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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring video information, identifying a plurality of images including a designated vehicle, identifying a designated area corresponding to a license plate of the designated vehicle, receiving text information on the designated area and based on the text, providing a character string represented on the license plate. The abstract idea encompasses human activity in which an individual visually identifies a designated area corresponding to a license plate, distinguishes the characters of the license plate and providing the character string by writing the text on paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technical environment. Furthermore, the process or method steps performed are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself as the steps may be performed in the human mind as a human visually determining alphanumeric characters from a license plate of a specified vehicle.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a camera, communication circuitry, memory, and a processor. The additional elements amount to merely using generic computer components to implement general processing and making desired determinations. Generic computer components recited as performing generic functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. There is no indication that the elements improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anthony Russell Wilbert et al (US 20180012096 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilbert et al discloses an electronic device (¶ [46]) comprising:
at least one camera (¶ [46] and ¶ [61]);
communication circuitry (Fig. 6 numeral 697);
memory (¶ [157]); and
at least one processor (Fig. 27 numeral 2710) operably connected with the at least one camera, the communication circuitry, and the memory (Fig. 27), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain video information through the at least one camera (¶ [61-62]);
identify a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information (¶ [62]; see also ¶ [111] image including vehicle);
identify a designated area corresponding to a license plate of the designated vehicle within the plurality of images (¶ [112-113]);
based on the plurality of images, transmit image information on the designated area to a server connected to the electronic device (¶ [113]);
based on transmitting the image information on the designated area to the server, receive text information on the designated area from the server (¶ [77] and ¶ [116]); and
based on the text information, provide a character string represented on the license plate (¶ [77]).
Regarding claim 5, Wilbert et al discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the image information on the designated area is set as input data of a recognition model, which is included in the server and indicated by a plurality of parameters (¶ [116]), and wherein the text information on the designated area is obtained based on output data of the recognition model (¶ [116] OCR process is a recognition model that recognizes and/or extracts alphanumeric characters).
Regarding claim 7, Wilbert et al discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the text information includes candidate character strings for the character string represented on the license plate and reliability information for the candidate strings (¶ [136-137]), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on the reliability information, provide one of the candidate character strings as the character string represented on the license plate (¶ [135]).
Regarding claim 8, Wilbert et al discloses a method performed by an electronic device (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
obtaining video information through at least one camera of the electronic device (see rejection of claim 1);
identifying a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information (see rejection of claim 1);
identifying a designated area corresponding to a license plate of the designated vehicle within the plurality of images (see rejection of claim 1);
based on the plurality of images, transmitting image information on the designated area to a server connected to the electronic device (see rejection of claim 1);
based on transmitting the image information on the designated area to the server, receiving text information on the designated area from the server (see rejection of claim 1); and
based on the text information, providing a character string represented on the license plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Wilbert et al discloses the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), wherein the image information on the designated area is set as input data of a recognition model (see rejection of claim 5), which is included in the server and indicated by a plurality of parameters, and wherein the text information on the designated area is obtained based on output data of the recognition model (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, Wilbert et al discloses the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), wherein the text information includes candidate character strings for the character string represented on the license plate and reliability information for the candidate strings (see rejection of claim 7), and wherein the method further comprises:
based on the reliability information, providing one of the candidate character strings as the character string represented on the license plate (see rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, Wilbert et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs comprises instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic device (¶ [160-161]) including at least one camera (see rejection of claim 1), communication circuitry (see rejection of claim 1), and memory (see rejection of claim 1), cause the electronic device to:
obtain video information through the at least one camera (see rejection of claim 1);
identify a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information (see rejection of claim 1);
identify a designated area corresponding to a license plate of the designated vehicle within the plurality of images (see rejection of claim 1);
based on the plurality of images, transmit image information on the designated area to a server connected to the electronic device (see rejection of claim 1);
based on transmitting the image information on the designated area to the server, receive text information on the designated area from the server (see rejection of claim 1); and
based on the text information, provide a character string represented on the license plate (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiroaki Nishimura et al (US 20220245390 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Nishimura discloses an electronic device (Fig. 1 numeral 102; ¶ [15]) comprising:
communication circuitry (¶ [15]);
memory (¶ [15]); and
at least one processor operably connected with the communication circuitry and the memory (¶ [38]), and wherein the processor is configured to:
based on first video information obtained from a first external electronic device disposed at a first location, identify a designated vehicle having a license plate indicating a designated character string (¶ [15] and ¶ [48] captured images transmitted to electronic device 102);
based on the first video information, identify speed information of the designated vehicle (¶ [59]);
based on the first location, identify at least one external electronic device within a radius identified based on the speed information of the designated vehicle (¶ [57-58]);
based on second video information obtained from the at least one external electronic device, identify the designated vehicle having the license plate indicating the designated character string (¶ [57-58] capturing license plate of designated vehicle a predetermined distance from the first video capture as the vehicles are in motion);
based on identifying the designated vehicle, identify a second external electronic device obtaining video information including the designated vehicle from among the at least one external electronic device (¶ [70]); and
based on a second location on which the second external electronic device is disposed and a timing at which the video information including the designated vehicle is obtained, identify a location of the designated vehicle (¶ [70-73]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbert et al (US 20180012096 A1) in view of Shimamura Koya et al (WO 2023218622 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wilbert et al discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Wilbert et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based on data obtained through the at least one camera, receive a user input for setting a designated time interval; and based on the user input, obtain the video information on the designated time interval.
Koya et al, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle detection and identification utilizing license plate information (lines 399-404), teaches based on data obtained through the at least one camera, receive a user input for setting a designated time interval; and based on the user input, obtain the video information on the designated time interval (lines 112-118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the electronic device as disclosed by Wilbert comprising at least one processor operably connected with the at least one camera, a communication circuitry, and a memory, and wherein the processor is configured to obtain video information through the at least one camera; identify a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information to utilize the teachings of Koya et al which teaches the at least one processor is further configured to, based on data obtained through the at least one camera, receive a user input for setting a designated time interval; and based on the user input, obtain the video information on the designated time interval to control the acquisition of desired images while avoiding wasteful processing and storage from unnecessary image capture.
Regarding claim 9, Wilbert et al discloses the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), further comprising:
based on data obtained through the at least one camera, receiving a user input for setting a designated time interval (see rejection of claim 2); and
based on the user input, obtaining the video information on the designated time interval (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 16, Wilbert et al discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15), wherein the one or more programs comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
based on data obtained through the at least one camera, receive a user input for setting a designated time interval (see rejection of claim 2); and
based on the user input, obtain the video information on the designated time interval (see rejection of claim 2).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbert et al (US 20180012096 A1) in view of Zou Cheng et al (CN 111753826 B).
Regarding claim 3, Wilbert et al discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on tracking the designated vehicle included in the video information (¶ [122]), identify a plurality of frames including the designated vehicle, and wherein the plurality of images is obtained based on the plurality of frames (¶ [122]).
Wilbert et al fails to explicitly disclose tracking the designated vehicle through an object detection model.
Cheng et al, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle detection utilizing the vehicles license plate information (lines 14-15), teaches tracking the designated vehicle through an object detection model (lines 365-369).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the electronic device as disclosed by Wilbert comprising at least one processor operably connected with the at least one camera, a communication circuitry, and a memory, and wherein the processor is configured to obtain video information through the at least one camera; identify a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information to utilize the teachings of Cheng et al which teaches tracking the designated vehicle through an object detection model to produce results quickly and accurately.
Regarding claim 10, Wilbert et al discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
based on tracking the designated vehicle included in the video information through an object detection (OD) model, identifying a plurality of frames including the designated vehicle, and wherein the plurality of images is obtained based on the plurality of frames (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 17, Wilbert et al discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15), wherein the one or more programs comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
based on tracking the designated vehicle included in the video information through an object detection (OD) model, identify a plurality of frames including the designated vehicle (see rejection of claim 3), and
wherein the plurality of images is obtained based on the plurality of frames (see rejection of claim 3).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbert et al (US 20180012096 A1) in view of Jose Antonio Rodriquez-Serrano et al (US 20140355835 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wilbert et al discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on the designated area corresponding to the license plate, perform an algorithm for identifying the character string represented on the license plate (¶ [47-48]); and
transmit the image information on the designated area to the server (¶ [54]).
Wilbert fails to explicitly teach transmitting the information to the server based on a failure of identification of the character string according to an algorithm locally.
Serrano et al, in the same field of endeavor of computing confidence in an output of a text recognition system (Abstract), teaches transmitting the information to the server based on a failure of identification of the character string according to the algorithm (¶ [67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the electronic device as disclosed by Wilbert comprising at least one processor operably connected with the at least one camera, a communication circuitry, and a memory, and wherein the processor is configured to obtain video information through the at least one camera; identify a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information to utilize the teachings of Serrano et al which teaches transmitting the information to the server based on a failure of identification of the character string according to an algorithm locally to increase accuracy of identification while minimizing processor and memory usage.
Regarding claim 11, Wilbert et al discloses the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), further comprising:
based on the designated area corresponding to the license plate, performing an algorithm for identifying the character string represented on the license plate (see rejection of claim 4); and
based on a failure of identification of the character string according to the algorithm, transmitting the image information on the designated area to the server (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 18, Wilbert et al discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15),
wherein the one or more programs comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
based on the designated area corresponding to the license plate, perform an algorithm for identifying the character string represented on the license plate (see rejection of claim 4); and
based on a failure of identification of the character string according to the algorithm, transmit the image information on the designated area to the server (see rejection of claim 4).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbert et al (US 20180012096 A1) in view of Hiroaki Nishimura et al (US 20220245390 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wilbert et al discloses the electronic device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Wilbert et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the video information includes at least one of location information of the electronic device, speed information of the electronic device, acceleration information of the electronic device, or path information of the electronic device.
Nishimura et al, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle detection via license plate recognition (Abstract), teaches the video information includes at least one of location information of the electronic device, speed information of the electronic device, acceleration information of the electronic device, or path information of the electronic device (¶ [59]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the electronic device as disclosed by Wilbert comprising at least one processor operably connected with the at least one camera, a communication circuitry, and a memory, and wherein the processor is configured to obtain video information through the at least one camera; identify a plurality of images including a designated vehicle based on the video information to utilize the teachings of Nishimura et al which teaches the video information includes at least one of location information of the electronic device, speed information of the electronic device, acceleration information of the electronic device, or path information of the electronic device to increase the recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Wilbert et al discloses the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), wherein the video information includes at least one of location information of the electronic device, speed information of the electronic device, acceleration information of the electronic device, or path information of the electronic device (see rejection of claim 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights