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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 shows image processing apparatus 20 but the specification recites image processing unit 20.
Please correct either the drawings or the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant’s specification recites that 20 is image processing unit. The Figures show image processing apparatus. The Office suggests correcting either the specification to include apparatus or the Figure to be unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-11 are unclear. Claim 1 (and corresponding dependent claims 2-11) recites “an imaging unit disposed near an intersection and configured to capture a movable unit, a sensor surface of the imaging unit having a high-resolution area close to a center of the sensor surface and less than a predetermined half angle of view from the center of the sensor surface, and a low-resolution area close to a periphery of the sensor surface and equal to or greater than the predetermined half angle of view.” It appears that these are two separate limitations.
The Office suggests indenting the limitations as the following:
An image processing system comprising:
an imaging unit disposed near an intersection and configured to capture a movable unit,___________________________________________________
--____a sensor surface of the imaging unit having a high-resolution area close to a center of the sensor surface and less than a predetermined half angle of view from the center of the sensor surface, and a low-resolution area close to a periphery of the sensor surface and equal to or greater than the predetermined half angle of view; and
a detector configured to detect a position of the movable unit in an image generated by the imaging unit disposed so that a predetermined area near the intersection can be captured as the high-resolution area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an imagine unit (paragraph 0016) and a detector (paragraphs 0022, 0029) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are 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 8 is unclear. The term “more” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more” for “more distant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification discloses that a distant area on the route or a position at infinity (which does not explicitly say if the distant area is at infinity or if this is considered a term of degree. This does not define more distant clearly.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the acquiring unit acquires position information of the movable unit in another coordinate system using the position of the movable unit.” It is unclear what the first coordinate system is as claims 9 or 1 do not disclose a first coordinate system.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kario et al (US 2022/0227367 and hereafter referred to as “Kario”) in view of Aihara et al (US 2019/0191064 and hereafter referred to as “Aihara”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kario discloses an image processing system comprising:
an imaging unit disposed near an intersection and configured to capture a movable unit (Figure 12, Figure 13, Page 26, paragraph 0272 – vehicle with camera capturing image with target vehicle Figure 47, Page 54, paragraph 0587, Page 61, paragraph 0642, 0646 – camera on car near an intersection to capture target vehicles and pedestrians); and
a detector configured to detect a position of the movable unit in an image generated by the imaging unit disposed so that a predetermined area near the intersection can be captured (Page 16-17, paragraphs 0191-0192).
Kario does not explicitly disclose a sensor surface of the imaging unit having a high-resolution area close to a center of the sensor surface and less than a predetermined half angle of view from the center of the sensor surface, and a low-resolution area close to a periphery of the sensor surface and equal to or greater than the predetermined half angle of view, so that a predetermined area near the intersection can be captured as the high-resolution area.
Aihara discloses the imaging unit capturing a movable unit (Page 5, paragraph 0063), a sensor surface of the imaging unit having a high-resolution area close to a center of the sensor surface and less than a predetermined half angle of view from the center of the sensor surface, and a low-resolution area close to a periphery of the sensor surface and equal to or greater than the predetermined half angle of view (the optical system has a surface of an imaging unit with center having a high resolution and peripheral part having low resolution with greater than the half angle of view, Figure 9, Page 5, paragraph 0067, Page 4, paragraph 0045, Figure 11, or Page 6-7, paragraph 0077, 0080-0083, 0090, Figure 16 – there are two embodiments that both teach these limitations); and a detector configured to detect a position of the movable unit in an image generated by the imaging unit disposed so that a predetermined area can be captured as the high-resolution area (Page 2, paragraph 0030, Page 5, paragraph 0063 – control device using image analysis recognize an object such as a person or an automobile, Page 7, paragraph 0090 – cameras can take back, front or side images, predetermined area that is captured corresponds to the high resolution area from the sensor surface of the imaging unit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kario to include the missing limitation as taught by Aihara to help with the sensing of the obstacles and to reduce cost (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as taught by Aihara.
Regarding Claim 2, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Aihara discloses wherein the imaging unit includes an optical system configured to form an optical image, and to generate the image by capturing the optical image, and wherein the optical image includes a high-resolution area corresponding to an angle of view less than the predetermined angle of view, and a low-resolution area corresponding to an angle of view greater than the predetermined angle of view and having resolution lower than that of the high-resolution area of the optical image (Figure 9, Page 5, paragraph 0067, Page 4, paragraph 0045, 0051, Figure 11, or Page 6-7, paragraph 0077, 0080-0083, 0090, Figure 16). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 6, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Aihara disclose herein the imaging unit is disposed so that at least a part of an area detectable by the detector is included in the high-resolution area (Page 2, paragraph 0030, Page 5, paragraph 0063). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 7, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 6.
Kario discloses wherein the at least part of the area detectable by the detector is a part on a route of the movable unit (Page 2, paragraph 0030, Page 5, paragraph 0063).
Regarding Claim 8, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 6.
Kario discloses wherein the at least part of the area detectable by the detector is an area located on a route of the movable unit (Page 2, paragraph 0030, Page 5, paragraph 0063) and more distant from the imaging unit (the pedestrian or another vehicle are not on the host vehicle and therefore are more distant from the imaging unit, Page 2, paragraph 0030, Page 5, paragraph 0063, it is also noted that movable units move towards or away from the camera).
Regarding Claim 9, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kario discloses further comprising an acquiring unit configured to acquire information using the position of the movable unit (paragraph 0138, 0158).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kario in view of Aihara as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tsuchiya (US 2023/0394845).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 3, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation. Tsuchiya disclose wherein a projection characteristic expressing a relationship between a half angle of view of the optical system in the high-resolution area of the optical image and an image height on an image plane is set so that the image height for each half angle of view is larger than a product of a focal length of the optical system and the half angle of view, and the projection characteristic of the high-resolution area in the optical image is different from the projection characteristic of the low-resolution area in the optical image (Page 2, paragraph 0031-0035, Page 3, paragraph 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Tsuchiya to reduce number of cameras (Page 1, paragraph 0006) as taught by Tsuchiya.
Regarding Claim 5, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Aihara discloses wherein the imaging unit includes an optical system configured to form an optical image, and an image sensor configured to generate the image by capturing the optical image (Figure 9, Page 5, paragraph 0067, Page 4, paragraph 0045, 0051, Figure 11, or Page 6-7, paragraph 0077, 0080-0083, 0090, Figure 16). The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical system and the image sensor are disposed so that an optical axis of the optical system and the center of the sensor surface are shifted. Tsuchiya discloses wherein the optical system and the image sensor are disposed so that an optical axis of the optical system and the center of the sensor surface are shifted (paragraph 0051, 0183). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Tsuchiya to reduce number of cameras (Page 1, paragraph 0006) as taught by Tsuchiya.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kario in view of Aihara as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Fujita (US 2025/0106361).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 4, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation. Fujita wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 1<f×sinθmax/yθmax≤A(1)where θ is a half angle of view of the optical system, y(θ) is a projection characteristic expressing a relationship between the half angle of view and an image height on an image plane, θmax is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system, f is a focal length of the optical system, and A is a predetermined constant (Page 3, paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Fujita to balance between the resolutions of the high resolution region and low resolution region (Page 1, paragraph 0039) as taught by Fujita.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to increase the proportion by increasing the focal length since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as it would be obvious to try from the finite number of predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the focal length to determine the result to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kario in view of Aihara as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Saito et al (US 2023/0094232 and hereafter referred to as “Saito”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 4, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation. Saito wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 1<f×sinθmax/yθmax≤A(1)where θ is a half angle of view of the optical system, y(θ) is a projection characteristic expressing a relationship between the half angle of view and an image height on an image plane, θmax is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system, f is a focal length of the optical system, and A is a predetermined constant (Page 3, paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Saito to balance between the resolutions of the high resolution region and low resolution region (Page 1, paragraph 0040) as taught by Saito.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to increase the proportion by increasing the focal length since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as it would be obvious to try from the finite number of predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the focal length to determine the result to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kario in view of Aihara as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Nakahara et al (US 2023/0097715 and hereafter referred to as “Nakahara”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 4, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation. Nakahara wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 1<f×sinθmax/yθmax≤A(1)where θ is a half angle of view of the optical system, y(θ) is a projection characteristic expressing a relationship between the half angle of view and an image height on an image plane, θmax is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system, f is a focal length of the optical system, and A is a predetermined constant (Page 3, paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Nakahara to balance between the resolutions of the high resolution region and low resolution region (Page 1, paragraph 0032-0033) as taught by Nakahara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to increase the proportion by increasing the focal length since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as it would be obvious to try from the finite number of predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the focal length to determine the result to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kario in view of Aihara as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chakravarty et al (US 2023/0136871 and hereafter referred to as “Chakravarty”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 9. The combination does not explicitly disclose the coordinate system. In analogous art, Chakravarty discloses an imaging unit disposed near an intersection, wherein the acquiring unit acquires position information of the movable unit in another coordinate system using the position of the movable unit (paragraph 0012 – coordinates of objects for camera coordinates and real world coordinates). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Chakravarty to accurate acquire data of objects (Page 1, paragraph 0001) as taught by Chakravarty.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kario in view of Aihara as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bulan et al (US 9,685,079 and hereafter referred to as “Bulan”).
Regarding Claim 11, Kario and Aihara discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kario discloses the imaging processing system which captures images around the vehicle for obstacles, pedestrians traffic, traveling (paragraph 0004 and paragraph 0082). The combination does not explicitly state that the image processing system is a movable-unit surveillance system. Bulan explicitly discloses wherein the image processing system is a movable-unit surveillance system as it captures traffic and movable units (Figure 1, Column 5, lines 57-67, Column 6, lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Bulan to improved method to detect violating vehicles (Page 1, paragraph 0001) as taught by Bulan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
November 24, 2025