level of suspicion of a vehicle based on list types, wherein the vehicle can be assigned a new list based on changes in the score.”- This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 15 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 16:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
“wherein a number of rules applied on a specific license plate in a given day is limited.”- This limitation amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e an example of a pre/post-solution activity of data gathering for use in a claimed process (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: there are no additional elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the independent claim 16 is ineligible.
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 1-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child et al., US20220188953) hereafter Child (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are disclosed/shown in multiple figures/embodiments).
1. Regarding claim 1, Child discloses a method of evaluating a level of suspicion that a vehicle is used for surveillance (figs 1A, 2, 3A-3F and 4 shows and discloses a method), the method comprises:
collecting images from cameras (figs 1A, 2 and paras 0020, 0037, 0050, 0053 and 0057 shows disclose cameras for collecting visual images/video meeting the claim limitations);
identifying license plate characters from the collected images (para 0050 discloses identifying license plate characters from the collected images using OCR meeting the claim limitations);
checking if the license plate satisfies a predefined rule (figs 3A-3F, 4, paras 0059-0061, 0064 and 0069 shows and discloses the target 11 is selected by the surveillance system 10 based on a specific criterion associated with the target 11 .ie if the detected license plate is arrest warrant, Amber or Silver alert, expired registration, immigration violation or a license plate tampered with or unable to be read etc. (i.e satisfy a predefined rule) meeting the claim limitations);
assigning a score to the license plate based on a rule that the license plate satisfies (paras 0059-0061, figs 3D-3F shows and discloses the 20 times the license plate has been picked up and the surveillance system received 19 times and investigate the missing 1 (i.e 20-19 =1) or unable to be picked up/unreadable (i.e the license plate would require/expand the investigation based on the score and the rule that the license plate satisfied (i.e tampered or unreadable as seen in paras 0059-0060) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “assigning a score” are not required by the current claim);
determining a level of suspicion that the vehicle is used for surveillance of a specific object based on the score of the license plate (figs 3D-3F and paras 0059-0061 shows and discloses the vehicle license plate may have been tampered with or unable to be read based on the score (see the explanation in the prior limitation) and that the surveillance system determines if the particular individuals suspects (i.e immigration violation etc) were travelling in the vehicle at that time (i.e a level of suspicion that the vehicle is used for the surveillance of suspects (i.e a specific object)) and notifies the proper authorities meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a level of suspicion, and a specific object are not required by the current claim.). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figures/embodiments of Child are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be a reduced noise (i.e filtered) and lower cost target tracking and identification system at paras 0016, 0047 and 0054.
2. Regarding claim 2, Child disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the cameras are installed on mobile objects (para 0048 discloses wherein the cameras are installed on trains (i.e mobile objects) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of mobile objects are not required by the current claim).
3. Regarding claim 3, Child discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cameras are installed on static agents (para 0048 discloses wherein the cameras are installed on public buildings (i.e static agents), examiner notes that the specifics of static agents are not required by the current claim).
4. Regarding claim 4, Child discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the images are part of a video stream (para 0050 discloses cameras configured to capture a video meeting the claim limitations).
5. Regarding claim 5, Child disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the characters include letters and numbers (figs 2, 3C-3F shows the characters ABC1234 includes letters and numbers).
6. Regarding claim 6, Child disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying comprises using optical character recognition (OCR) techniques (para 0050 disclose, wherein the identifying comprises using optical character recognition (OCR) techniques).
7. Regarding claim 7, Child disclose the method of claim 1, wherein an output of the identifying process is a string of characters normally used in a language used by the relevant jurisdiction (figs 2, 3C-3F, para 0050 shows the characters ABC1234 includes letters and numbers from a state (i.e used by the relevant jurisdiction) meeting the claim limitations).
8. Regarding claim 8, Child disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining the level of suspicion comprises assigning a specific customer with a specific group, the specific group represents a likelihood that the specific customer is under surveillance (figs 3D-3F and paras 0059-0061 shows and discloses the vehicle license plate may have been tampered with or unable to be read based on the score (see the explanation in the prior limitation in claim 1) and that the surveillance system determines if the particular individuals suspects (i.e immigration violation etc i.e specific customer with a specific group) were travelling in the vehicle at that time (i.e a level of suspicion that the vehicle is used for the surveillance of suspects i.e the specific groups represents the specific customer under the surveillance) and notifies the proper authorities meeting the above claim limitations).
9. Regarding claim 13 as best understood by the examiner, Child discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining a level of suspicion that a vehicle is used for surveillance of a first object is based on the score of multiple license plates identified from the collected images (figs 3D-3F and paras 0059-0061 shows and discloses the vehicle license plate may have been tampered with or unable to be read based on the score (see the explanation in the prior limitation in claim 1) and that the surveillance system determines if the particular individuals suspects (i.e immigration violation etc) were travelling in the vehicle at that time (i.e a level of suspicion that the vehicle is used for the surveillance of suspects (i.e a first object)) and notifies the proper authorities and fig 3C, 3G shows the score of the multiple license plates in the captured images meeting the above claim limitations).
10. Regarding claim 14, Child discloses the method of claim 1, further comprises storing multiple lists, each list is associated with another object and includes one or more license plates having a suspicion level of surveillance of each object (paras 0181, 0186, 0205, 0209, 0220 and 0259 discloses storing multiple lists, each list is associated with another object and includes one or more license plates having a suspicion level of surveillance of each object (i.e whether they represent an immediate threat to the neighborhood or a more subdued level of suspicious activity) meeting the above claim limitations).
11. Regarding claim 15, Child disclose the method of claim 1, further comprises classifying a level of suspicion of a vehicle based on list types, wherein the vehicle can be assigned a new list based on changes in the score (paras 0206-0241 discloses classifying the level of suspicion of the vehicle (i.e stolen vehicle) and also discloses that the vehicle ABC123 should not be included in the stolen vehicle list (i.e new list based on change in the score) meeting the above claim limitations).
12. Regarding claim 16, Child disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a number of rules applied on a specific license plate in a given day is limited (figs 3A-3F, 4, paras 0059-0061, 0064 and 0069 shows and discloses the target 11 is selected by the surveillance system 10 based on a specific criterion associated with the target 11 .ie if the detected license plate is arrest warrant, Amber or Silver alert, expired registration, immigration violation or a license plate tampered with or unable to be read etc. (i.e a number of rules) and figs 1A-1B shows the “Time and location stamped data points” meeting the claim limitations of in a given day is limited).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child in view of Strimling (US20140334684) hereafter Strimling
13. Regarding claim 9, Child discloses the method of claim 1. Child discloses the scoring the license plate and determine if it is tempered with (paras 0059-0061, figs 3D-3F shows and discloses the 20 times the license plate has been picked up and the surveillance system received 19 times and investigate the missing 1 (i.e 20-19 =1) or not unable to be picked up/unreadable (i.e the license plate would require/expand the investigation based on the score and the rule that the license plate satisfied (i.e tampered or unreadable as seen in paras 0059-0060) which would meet the limitations of anomaly and scoring (i.e unreadable to read that single time due to tempering). Child however is silent and fails to disclose further comprises identifying an anomaly event of the license plate and changing a score of the license plate according to the anomaly event.
Strimling disclose further comprises identifying an anomaly event of the license plate and changing a score of the license plate according to the anomaly event (para 0220 discloses verifying the license plate to see if it lost or stolen or if the speed is violated (i.e anomaly condition), then it is marked as suspicious) and also discloses in paras 0232, 0238 that if the license plate is not in the list of stolen or suspected vehicles, then it should not be in the list of suspicious vehicle (i.e changed the score) meeting the claim limitations further comprises identifying an anomaly event of the license plate and changing a score of the license plate according to the anomaly event). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Child and Strimling are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a cost effective and reduced cost vehicle monitoring system in paras 0001, 0004 and 0185. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Strimling in the method of Child to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
14. Regarding claim 10, Child and Strimling disclose the method of claim 9. Strimling discloses further comprises increasing an anomaly detection counter of the license plate (para 0220 discloses there may be one or more way in which specific license plates are marked as suspicious (i.e increasing the anomaly detection counter/marking/number of the license plate) meeting the claim limitations).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child in view of Strimling and in further view of Sharma et al. (US20120087573) hereafter Sharma.
15. Regarding claim 11, Child and Strimling disclose the method of claim 10. Strimling disclose the anomaly detection counter (para 0220 discloses there may be one or more way in which specific license plates are marked as suspicious (i.e increasing the anomaly detection counter/marking/number of the license plate) meeting the claim limitations). Child also discloses the unreadable event of the license plate as seen above as explained in claim 1. Child and Strimling however do not disclose wherein the anomaly detection counter represents a number of times the license plate was recognized on a specific time frame.
Sharma discloses wherein the anomaly detection counter represents a number of times the license plate was recognized on a specific time frame (paras 0040, 0050 discloses analyzing the content of the images and detect and determine the temporal events (i.e specific time frame) i.e counting detection of objects (i.e recognized vehicle license plates) and automatically tagging as suspicious objects in the scene meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Child, Strimling and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a high degree of confidence (i.e accurate) object detection system/method at para 0057. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Sharma in the method of Child and Strimling to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
16. Regarding claim 12, Child and Strimling disclose the method of claim 9. Child discloses identifying the anomaly event (i.e unreadable to read that single time due to tempering). Strimling also discloses identifying the anomaly event (para 0220 discloses verifying the license plate to see if it lost or stolen or if the speed is violated (i.e anomaly condition), then it is marked as suspicious). Child and Strimling however are silent and fail to disclose wherein the anomaly event is identified according to a timing of identifying the license plate and a number of appearances of the license plate in a session.
Sharma discloses wherein the anomaly event is identified according to a timing of identifying the license plate and a number of appearances of the license plate in a session (paras 0040, 0050 discloses analyzing the content of the images and detect and determine the temporal events (i.e timing and in a session) i.e counting detection of objects (i.e recognized vehicle license plates) and automatically tagging (appearances) as suspicious objects in the scene meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Child, Strimling and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a high degree of confidence (i.e accurate) object detection system/method at para 0057. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Sharma in the method of Child and Strimling to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 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 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights