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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,106(‘106). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
-- Claim 1 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1 of ‘106, including:
1) generating an exit event that represents a vehicle exiting a parking facility is equivalent to generating an exit event as recited in ‘106;
2) determining that the exit event does not match an entry event that also represents the vehicle is equivalent to determining whether the exit event matches………..the vehicle as recited in ‘106;
3) inputting a depiction of the vehicle into a machine learning model is equivalent to inputting a depiction……….machine learning model as recited in ‘106;
4) receiving, as output from the machine learning model, an exit feature representation of the vehicle is equivalent to receiving, as output from the supervised machine learning model, as recited in ‘106;
5) retrieving a set of entry feature representations is equivalent to retrieving a set of entry feature vectors as recited in ‘106,
6) wherein an entry feature representation is generated using a given vehicle represented by a given entry event of a group of hanging entry events,
7) each of the hanging entry events associated with a vehicle that is not paired with a corresponding exit event;
and
8) matching the exit event to one or more of the hanging entry events is equivalent to matching the exit event to one or more………..plurality of matching scores as recited in ‘106.
Claim 1 does not teach a plurality of matching scores comprising a matching score for each entry feature vector in the set of entry feature vectors. It would have been obvious that the plurality of matching scores would have been equivalent to hanging entry events, since this would have been necessary in order to establish matching for the purpose of determining entry features.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the exit event comprises one or more images of the vehicle exiting the parking facility is equivalent to the exit event comprising one or more images of the vehicle exiting the parking facility, as recited in ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) inputting the depiction of the vehicle into the machine learning model comprises:
i) isolating, from the one or more images, a first image portion containing the vehicle;
and
ii) excluding, from the one or more images, a second image portion that does not contain the vehicle is equivalent to the subject matter of claim 2 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) responsive to determining that the exit event matches an entry event that also represents the vehicle, matching the exit event to the entry event is equivalent to the subject matter as recited in claim 2 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) determining that the exit event matches an entry event that also represents the vehicle comprises comparing a vehicle identifier of the vehicle to a set of vehicle identifiers is equivalent to the subject matter as recited in claim 5 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) comparing the vehicle identifier of the vehicle to a set of vehicle identifiers comprises:
i) inputting the vehicle identifier corresponding to the vehicle and the set of vehicle identifiers into a second machine learning model;
and
ii) receiving, as output from the second machine learning model, a plurality of matching scores comprising a matching score for each vehicle identifier in the set of vehicle identifiers is equivalent to the subject matter as recited in claim 6 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the vehicle identifier is comprised of vertical and horizontal characters is equivalent to the subject matter as recited in claim 7 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) generating an entry event that represents a vehicle entering the parking facility;
2) determining whether the vehicle is in a candidate set of known vehicles;
and
3) responsive to determining that the vehicle is not in the candidate set of known vehicles, retrieving the entry feature representation corresponding to the vehicle is equivalent to the subject matter of claim 8 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the candidate set of known vehicles comprises vehicles with profiles stored in a profile database is equivalent to the subject matter of claim 9 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) providing, for display, a user interface comprising one or more matches between the exit event and the one or more hanging entry events is equivalent to the subject matter of claim 10 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) matching the exit event to one or more of the hanging entry events comprises automatically matching the exit event to the hanging entry event with a highest matching score is equivalent to the subject matter of claim 11 of ‘106.
-- With regards to claim 12,
a matching score represents how well a feature vector of a given entry event matches a feature vector of the exit event is equivalent to the subject matter of claim 12 of ‘106.
-- Claims 13-20 recites subject matter that is equivalent to the subject matter of claims 13-20 of ‘106, respectively, and as well, with reference to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights