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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (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.
(b) Exceptions: (2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claim 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over ITSUMI et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0334672).
As per Claim 1 ITSUMI discloses A surveillance system comprising (Fig. 4 vehicle cameras network [0048]):
wireless connectivity between a plurality of vehicle mounted sensors and a central processing unit (Figs. 3-4 disclosing vehicle 5, camera sensors 10A-D with wireless transmission capability to device 100 processing unit to remote device 800 via network [0048, 0051]); and said central processing unit configured to receive signals from said plurality of vehicle mounted sensors (Figs. 3-4 optical signals disclosed [0048, 0051]);
and said central processing unit storing instructions for processing said signals (Figs. 1-4 [0048, 0051]), providing for surveillance of an area defined by, and surrounding, the location of said vehicle mounted sensors (Figs. 1-4, 8-12 to monitor surrounding vehicle area targets via FOVs of cameras 10A-D at the time of current location as ongoing process [0039-0040] [0048] [0051-0052]).
As per Claim 2 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 1 further comprising:
wireless connectivity between a plurality of vehicle mounted cameras and said central processing unit (Figs. 3-4 disclosing vehicle 5, camera 10A-D with wireless transmission capability to device 100 processing unit to remote device 800 via network [0048, 0051]); wherein said central processing unit is configured to further receive signals from said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras (Figs. 3-4 optical signals disclosed [0048, 0051]).
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.7
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITSUMI et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0334672) in view of SRTZELCZYK et al. (Pub. No: US 2025-0016261).
As per Claim 3 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 2 further comprising:
plurality of vehicle mounted sensors and cameras transmitted through wireless devices to said central processing unit (Figs. 1-4, 8-12 device 100 central unit – process to monitor surrounding vehicle area targets via FOVs of cameras 10A-D at the time of current location as ongoing process [0039-0040] [0048] [0051-0052])
ITSUMI does not disclose but SRTZELCZYK discloses anonymous wireless connectivity from vehicle camera (Figs.1-2, 8 camera 66 – wireless device 44 [0064] communications are anonymous [0058, 0064] [0068]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anonymous wireless connectivity from vehicle camera as taught by SRTZELCZYK into the system of ITSUMI because of the benefit taught by SRTZELCZYK to expand upon the wireless connectivity vehicle system of ITSUMI by including the ability to mask or restrict communication according the user protocol to increase security measures for private communications.
As per Claim 4 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 1 wherein: ITSUMI does not disclose but SRTZELCZYK the signals and processing thereof may only be authorized by a federal or governmental agency (Figs. 1-2, 8-9 [0062, 0071-0072]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 3).
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITSUMI et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0334672) in view of EKIN (Pub. No: US 2017-0075888).
As per Claim 5 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 2 further comprising:
ITSUMI does not disclose but EKIN discloses license plate reading technology electronically coupled with each of said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras (Figs. 4 row of cameras 1.3 attached to vehicle of Figs. 6-8 [0012] [0020-0021] [0024] [0038] portable license plate reader mounted to vehicle [0082-0083]); wherein license plates within the field of view of said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras are read by said license plate reading technology and converted to data (Figs. 4 cameras 1.3 OCR employed to read and convert to send for database search [0020-0021] OCR [0038] [0082]); wherein said data is sent to said central processing unit for processing to text data that may be sent to authorities for matching to vehicles of interest (Figs. 4-8 vehicle of interest current – database search using OCR converted data [0020-0021] [0024] collect, read to use for converted search [0037-0038] [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include license plate reading technology electronically coupled with each of said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras; wherein license plates within the field of view of said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras are read by said license plate reading technology and converted to data; wherein said data is sent to said central processing unit for processing to text data that may be sent to authorities for matching to vehicles of interest as taught by EKIN into the system of ITSUMI because of the benefit taught by EKIN to further include facial and license plate recognition which are natural features to include in a vehicle security tracking and communication system to expand upon the types of checks to improve upon system accuracy.
As per Claim 6 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 2 further comprising:
ITSUMI does not disclose but EKIN discloses facial recognition technology electronically coupled with each of said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras (Figs. 4 row of cameras 1.3 attached to vehicle of Figs. 6-8 [0012] [0020-0021] [0024] [0038] portable license plate reader mounted to vehicle includes facial recognition [0012] [0024] [0028] [0082-0083]); wherein faces within the field of view of said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras are recorded by said facial recognition technology and converted to data (Figs. 4 row of cameras 1.3 attached to vehicle of Figs. 6-8 [0012] [0020-0021] [0024] [0038] portable license plate reader with face recognition mounted to vehicle includes facial recognition – captured different facial angles for comparison [0012] [0020-0021] [0024] [0038] [0082-0083]); wherein said data is sent to said central processing unit for processing, the results of which may be sent to authorities for matching to persons of interest (Figs. 4-8 person of the vehicle of interest current – database search [0012] [0020-0021] [0024] collect, read to use for converted search [0037-0038] [0082]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 5 applies equally to Claim 6).
As per Claim 7 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 2 further comprising:
ITSUMI does not disclose but EKIN discloses instructions for tracking a specific vehicle are included in said instructions (Figs. 4-8 vehicle of interest current – database search using OCR converted data [0020-0021] [0024] collect, read to use for converted search [0037-0038] [0082]); wherein said plurality of vehicle mounted cameras and sensors on nearby vehicles may be focused on said specific vehicle (Figs. 4-8 nearby security vehicles in traffic/surrounding area [0003] [0011] [0015-0018] [0037-0038] [0082]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 5 applies equally to Claim 7).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITSUMI et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0334672) in view of LATIF et al. (US Patent No: 11,829,959).
As per Claim 8 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 2 wherein: vehicle mounted cameras and sensors (See said analysis for Claim 1)
ITSUMI does not disclose but LATIF discloses visual surveillance of an area is defined by the location of said vehicle is expanded to a geofenced area (Figs. 1-6 aerial vehicle geofenced [col. 2 lines 38-42] via computing unit 118 [col. 6 lines 54-58]); wherein signals from vehicle inside of said geofenced area are prioritized for processing (Figs. 1-6 focus on the areas of need in geofenced area [col. 2 lines 38-42] [col. 17 lines 1-7] [col. 17 line 65 – col. 8 line 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include visual surveillance of an area is defined by the location of said vehicle is expanded to a geofenced area; wherein signals from vehicle inside of said geofenced area are prioritized for processing as taught by LATIF into the system of ITSUMI because of the benefit taught by LATIF to include customization of visual tracking areas to pinpoint regions of interest which will benefit ITSUMI by focusing on important data of interest to improve upon system efficiency.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITSUMI et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0334672) in view of LATIF et al. (US Patent No: 11,829,959), as applied in Claim 8, and further in view of GOODNIGHT et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023-0053199)
As per Claim 9 ITSUMI discloses The surveillance system of claim 8 wherein: vehicle mounted sensors and cameras (See said analysis for Claims 1 and 2)
ITSUMI and LATIF do not disclose but GOODNIGHT discloses the geofenced area redefined by a last known position of the location of said vehicle (Fig. 5 [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the geofenced area redefined by a last known position of the location of said vehicle as taught by GOODNIGHT into the system of ITSUMI and LATIF because of the benefit taught by GOODNIGHT to include intelligent visual tracking selection of areas to interest which will benefit ITSUMI and LATIF by automating important data of interest to improve upon system efficiency and accuracy for visual data collection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-14 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The surveillance system of claim 9 wherein: the last known position of the location of said vehicle mounted sensors and cameras is based on newly delivered LPR" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The surveillance system of claim 8 wherein: the last known position of the location of said vehicle mounted sensors and cameras is based on facial recognition data" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “A method for operating the surveillance system of claim 2, the method comprising: monitoring vehicles through a network of vehicle's cameras and sensors; and deploying LPR technology using the sensors and cameras of at least one vehicle; and transmitting LPR data to said central processing unit; and processing LPR data by matching license plate information with license plate information of vehicles of interest; and identifying a vehicle of interest; and setting a geofencing boundary surrounding a location of said vehicle of interest; and tracking said vehicle of interest with said network of vehicle's cameras and sensors" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 12 further comprising: evaluating said geofencing boundary according to a location of most recent transmittal of signals from said plurality of vehicle mounted sensors; and resetting said geofencing boundary according to said location of most recent transmittal" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 12 further comprising: deploying facial recognition technology using the sensors and cameras of at least one vehicle; and transmitting facial recognition data to said central processing unit; and processing facial recognition data by matching said facial recognition data with an identity of a person of interest; and setting a geofencing boundary surrounding a location of said person of interest; and tracking said person of interest with said network of vehicle's cameras and sensors" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record ITSUMI et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0334672) for Claims 10-14 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. ITSUMI only discloses wireless connectivity between a plurality of vehicle mounted sensor cameras and a central processing unit which receiving signals from a plurality of vehicle mounted sensors and the central processing unit storing instructions for processing said signals, providing for surveillance of an area defined by, and surrounding, the location of said vehicle mounted sensor cameras.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481