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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 07/13/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham et al. (US 20160371553 A1) in view of Amento et al. (US 20180343488 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Farnham discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute processing of (Farnham discloses a system executing a monitoring engine, mapping engine, video repository engine, and driver analysis engine on a hardware platform comprising CPUs, RAM, GPU, storage, and a network interface. Farnham abstract, [0097], [0103]-[0105], FIG. 13. This constitutes an information processing apparatus having a controller.):
displaying a plurality of icons indicating the locations of one or more vehicles at a plurality of times based on the travelling history of the one or more vehicles, each icon among the plurality of icons corresponding to a respective time among the plurality of times and being displayed at a corresponding location on the map at which a corresponding vehicle among the one or more vehicles was located at the respective time (Farnham discloses a mapping engine that generates and displays map 22 populated with incident icons 62. Each incident icon 62 is created at the geographic location associated with a detected incident, and Farnham expressly discloses that each such icon "will remain static at the associated location, even after the vehicle 16 has moved to another location." Farnham [0065]; see also [0078]. Because the vehicle-tracking device 18 detects incidents at discrete times during vehicle operation and records the location and the time of each incident, Farnham [0044], [0060], each incident icon 62 is displayed at the location on the map at which the corresponding vehicle 16 was located at the respective time the incident was detected. Farnham [0065], [0078], FIG. 7. Multiple incidents detected over the course of vehicle operation produce a plurality of incident icons 62 at a plurality of locations corresponding to a plurality of respective times, all derived from the location and time information transmitted from the vehicle-tracking device 18 as the vehicle travels. Farnham [0044], [0059]-[0060], [0063]-[0065], [0078], FIG. 7. This constitutes displaying a plurality of icons indicating the locations of one or more vehicles at a plurality of times based on the travelling history of the one or more vehicles, with each icon corresponding to a respective time and displayed at the location the vehicle occupied at that respective time.); and
based on selection, by an operator, of an icon among the plurality of icons that is displayed at a past location and corresponds to a past time of the plurality of times at which a vehicle among the one or more vehicles was located at the past location (As set forth above, Farnham's incident icons 62 remain static at the location the vehicle occupied at the time the incident was detected, even after the vehicle has moved away. Farnham [0065]. Each such icon is therefore displayed at a past location corresponding to a past time at which the vehicle was located there. Farnham discloses that "The user may select the incident icon 62 to display more information about the incident." Farnham [0079].):
identifying a vehicle ID of the vehicle and a date and time ID corresponding to the past time based on the selected icon (Farnham expressly discloses that upon operator selection of an incident icon 62, the system displays an incident details window 58 that includes "a type of incident, a date and time, a vehicle name, a vehicle driver name, the speed of the vehicle, the posted speed limit..., the heading at the time of the incident..., a location, an altitude, a name for the location point." Farnham [0079]. FIG. 7 of Farnham confirms this, depicting an incident details window 58 displaying "Date: 05/27/15 1:44:49 PM," "Vehicle: Delivery 1," "Driver: Smith, Joe," and "Lat/Long: 38.99294,-94.70508," together with a "Watch Video" option. Farnham FIG. 7, [0079]. Farnham therefore discloses that selection of the icon causes the system to identify both the vehicle associated with that icon and the date and time corresponding to the past time the icon represents. The vehicle name and the incident date and time in Farnham are identifiers that respectively identify the vehicle and identify the date and time at which the video was captured, consistent with the definition of a date and time ID set forth in the PGPUB specification as "an identifier (date and time ID) for identifying the date and time when the video file was generated." PGPUB specification [0044].), and
transmitting to the vehicle a video request for requesting transmission of a video captured by the vehicle at the past time corresponding to the date and time ID (Farnham discloses that "the dispatcher may select on the map 22 to have the recording device manager 28 or recording device upload the video associated with the incident remotely," and that the dispatcher receives the video "via a request made remotely through the mapping engine," with "the recording device manager 28 or recording device (which contains the video data)... utilize the communications element 46 of the vehicle-tracking device 18." Farnham [0068]. The video so requested is the video associated with the incident corresponding to the selected icon, which is the video captured by that vehicle at the past time and location that icon represents. Farnham [0065]-[0066], [0068], [0079]. Farnham further discloses that the mapping engine may present the user with an option to request additional video for a specified time period associated with the selected icon, confirming that the video request is keyed to the capture time corresponding to the selected icon. Farnham [0066].).
However, Farnham does not expressly disclose "within a first area set on a map," in the sense of a geometrically defined sub-area set by an operator within the map viewport that constrains icon display. While Farnham displays icons within its map viewport and discloses generating a map for "a specific geographic area," Farnham [0065], and analyzing vehicles near a specified inquiry location, Farnham [0069], Farnham does not disclose an operator explicitly defining a bounded geometric region on the map within which icons are displayed and outside of which icons are suppressed.
Amento discloses a map view 514 through which a user "can draw a circle or other imaginary line 516 around a portion of the map view 514 that corresponds to a desired geographic location to specify the geographic location." Amento [0088], FIG. 5B. This drawn circle constitutes a geometrically defined first area set on the map by the operator. In response to the operator drawing this area, the system displays vehicle location and bearing indicators 524 within a map display 522 corresponding precisely to that drawn geographic area. Amento [0092]-[0094], FIG. 5C. Indicators outside the defined area are not displayed. This is a direct, figure-level teaching of a first area set on a map within which vehicle location icons are displayed and beyond which they are not.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Amento's operator-defined geographic area into Farnham's vehicle traveling history display system. Both references are directed to vehicle-based camera systems accessed through map-based graphical interfaces and both address the problem of identifying and obtaining video from vehicles at a geographic location of interest. Farnham provides the core framework of displaying historical vehicle location icons on a map based on traveling history, identifying the vehicle and capture time associated with a selected icon, and transmitting a video request to that vehicle, but does not explicitly teach an operator-defined bounded area constraining icon display. Amento provides exactly this feature, an operator draws a circle on the map and only vehicles within that circle are presented as icons, as a primary operational feature of its system. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Amento's geographic area definition mechanism into Farnham's map-icon framework to address the well-recognized problem of icon clutter and resource waste associated with unrestricted map-area display. This combination is further supported by the applicant's own acknowledgment at [0023] and [0026] of the PGPUB specification that displaying icons over a large map area was a recognized problem in the art, confirming that restricting display to a defined sub-area was a known and predictable solution. The combination of Farnham and Amento produces only predictable and expected results.
Regarding claim 2, Farnham in view of Amento discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the controller does not display icons corresponding to the one or more vehicles in any area other than the first area (Amento discloses that upon the operator drawing a circle or other imaginary line 516 on map view 514 to define a geographic area, the system displays vehicle location and bearing indicators 524 within map display 522 corresponding precisely to that drawn geographic area, and that the operator "can obtain identities of mobile computing nodes 108 at or within the specified area." Amento [0088], [0092]-[0094], FIG. 5B-5C. Amento thus presents indicators only for vehicles located within the operator-defined area, and vehicles outside that area are not represented by indicators on map display 522. Amento's disclosure of displaying indicators only within the operator-drawn geographic area therefore teaches that icons are not displayed in any area other than the first area. The motivation to combine Farnham and Amento is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 3, Farnham in view of Amento discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when a point on the map is specified by an operator, the controller is configured to execute processing of setting the first area including the specified point and displaying icons corresponding to vehicles which have a history of traveling in the first area within the set first area (Farnham teaches an operator specifying a point of interest on the map as the trigger for identifying vehicles that traveled near that point, disclosing that "a user may be attempting to locate video regarding a certain inquiry location" and that "The user may enter an inquiry location and inquiry time into the mapping engine," after which "The mapping engine may then analyze vehicles 16 of at least one fleet 12 near that inquiry location at that inquiry time." Farnham [0069]. Farnham further discloses displaying incident icons 62 at the locations vehicles occupied at the times the incidents were detected, each icon remaining static at the associated location based on the vehicle's traveling history. Farnham [0065], [0078], FIG. 7. This teaches the operator specifying a point on the map and displaying icons corresponding to vehicles which have a history of traveling in the relevant area. Farnham does not explicitly teach setting a bounded geometric first area including the specified point in response to the operator's point specification. Amento supplies this missing teaching, disclosing that a user draws a circle or other imaginary line 516 around a portion of map view 514 to specify a geographic location, Amento [0088], FIG. 5B, and that vehicle location and bearing indicators 524 are then displayed within map display 522 corresponding precisely to that drawn area, with the operator obtaining "identities of mobile computing nodes 108 at or within the specified area." Amento [0092]-[0094], FIG. 5C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Farnham's operator-specified inquiry location with Amento's area-definition mechanism such that the system sets a bounded first area including the operator-specified point and displays icons only for vehicles with a history of traveling within that area, as this combination requires only routine skill, involves known techniques with predictable results, and directly addresses the recognized problem of icon clutter by scoping display to an area relevant to the operator's specified point of interest. The motivation to combine Farnham and Amento is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Amento for the same reasons set forth above with respect to Claim 1. Claim 4, as amended, recites the same limitations as Claim 1 set forth as method steps performed by a computer, and the prior art applied to reject Claim 1 reads on the method steps of Claim 4 for the same reasons. The motivation to combine Farnham and Amento is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Amento for the same reasons set forth above with respect to Claim 1. Claim 5, as amended, recites the same limitations as Claim 1 set forth as computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium (Farnham [0056], [0097], [0103]-[0105], FIG. 13), and the prior art applied to reject Claim 1 reads on the instructions of Claim 5 for the same reasons. The motivation to combine Farnham and Amento is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pages 7-8 that Farnham's vehicle tracks 60 do not disclose the claimed icon selection and video request arrangement. This argument is acknowledged, and the rejection above no longer relies on vehicle tracks 60. The rejection relies instead on Farnham's incident icons 62, which independently teach the argued limitations.
Applicant argues at pages 8-9 that incident icons 62 are associated with incidents rather than with respective times based on travelling history. This is not persuasive. The vehicle-tracking device 18 reports the vehicle's location and the time of each detected incident as the vehicle travels, Farnham [0044], [0059]-[0060], and the mapping engine creates an incident icon 62 at the associated location, which "will remain static at the associated location, even after the vehicle 16 has moved to another location." Farnham [0065]; see also [0078]. Each incident icon 62 is therefore displayed at the past location the vehicle occupied at the past time the incident was detected, and incidents detected at discrete times produce a plurality of such icons at a plurality of locations corresponding to a plurality of respective times based on travelling history. Farnham [0065], [0078], FIG. 7.
Applicant argues at page 9 that Farnham does not disclose identifying a vehicle ID and a date and time ID based on the selected icon. This is not persuasive. Farnham discloses that selection of an incident icon 62 displays an incident details window 58 including "a type of incident, a date and time, a vehicle name, a vehicle driver name...the heading at the time of the incident...a location." Farnham [0079]. FIG. 7 depicts this window displaying "Date: 05/27/15 1:44:49 PM" and "Vehicle: Delivery 1" alongside a "Watch Video" option. Farnham FIG. 7, [0079]. Applicant's argument rests on the terminology "ID," but the PGPUB specification defines a date and time ID as "an identifier (date and time ID) for identifying the date and time when the video file was generated" that "may uniquely identify the year, month, day, hour, minute, and second." PGPUB specification [0044]. Farnham's date and time identifies each of those units, and Farnham's vehicle name identifies the vehicle. A difference in nomenclature alone does not distinguish the claims over the prior art.
Applicant argues at page 9 that Farnham does not transmit a video request to the vehicle for video captured at the past time. This is not persuasive. Farnham discloses that "the dispatcher may select on the map 22 to have the recording device manager 28 or recording device upload the video associated with the incident remotely," received "via a request made remotely through the mapping engine," with the recording device on the vehicle utilizing "the communications element 46 of the vehicle-tracking device 18." Farnham [0068]. The requested video is the video associated with the incident corresponding to the selected icon, which is the video captured by that vehicle at the past time that icon represents, and Farnham further discloses requesting video for a specified time period associated with the selected icon. Farnham [0066], [0068], [0079].
Applicant's assertion at page 9 that "Amento fails to remedy these deficiency" is not persuasive because Farnham is not deficient as to the argued limitations. Amento is relied upon solely for the "within a first area set on a map" limitation, Amento [0088], [0092]-[0094], FIG. 5B-5C, which applicant has not contested.
Applicant's argument at page 9 that claims 4 and 5 are patentable for reasons similar to claim 1 is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights