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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of the invention and the proper labels for drawing as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 6 is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the relationship between “another value to be tested” and “the other value to be tested.” It is unclear if “the other value” is intended to be a direct reference to the “another value” introduced previously, or if it refers to a distinct third value.
For the purpose of this office action, Office considers “another value to be tested” and “the other value to be tested” are the referring to the same value.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11-12is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith [US 20140267725 A1] in view of Xiong [WO 2022116071 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches:
obtaining an image timestamp indicating a time of acquisition, by a traffic enforcement unit, of an image showing a license plate of a vehicle, the image timestamp having been indicated by a clock of the traffic enforcement unit (Smith, para 18-19 discloses automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera capturing vehicle identification information such as license plate number with entrance or exit timestamp for the vehicle);
wherein the timestamp comprises the image timestamp (Smith, para 18-19 discloses automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera capturing vehicle identification information such as license plate number with entrance or exit timestamp for the vehicle);
Smith further teaches, Smith, para 22 teaches camera clocks are synchronized via GPS time receivers or other recognized standards;
Smith does not teach; However, Xiong teaches:
obtaining temporal synchronization data, said temporal synchronization data having been received by the traffic enforcement unit during a predefined time interval including the timestamp with a view to temporal synchronization of the clock of the traffic enforcement unit with a time server (Xiong, para 8 discloses the time of the equipment needs to be regularly verified, calibrated and timed; para 41-42, Xiong discloses Step S201-S202 where a trusted time server provides calibration to equipment in a traffic private network every 10 minutes.);
testing the consistency of the timestamp with the temporal synchronization data, the consistency
test producing a test result indicating whether the timestamp is valid or invalid (Xiong, para 45 discloses comparing the device's local time (Tc) and the time the service terminal received the data (Tb) (terminal time) and if the result is greater than the threshold 0.1 seconds then error is considered large; which inherently implies binary outcome if the result is within the threshold, acceptable and beyond the threshold, error.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Smith’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera functionality. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Smith’s ALPR image/license plate timestamp acquisition into Xiong’s traffic camera system so that the traffic equipment whose time is verified by Xiong could capture reliable license plate evidence with an associated timestamp for vehicle identification or enforcement purposes. Doing so would enhance the trusted time calibration and consistency testing by improving the accuracy and evidentiary reliability of license plate image timestamps and reduce the risk of enforcement decision based on inaccurate camera clock data.
Regarding Claim 2, Smith/Xiong teaches the method of claim 1,
Xiong teaches:
wherein: the temporal synchronization data comprise a first value relating to a first synchronization parameter, (Xiong, para 45 discloses the value as the result of the difference between the Tc (local time data) and Tb (time data read from the device));
and the consistency test comprises a comparison between a value to be tested and a first predefined threshold, (Xiong, para 45 discloses the result of the difference
between the Tc and Tb is checked against the threshold which is 0.1 second.)
Regarding Claim 8, Smith/Xiong teaches the method of claim 2,
Xiong teaches:
wherein the first synchronization parameter is a time offset between the clock of the traffic enforcement unit and the time server. (Xiong, para 42 discloses that the time deviation
(delta t) between the device and the NTP server is calculated using synchronization data (t1, t2, t3, t4) and further discloses that the deviation is calibrated by averaging multiple measurements.);
Regarding Claim 14, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program product comprising code instructions for implementing the method as claimed in claim 1, when the program is executed by a computer (See Rejection for Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 15, Smith teaches:
A system, comprising: a traffic enforcement unit comprising: a radar; a camera configured to acquire an image showing a license plate of a vehicle, (Smith, para 18-19 discloses automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera capturing vehicle identification information such as license plate number with entrance or exit timestamp for the vehicle);
a clock configured to produce an image timestamp indicating a time of acquisition, by the traffic enforcement unit, of the image, (Smith, para 18-19 discloses automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera capturing vehicle identification information such as license plate number with entrance or exit timestamp for the vehicle; para 22, Smith discloses camera with associated communication module clocks may be synchronized (FIG. 3));
wherein the timestamp comprises the image timestamp (Smith, para 18-19 discloses automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera capturing vehicle identification information such as license plate number with entrance or exit timestamp for the vehicle);
Smith further teaches, Smith, para 22 teaches camera clocks are synchronized via GPS time receivers or other recognized standards;
Smith does not teach; However, Xiong teaches:
a communication interface for receiving temporal synchronization data during a predefined time interval including the timestamp, the temporal synchronization data being delivered by a time server, and being suitable for synchronizing temporally the clock of the traffic enforcement unit with the time server, (Xiong, para 8 discloses the time of the equipment needs to be regularly verified, calibrated and timed; para 41-42, Xiong discloses Step S201-S202 where a trusted time server provides calibration to equipment in a traffic private network every 10 minutes.);
a processor configured to test a consistency of the image timestamp with the temporal synchronization data, the consistency test producing a test result indicating whether the image timestamp is valid or invalid. (Xiong, para 45 discloses comparing the device's local time (Tc) and the time the service terminal received the data (Tb) (terminal time) and if the result is greater than the threshold 0.1 seconds then error is considered large; which inherently implies binary outcome if the result is within the threshold, acceptable and beyond the threshold, error.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Smith’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera functionality. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Smith’s ALPR image/license plate timestamp acquisition into Xiong’s traffic camera system so that the traffic equipment whose time is verified by Xiong could capture reliable license plate evidence with an associated timestamp for vehicle identification or enforcement purposes. Doing so would enhance the trusted time calibration and consistency testing by improving the accuracy and evidentiary reliability of license plate image timestamps and reduce the risk of enforcement decision based on inaccurate camera clock data.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith [US 20140267725 A1] in view of Xiong [WO 2022116071 A1] in view of Jin [KR 20110068740 A].
Regarding Claim 3, Smith/Xiong teaches the method as claimed in claim 2,
Xiong teaches:
wherein: the temporal synchronization data comprise a sequence of first values relating to the first synchronization parameter, the first values having been received sequentially by the traffic enforcement unit during the predefined time interval (Xiong, para 42 (step 202) discloses calibration measurement is performed every 10 minutes; Xiong, para 46 (step 206) discloses time deviation (delta t) of each device everyday. The first synchronization parameter is the clock offset.);
and the method further comprises selecting an extreme value from the sequence of first values, using the temporal synchronization data (Xiong, para 46 (step 206) discloses analyzing time
data and calculating maximum deviation and minimum deviation);
Smith/Xiong does not teach; However, Jin teaches:
wherein the first predefined threshold is selectively compared with the extreme value (Jin, para 36 discloses finding the maximum value and comparing it with the threshold value.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong/Smith’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique into Xiong/Smith’s system to verify and calibrate the timing accuracy of traffic equipment, and comparing worst case deviation against a threshold would provide a reliable way to determine whether the traffic camera timestamp is within the acceptable range or not. Doing so would enhance timestamp validity testing by detecting whether the largest observed clock offset during an interval would exceed an allowable threshold or not.
Regarding Claim 4, Smith/Xiong/Jin teaches the method as claimed in claim 3,
Xiong teaches:
wherein the first values comprise at least one value received by the traffic enforcement unit before an event, and at least one other value received by the traffic enforcement unit after an event. (Xiong, para 20, 44 discloses the repeated periodic time measurement and calibration, including measurement every 10 minutes, which inherently implies acquiring the measurement data before and after an event);
Xiong does not teach; However, Smith teaches:
wherein the event comprises acquisition of the image. (Smith, para 18-19 discloses automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera capturing vehicle identification information such as license plate number with entrance or exit timestamp for the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Smith’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera functionality. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Smith’s ALPR image/license plate timestamp acquisition into Xiong’s traffic camera system so that the traffic equipment whose time is verified by Xiong could capture reliable license plate evidence with an associated timestamp for vehicle identification or enforcement purposes. Doing so would enhance the trusted time calibration and consistency testing by improving the accuracy and evidentiary reliability of license plate image timestamps and reduce the risk of enforcement decision based on inaccurate camera clock data.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith [US 20140267725 A1] in view of Xiong [WO 2022116071 A1] in view of Jin [KR 20110068740 A] in view of Umayabashi [US 8675665 B2].
Regarding Claim 5, Smith/Xiong teaches the method as claimed in claim 2,
Xiong teaches:
the temporal synchronization data comprise a sequence of datasets, the datasets having been received sequentially by the traffic enforcement unit during the predefined time interval (Xiong, para 42 (step 202) discloses calibration measurement is performed every 10 minutes; Xiong, para 46 (step 206) discloses time deviation (delta t) of each device everyday);
wherein the datasets comprise: respective first values relating to the first synchronization parameter (Xiong, para 42 discloses computing time deviation between device's clock and the NTP time server. The first synchronization parameter is clock offset.);
respective second values relating to a second synchronization parameter different from the first synchronization parameter (Xiong, para 42 discloses computing round trip delay
(d) of NTP packets. The second synchronization parameter is the network delay/round trip delay);
selecting an extreme value among the respective first values of the preselected datasets (Xiong, para 46 (step 206) discloses analyzing time data and calculating maximum deviation and minimum deviation;);
Xiong does not teach; However, Umayabashi teaches:
the method further comprises: preselecting, from the sequence of datasets, datasets the respective second values of which are not greater in absolute value than a second predefined threshold (Umayabashi, Col 8, lines 45-51 discloses keeping packets whose delay jitter is within the threshold range and scraps packets whose delay jitter exceeds the threshold.);
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong/Smith’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Umayabashi’s packet delay-jitter filtering technique. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Umayabashi’s packet delay-jitter filtering technique into Xiong/Smith’s system because excessive packet delay or jitter can distort the accuracy of synchronization measurements and cause unreliable timestamp validation. Doing so would ensure only reliable synchronization data when calculating maximum or minimum clock deviation and determining whether the traffic camera timestamp is valid.
Umayabashi does not teach; However, Jin teaches:
and wherein the first predefined threshold is selectively compared with the extreme value or with a corrected extreme value resulting from a correction of the extreme value made using the temporal synchronization data (Jin, para 36 discloses finding the maximum value and comparing it with the threshold value.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong/Smith’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique into Xiong/Smith’s system to verify and calibrate the timing accuracy of traffic equipment, and comparing worst case deviation against a threshold would provide a reliable way to determine whether the traffic camera timestamp is within the acceptable range or not. Doing so would enhance timestamp validity testing by detecting whether the largest observed clock offset during an interval would exceed an allowable threshold or not.
Regarding Claim 7, Smith/Xiong/Jin/Umayabashi teaches the method as claimed in claim 5,
Xiong teaches:
wherein two nodes comprise the clock of the traffic enforcement unit and the time server. (Xiong, para 41-42, Xiong discloses Step S201-S202 where a trusted time server provides calibration to equipment in a traffic private network every 10 minutes);
Xiong does not teach; However, Umayabashi teaches:
wherein the second synchronization parameter is a time jitter representative of a variation in network latency between two nodes; (Umayabashi, Col 8, lines 45-51 discloses delay fluctuations of networks gives rise to large jitter to the timestamp arrival time between master and slave node.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong/Smith’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique into Xiong/Smith’s system to verify and calibrate the timing accuracy of traffic equipment, and comparing worst case deviation against a threshold would provide a reliable way to determine whether the traffic camera timestamp is within the acceptable range or not. Doing so would enhance timestamp validity testing by detecting whether the largest observed clock offset during an interval would exceed an allowable threshold or not.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith [US 20140267725 A1] in view of Xiong [WO 2022116071 A1] in view of Umayabashi [US 8675665 B2].
Regarding Claim 6, Smith/Xiong teaches the method as claimed in claim 2,
Xiong teaches:
the temporal synchronization data comprise a second value relating to a second synchronization parameter different from the first synchronization parameter (Xiong, para 42 discloses computing round trip delay (d) of NTP packets. The second synchronization parameter is the network delay/round trip delay);
Xiong does not teach; However, Umayabashi teaches:
the consistency test comprises a comparison between another value to be tested and a second predefined threshold, the other value to be tested being the second value or another corrected value resulting from a correction of the second value using the temporal synchronization data, and (Umayabashi, Col 8, lines 45-51 discloses keeping packets whose delay jitter is within the threshold range and scraps packets whose delay jitter exceeds the threshold.);
the test result indicates that the timestamp is invalid when at least one of the following two conditions is met: the value to be tested is greater than the first predefined threshold, and the other value to be tested is greater than the second predefined threshold (Umayabashi, Col 8, lines 45-51 discloses keeping packets whose delay jitter is within the threshold range and scraps packets whose delay jitter exceeds the threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xiong/Smith’s traffic monitoring time-verification system by incorporating Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Jin’s maximum-value threshold comparison technique into Xiong/Smith’s system to verify and calibrate the timing accuracy of traffic equipment, and comparing worst case deviation against a threshold would provide a reliable way to determine whether the traffic camera timestamp is within the acceptable range or not. Doing so would enhance timestamp validity testing by detecting whether the largest observed clock offset during an interval would exceed an allowable threshold or not.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT KHADKA whose telephone number is (703)756-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, Jeffrey L. Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/AMIT KHADKA/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights