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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-11 have been canceled. Claims 12-31 have been added. Claims 12-31 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 12-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12307578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent’s and the instant application’s inventive scope comprise a server receiving first event video of a traffic event from a first vehicle and second event video of a traffic event from a second vehicle to generate first three-dimensional model based on an object related to the traffic event extracted from the first event video and a second three-dimensional model based on an object related to the traffic event extracted from the second event video, and then combining first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model to generate a combined three-dimensional model in a three-dimensional space.
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 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(s) 12-13, 19-20 & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (“Han”, US 20150029308 A1, IDS) in view of David et al. (“Davis”, US 20220058845 A1) and Cao et al. (“Cao”, US 20190281027 A1). 1) Regarding claims 12 and 25, Han discloses a system (Fig. 2) comprising: As per the limitation a server. Han is silent to the use of the term server. However, Han discloses an apparatus, see Fig. 2 & ¶0049-63, that receive image information from vehicle mounted black boxes, road closed circuit television (CCTV) components and mobile phones. While Han does not specify that the apparatus is a server. In the art of receiving road side image information, Davis discloses, in ¶0030-33; ¶0042; ¶0061 with reference to Figs. 1-3, the concept of configuring a server to able to receive image data and perform processes to enable re-creation of vehicle accident scenes. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a server to able to receive image data and perform processes to enable re-creation of vehicle accident scenes, into the system of Han and thus implementing the apparatus of Han as a server, with the motivation to enhance the image processing features of the system. As per the limitation a first vehicle (Han: Figs. 1-2 & 6: vehicle black box of vehicle A) configured to transmit first event information including a first event video of a traffic event to the server (Han: abstract; ¶0014; ¶0024. Notice that Han discloses, in ¶0005, that the black boxes images data is video); and a second vehicle (Han: Figs. 1-2 & 6: vehicle black box vehicle B and/or smart phone of passerby A) configured to transmit second event information including a second event video of the traffic event to the server (Han: abstract; ¶0014; ¶0024), the server including: at least one memory storing instructions (Davis: ¶0008: Fig. 1: memory 115 or Fig. 2; memory 215), and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Davis: ¶0008: Fig. 1: processor 103 or Fig. 2; processor 213) to: As per the limitation receive the first event information and the second event information from the first vehicle and the second vehicle. Cao discloses, in ¶73, the concept of configuring a server to receive video data from a vehicle. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a server to receive video data from a vehicle., with the motivation to enhance video communication features of the system. As per the limitation generate a first three-dimensional model based on an object related to the traffic event extracted from the first event video (Han: ¶0075-87; Figs. 5-7, with regard to black box of vehicle A) and a second three-dimensional model based on an object related to the traffic event extracted from the second event video (Han: ¶0075-87; Figs. 5-7, with regard to black box of vehicle B); combine the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model to generate a combined three-dimensional model in a three-dimensional space (Han: abstract; ¶0014; ¶0017; ¶0023; ¶0026; ¶0041; ¶0057-58; ¶0061; ¶0074; ¶0078-80; ¶0086; ¶0096-97). 2) Regarding claim 19, Han, David and Cao with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 12 teach a server (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25), and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25) to: receive first event information including a first event video of a traffic event from a first vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25), and receive second event information including a second event video of the traffic event from a second vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25); generate a first three-dimensional model based on an object related to the traffic event extracted from the first event video and a second three-dimensional model based on an object related to the traffic event extracted from the second event video (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25); combine the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model to generate a combined three-dimensional model (see analysis of the rejection of claims 12 and 25). 3) Regarding claims 13, 20 and 26, the first event information further includes first position information indicating the shooting position of the first event video (Han: ¶69; Fig. 4: image 1), and the second event information further includes second position information indicating the shooting position of the second event video (Han: ¶69; Fig. 4: image 2), and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to combine the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model using at least the first position information and the second position information (Han: ¶¶67-70).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-18, 21-24 and 27-31 objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11934746 B2; US 11710278 B2; WO 2015106320 A1, reproducing vehicle moving information to produce vehicle simulated movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights