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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The third paragraph on page 5 states, “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the roadside apparatus 20 includes the notification interface 21, the imager 22, the memory 23, a controller 24, and a strut 20A”. Strut 20A is not pictured in FIG. 1, but rather FIG. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in particular an Abstract Idea falling under at least the (c) mental processes grouping (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and/or the (a) mathematical concepts grouping (mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and/or calculations), not ‘integrated into a practical application’ at Prong Two of Step 2A and without ‘significantly more’ at Step 2B.
Step 1: The claim(s) in question are directed to a controller configured to “calculate an amount of deviation” (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Representative claims 1 and 3 recite at a high level of generality – “calculat[ing] an amount of deviation…obtained by diving an area of a range…” which is at least a mathematical concept, specifically a calculation, under the Abstract Ideas grouping. Additionally, as the recited ‘calculations’ are not precluded from being performed mentally/visually, they fall under at least the mental processes Abstract Idea grouping.
Even if the recited ‘notify[ing] a server of information’ step requires the use of a computer (e.g. comparing calculated value to threshold value and/or subsequent data transmission), limitations involving image acquisition step(s) prior to the analysis in question, do not preclude the calculation itself from being performed mentally, and the recited ‘amount of deviation’, ‘percentage’, etc., are not of a level of complexity (as recited) that would render the prediction impossible/impractical for mental evaluation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection C. A Claim that Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Dependent claims are similarly analyzed at Prong One (e.g. claim(s) 2, 3, and 4) as they further comprise one or more limitations that may similarly be drawn under the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts Abstract Idea grouping. For the case of e.g. claim 3, that determination as to the necessity of a reference image and a captured image with non-identical fields of view may also be a determination performed mentally, e.g. upon visually inspecting the images side by side, placing one over the other to observe deviation in unmoving notable geographical elements, visually comparing the angles at which the images appear to be taken, etc.. In addition, claim 3 recites that the deviation is a “percentage obtained by dividing an area” which is a mathematical process, specifically a calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)) (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (derived from Alice/Mayo step two and not to be conflated with an assessment of utility– MPEP 2103) of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any ‘additional elements’ recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Examiner notes for consideration at Prong Two of 2A that MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) generally concern limitations that are indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f), (g), and (h) generally concern limitations that are not indicative of integration. As an additional note, ‘additional elements’ are generally limitations excluded from interpretation under the Abstract Idea groupings and may comprise portions of limitations otherwise identified as falling under those Abstract Idea groupings of the 2019 PEG (e.g. any ‘determination’ that may be made mentally accompanied by the use of generic computer hardware considered under the ‘apply it’ considerations of 2106.05(f)). Any ‘providing’/outputting broadly, and ‘collection’ of data (i.e. image acquisition(s)), be they images visually observable/ evaluated by a user/operator, also fail(s) to integrate at least in view of MPEP 2106.05(g) (extra-solution data gathering/output). The same determination holds for dependent claims that serve to limit the collection of data/images (by means of what is collected based on recited conditions) and/or introduce limitations generally linking to a field of use. None of the instant claims appear to explicitly/clearly capture/recite any disclosed improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a), with note that ‘functioning of a computer’ concerns functions integral to the way a computer operates and not ‘functions’ that a generic computer can be programmed/adapted to perform (see also 2106.05(f))) and any ‘additional elements’, even when considered in combination, fail to integrate at Prong Two of Step 2A accordingly. Integration in view of subsection (a) of 2106.05 requires an identification of the manner in which the improvement is achieved, to be explicitly and specifically (not at a high level of generality i.e. the ‘use of’ complementary modalities/data broadly for any conceivable satellite image analysis not inconsistent with diverse example embodiments) recited in the claims, as ‘additional elements’ precluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings (since the improvement cannot be to the exception itself).
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus fails to recite ‘additional elements’ to constitute an inventive concept, as integrating the Abstract Idea of claim 1 with the vertical roadside mount/posture disclosed in claim 2 simply indicates an environment in which to apply the disclosure of claim 1, which does not amount to ‘significantly more’ than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h), with a note that defining a ‘reference posture’ for the incident roadside apparatus concerns a technological environment that fails to contribute ‘significantly more’ to the previously defined exception). Referring to Fig. 4 and page 7 paragraph [0038] the incident specification provided by the applicant, the strut and roadside posture are clearly described as merely “supporting the roadside apparatus 20, in which the strut 20A points in a vertical direction” [0038]. By simply implementing hardware as a means for holding the incident claimed invention in place, the applicant’s specification also fails to provide ‘significantly more’ to claim 2 to establish an inventive concept beyond the previously established judicial exception. Additionally, the strut supporting the roadside apparatus in claim 2 fails to meet the requirements of a ‘particular machine’ under 2106.05(b), as it does not impose meaningful limits on the claimed apparatus. The mounting position of the camera does not impose a significant limitation on the claimed apparatus, is not specific to the claimed apparatus, and does not implement any steps of the incident method for use, and thus, the apparatus of claim 2 fails to qualify as a ‘Particular machine’ (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Regarding claim 4, page 6 paragraph [0028] of the applicant’s specification describes, “The controller 24 includes at least one processor, at least one programmable circuit, at least one dedicated circuit, or a combination of these. The controller 24 controls operations of the entire roadside apparatus 20” [0028]. This description is not specific to the incident roadside apparatus, but rather discloses generic components of a standard controller and a generic functioning of the controller (e.g., to receive and process data, control mechanical functions, etc.) which fails to demonstrate ‘significantly more’ to the incident inventive concept. Regarding MPEP 2106.05(a), simply applying a judicial exception to generic computer components fails to overcome the exception and remains non-patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
With reference to MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,
187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981))
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
With reference to MPEP 2106.05(b):
When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
With reference to MPEP 2106.05(h):
[L]imitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, the ‘additional elements’ present (namely the use of generic computer components, data acquisition prior to analysis, and a technological environment for which to apply the incident apparatus) do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: No).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the recited exception, i.e., whether any ‘additional element’, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The considerations of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B overlap but differ in that 2B also requires considering whether the claims/limitations feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” (WURC) (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Such a limitation if specifically recited however, must still be excluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings (else it is not an ‘additional element’ and extra-solution activity need not then be implicated). Limitations precluded from serving as indications of an inventive concept/ ‘significantly more’ include those that are not specifically recited (instead recited at a high level of generality), those that are established as WURC, those that are not ‘additional elements’ by nature of their analysis at Prong One (i.e. directed to the exception), and/or those that otherwise fail to serve for integration at Prong Two of 2A in view of 2106.05(f), (g) and/or (h). The claim(s) in question recite little beyond those limitations recited at a high level of generality and falling under the exception. (Step 2B: No).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan (CN 116258774 A) (see attached Machine Translation at pages 23-38 of the attached FOR document).
Regarding claim 1, Tan teaches a roadside apparatus comprising a notification interface, an imager, a memory, and a controller (a “device for a roadside camera, electronic equipment, and storage medium” (page 23 paragraph 3)) configured to store in the memory a reference image captured by the imager with the roadside apparatus installed in a reference posture (“the acquisition module is used to acquire the image to be detected currently collected by the roadside camera and the reference image collected in advance at the initial pose” (page 24 paragraph 9)); calculate an amount of deviation between a capturing range of an image captured by the imager after the reference image is stored and a capturing range of the reference image (“The comparison module 702 is configured to compare the fixed geographical elements in the image to be detected and the reference image, and determine whether the roadside camera deviates from the initial pose and reaches a set degree of deviation” (page 31 paragraph 11)); notify a server of information encouraging a repair to a posture of the roadside apparatus via the notification interface in a case in which the amount of deviation is equal to or greater than a threshold (“it is judged whether the roadside camera continues to deviate from the initial pose, and if so, a prompt message is generated, and the prompt message prompts the user to re-calibrate the external parameters” (page 31 paragraph 3)).
Regarding claim 2, Tan teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference posture is a posture in which a strut supporting the roadside apparatus points in a vertical direction (“In the embodiment of the present disclosure, the roadside camera can be fixed at a specific location on the roadside, such as a street light pole, a traffic light pole, or a self-installed fixed pole. After being fixed, the pose of the roadside camera is recorded as the initial pose (page 26 paragraph 13- page 27 paragraph 1)).
Regarding claim 4, Tan teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to continue capturing an image using the imager in a case in which the amount of deviation is less than the threshold (“A judging module, configured to judge the roadside camera according to the comparison results of consecutive multiple frames of images to be detected and the reference image after determining that the roadside camera deviates from the initial pose and reaches a set degree of deviation” (page 33 paragraph 4) and “If the detection results of multiple consecutive frames show that the roadside camera deviates from the initial pose, it can be considered that the roadside camera continues to deviate from the initial pose, which cannot be recovered by itself (page 31 paragraph 6)).
Regarding claim 5, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected accordingly. See above for relevant references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (CN 116258774 A) in view of Lee (“Unified Camera Tamper Detection Based on Edge and Object Information”) (see attached NPL document).
Tan teaches a roadside apparatus according to claim 1 (see 102 Rejections). Tan does not teach an amount of deviation as a percentage obtained by dividing an area of a range in which the capturing range of the image captured by the imager after the reference image is stored does not overlap the capturing range of the reference image by an area of the capturing range of the reference image.
However, Lee teaches the amount of deviation is a percentage (i.e., “the ratio of the number of edge pixels that have disappeared in the current frame” (page 10321 paragraph 1) where “disappear” refers to the edges that are no longer in view from the reference image due to capturing range shift, and where “ratio” is understood to be a concept which is easily convertible to a percentage via basic mathematical conversion. Additionally, the fact that the ratio of ‘disappeared’ edge pixels is calculated necessitates that the ratio of new/’unique to the current capturing range’ edge pixels must also be determined, since they are inverses of each other. See equation 1 on page 10321:
PNG
media_image1.png
75
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
By virtue of the fraction part of this equation being subtracted from 1, it is reasonable to say that by simply not performing the 1- step, the ratio would yield the aforementioned inverse. Thus, it would be straightforward to arrive at either the percentage of edge pixels unique to or different from the capturing range depending on which one the operator intended to find.) obtained by dividing an area of a range in which the capturing range of the image captured by the imager after the reference image is stored (e.g. Frame 72, 79, etc., see below) does not overlap the capturing range of the reference image (e.g. Frame 0, see below) by an area of the capturing range of the reference image (“a moved event occurs from Frame 72 and lasts until Frame 1021” (page 10322, Fig. 5), as shown below) where “moved event” is a shift in capturing range which necessitates a change in capturing range area.
PNG
media_image2.png
140
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roadside apparatus taught by Tan to include the edge detection method taught by Lee, the suggested motivation that such implementation might reduce the rate of false alarm notifications in the roadside apparatus and improve the accuracy of deviation detection through the edge detection and processing algorithm disclosed therein.
Additional References
Prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Additionally cited references (see attached PTO-892) otherwise not relied upon above have been made of record in view of the manner in which they evidence the general state of the art. Examiner notes that Jiang (CN116708759A) additionally anticipates at least the independent claims of the disclosed invention. Jiang discloses a camera deflection detection method in which a reference frame is compared to a current frame, the deviation is calculated, and an operator is notified of necessary repairs. Additionally, Examiner notes that Mu (US20190138821A1) also suggests at least claim 3, as it discloses a detection method for a blocked camera region, and the recited ‘blockage’ (see Fig. 6, blockage region 613) anticipates a method for calculating a deviation amount as a percentage obtained by diving the area of blocked pixels from the rest of the frame. All other cited references may similarly/alternatively serve to anticipate at least the independent claims as recited, and/or provide examples of current art to Applicant as discovered and noted by Examiner during search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA T RAMETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-0451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/JULIA T RAMETTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights