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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant asserts that Slavin does not have the feature “the speed limit is configured to be set by the second user.” Specifically, the applicant argues that the speed limit in Slavin relates to a legal limit, and this limit would not be set by a second user because the speed limit in Slavin is set by legislation. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Even if the speed limit in Slain is a legal limit set by legislation (which Slavin doesn’t even mention), the speed limit will still have to be set or configured in the DDDR system by the users of the DDDR system in order to identify a dangerous driver. Therefore, since users of the DDDR would need to configure the DDDR system to identify dangerous drivers based on at least a speed limit, the examiner maintains that Slavin discloses the limitation “the speed limit is configured to be set by the second user” as recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 recites the limitation “wherein, the event monitoring unit is configured implement a time delay between sending the notification to the first computing device and sending the notification to the second end user.” Applicant’s Figs. 4, steps 408, 410, 412, 414, and paragraph [0041] of the specification (US 20210293969) disclose this limitation. However, the applicant’s specification does not teach or suggest implementing a time delay between sending a notification to a first computing device and sending the notification to the second end user. Instead, the applicant’s specification discloses sending the notification/alert to the first computing device, determining if the current speed is greater than a speed limit, and then sending the not notification to the second end user. There is no implementation of a time delay. Therefore, the limitation “wherein, the event monitoring unit is configured implement a time delay between sending the notification to the first computing device and sending the notification to the second end user” is not taught, suggested, or made obvious by the applicant’s specification and thus constitutes new matter.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedes et al US 20120290146 (hereinafter Dedes) in view of Slavin US 10,997,430 and Strickland US 20190098953.
Regarding claim 1, Dedes discloses a system for measuring event parameters to detect anomalies in real-time (see figs. 1), comprising:
an event monitoring unit (IMU sensors with accelerometers, see [0004], [0010]-[0011]) configured to measure one or more event parameters (position and orientation of the host vehicle, see [0004], [0013]) and detect one or more anomalies of one or more events that occur to a first end user (crashes, impending accidents, lane departures, road departures, sliding, and any other types of collisions or accidents, and speed limits, see [0014], [0027]);
the event monitoring unit comprising:
one or more accelerometers configured to detect a change in acceleration of the first end user (acceleration and orientation rate information of the vehicle, see [0020]);
one or more gyroscope sensors configured to measure an orientation and an angular velocity of the first end user (MEMS IMU sensor for determining speed and orientation of the vehicle, see [0021], [0027]);
a GPS module configured to track a live location of the first end user (GPS/IMU device, see [0010], [0013]); and
one or more safe speed trackers that are configured in conjunction with the GPS module to track a velocity of the first end user (fusion processor computes position and speed of the vehicle, and determine if the driver drives the vehicle safely, see [0027]),
wherein the event monitoring unit is further configured to send a notification over a network to a second end user (neighboring vehicles or infrastructure, see [0017]) when one or more anomalies are detected (Vehicle-2-Vehicle communication module and Vehicle-2-Infrastructure-module transmitting safety warning and additional information to neighboring vehicles and infrastructure, see [0012], [0017]).
Dedes does not disclose wherein at least one of the one or more anomalies are detected using one or more safe speed trackers that compare the tracked velocity with a speed limit, and wherein the speed limit is configured to be set by the second end user.
In the same field of endeavor, Slavin discloses a system for measuring event parameters to detect anomalies in real-time (see figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
one or more safe speed trackers (DDDR system, see figs. 2 and 3, col. 13, line 2), wherein at least one of the one or more anomalies (violation of a rule, see figs. 2 and 3, col. 13, lines 24-47) are detected using one or more safe speed trackers that compare the tracked velocity with a speed limit, and wherein the speed limit is configured to be set by the second end user (DDDR system 102 using event data and driver models to determine that a vehicle’s velocity is over a speed limit, see figs. 1-3, col. 12, lines 2-47).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Slavin with Dedes, with an equal expectation of success, by detecting anomalies by determination of a speed limit violation by a vehicle based on vehicle/driver models used to indicate a vehicle is above a speed limit (~comparing), for the benefit of alerting an owner of the vehicle that the current user is speeding.
The combination of Dedes and Slavin does not specifically disclose a first end user of the event monitoring unit.
In a similar field of endeavor, Strickland discloses a first end user of an event monitoring unit, the event monitoring unit comprising one or more accelerometers configured to detect a change in acceleration of the first end user, one or more gyroscopes sensors configured to measure an orientation and an angular velocity of the first end user, and a GPS module configured to track a live location of the first end user (motorcycle operator 106, with a helmet 108, the helmet comprising position determination unit 144 comprising accelerometer, gyroscope, and GPS, see figs. 1A and 1C, [0036], [0051]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Strickland with the combination of Dedes and Slavin, with a reasonable expectation of success by installing a accelerometer, gyroscope, and GPS in the helmet of a user, as taught by Strickland, for the benefit of tracking the position and orientation of the helmet in order to properly detect a target vehicle(s) around the helmet user.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland disclose the claimed invention. Strickland further discloses an event monitoring unit integrated in a helmet, headband, or apparel of an end user (see figs. 1A-1C, [0037], [0047], [0051]).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses a first computing device and a second computing device (host vehicle, neighboring vehicles/infrastructure, see, [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses a central database configured to store the one or more event parameters measured by the event monitoring unit (determining safety from speed limits and trajectory consistency requires a database, see [0027]).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the one or more event parameters comprises a current location, velocity, speed limit, distance, an acceleration and a perimeter range, a mode of transport, and a network connectivity (see [0014], [0027]).
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the event monitoring unit is an inertial measurement unit (see fig. 1, [0010], [0012]).
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the event monitoring unit further comprises a compass (see fig. 1, claims 1, 2, and 4, [0004]).
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 5, Dedes further discloses wherein the first computing device is operated by the first end user, and wherein the second computing device is operated by the second end user (host vehicle, neighboring vehicles/infrastructure, inherently managed by different users, see, [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 19, Dedes further discloses wherein the first and second computing devices comprise an event reporting module configured to receive the event parameters from the event monitoring unit (processor receives data, see [0013]-[0014], [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 20, Dedes further discloses wherein the event reporting module is configured to detect the one or more anomalies based on the received event parameters (see [0014]).
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes and Slavin discloses the claimed invention. Slavin further discloses wherein the second end user can set different speed limits for each of a plurality of locations (DDDR system 102 using driver models to determine that a vehicle’s velocity is over a speed limit, see figs. 1-3, col. 12, lines 2-47).
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes and Slavin discloses the claimed invention. Slavin further discloses wherein GPS data is used to determine a set speed limit at a location of the plurality of locations for comparing to the tracked velocity (DDDR system 102 using driver models to determine that a vehicle’s velocity is over a speed limit, see figs. 1-3, col. 12, lines 24-47 and 61-67, col. 14, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 24 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the notification comprises location and/or tracked velocity data from the event monitoring unit (Vehicle-2-Vehicle communication module and Vehicle-2-Infrastructure-module transmitting safety warning and additional information to neighboring vehicles and infrastructure, see [0012], [0017]-[0018]).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedes et al US 20120290146 (hereinafter Dedes) in view of Slavin US 10,997,430 and Strickland US 20190098953 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chamberlin US 20160185291.
Regarding claim 25 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland disclose the claimed invention except wherein the event monitoring unit is further configured to, when the one or more anomalies are detected, send a notification over the network to a first computing device operated by the first end user, prior to sending the notification over the network to the second end user.
In the same field of endeavor, Chamberlin discloses an event monitoring unit (see fig. 1, [0036]) further configured to, when the one or more anomalies are detected (approaching or exceeding speed limit, see [0049]-[0050]), send a notification over the network to a first computing device operated by the first end user (operator of the industrial vehicle, see [0049]-[0050]), prior to sending the notification over the network to the second end user (advising operator of the industrial vehicle, see [0049]-[0050], [0056]-[0057], [0059]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Chamberlin with the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland with a reasonable expectation of success by sending a warning or alert to the driver of a vehicle when a speed limit or other driving violation is detected, for the benefit enabling the driver to first adjust his/her speed/driving accordingly.
Regarding claim 26 as applied to claim 25, the combination of Dedes, Slaving, Strickland, and Chamberlin discloses the claimed invention. Chamberlin further discloses wherein, the event monitoring unit is configured implement a time delay between sending the notification to the first computing device and sending the notification to the second end user, and wherein the event monitoring unit is configured to detect if the one or more anomalies are still detected before (see [0049]-[0050], [0056]-[0057]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedes et al US 20120290146 (hereinafter Dedes) in view of Slavin US 10,997,430 and Strickland US 20190098953 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amireddy et al US 9,444,892 (hereinafter Amireddy).
Regarding claim 27 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland disclose the claimed invention except wherein the one or more anomalies include detection that the live location of the first end user is outside of a perimeter range from a home location, and wherein the perimeter range is set by the second end user.
In the same field of endeavor, Amireddy discloses a system for detecting anomalies in real-time (see fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-19), wherein the one or more anomalies include detection that the live location of a first end user is outside of a perimeter range from a home location, and wherein the perimeter range is set by a second end user (parent-set location criteria, see fig. 1, col. 7, lines 11-36).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Amireddy with the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland with a reasonable expectation of success by setting a location criteria for detecting an anomaly, for the benefit of tracking a child’s location or driving patterns.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedes et al US 20120290146 (hereinafter Dedes) in view of Slavin US 10,997,430 and Strickland US 20190098953 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Camacho et al US 20130290199 (hereinafter Camacho).
Regarding claim 27 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland disclose the claimed invention except wherein the one or more anomalies include determination that a journey time for the first end user of the event monitoring unit to return to a home location is more than a time limit, and wherein the time limit is set by the second end user. In the same field of endeavor, Camacho discloses a system for detecting anomalies in real-time (see figs. 1, 2, and 4) comprising, the one or more anomalies including determination that a journey time for a first end user of an event monitoring unit (driver/user of vehicle, see figs. 1 and 4, [0041]) to return to a home location is more than a time limit, and wherein the time limit is set by a second end user (late return, see figs. 2-4, steps 203-207, steps 401-407, [0039], [0041]-[0042], [0044], [0047]-[0049]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Camacho with the combination of Dedes, Slavin, and Strickland with a reasonable expectation of success by detecting that a vehicle has not reached (or will not reach) its destination before set time limit, for the benefit notifying the owner of the vehicle of the current delay, and thus providing the owner with useful information that can be used to make decisions regarding use of the vehicle beyond the set time limit.
Regarding claim 29 as applied to claim 28, the combination of Dedes, Slavin, Strickland, and Camacho disclose the claimed invention. Camacho further discloses wherein the journey time is calculated as a sum of a journey time elapsed and an estimated time required to return to the home location (see fig. 4, [0047]-[0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cardi et al US 8,682,363 discloses system and method for sending prior service arrival notifications.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached on 571-270-5144. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648