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 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.
Claims 21-22, 27-31, 33-38, 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barfield Jr( 2016/0094964) in view of Sanchez (US 9,652,748), Stenneth (US 2017/0046216), and Leise (US 9,904,928)
As to claim 21 Barfield Jr discloses a computer-implemented method for managing vehicle emergencies using sensor data, the computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, at a computing device, sensor data from one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the computing device, the sensor data being indicative of an operation of a vehicle (Paragraph 16 “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a vehicle may include a telematics device (T). The telematics device may include sensors, such as an accelerometer and/or other sensors. The telematics device may, based on data received from the sensors and/or based on other data, such as data received from an On-Board Diagnostics port of the vehicle, determine that a vehicle collision is likely to have occurred (at 1.1, “Vehicle Collision Detected”).”);
determining, by the computing device, based on the sensor data, and in real time, that a collision event occurred during the operation of the vehicle(Paragraph 16 “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a vehicle may include a telematics device (T). The telematics device may include sensors, such as an accelerometer and/or other sensors. The telematics device may, based on data received from the sensors and/or based on other data, such as data received from an On-Board Diagnostics port of the vehicle, determine that a vehicle collision is likely to have occurred (at 1.1, “Vehicle Collision Detected”).”);;
determining, by the computing device, one or more service provider characteristics needed to address the collision event (Paragraph 18 “In response to the detection of a potential vehicle collision, the telematics device may alert a call center, such as by signaling the call center via a wireless network, such as a cellular wireless network (at 1.2, “Alert Call Center”). An operator, at the call center, may determine how to best handle the alert. For example, the operator may speak to a driver of the vehicle ask the driver whether the driver needs assistance. In this example, assume that the call center operator determines that emergency response personnel are needed (e.g., the driver may confirm that there has been a non-trivial vehicle collision and/or the driver may fail to respond to voice prompts from the call center operator). In this case, the call center operator may communicate with an emergency response center (e.g., a 911 response center, a police, fire, or ambulance team local to the vehicle collision, etc.) to provide information relevant to the emergency response personnel (e.g., the location of the vehicle collision, the potential severity of the vehicle collision, etc.) (at 1.3, “Dispatch Emergency Response Personnel”).”); and
initiating, by the computing device, a communication session between the computing device and the emergency service provider(Paragraph 18 “In response to the detection of a potential vehicle collision, the telematics device may alert a call center, such as by signaling the call center via a wireless network, such as a cellular wireless network (at 1.2, “Alert Call Center”). An operator, at the call center, may determine how to best handle the alert. For example, the operator may speak to a driver of the vehicle ask the driver whether the driver needs assistance. In this example, assume that the call center operator determines that emergency response personnel are needed (e.g., the driver may confirm that there has been a non-trivial vehicle collision and/or the driver may fail to respond to voice prompts from the call center operator). In this case, the call center operator may communicate with an emergency response center (e.g., a 911 response center, a police, fire, or ambulance team local to the vehicle collision, etc.) to provide information relevant to the emergency response personnel (e.g., the location of the vehicle collision, the potential severity of the vehicle collision, etc.) (at 1.3, “Dispatch Emergency Response Personnel”).”);
by prompting, by the computing device, for a response from an operator of the vehicle to initiate contact with the emergency service provider (Paragraph 18 “In response to the detection of a potential vehicle collision, the telematics device may alert a call center, such as by signaling the call center via a wireless network, such as a cellular wireless network (at 1.2, “Alert Call Center”). An operator, at the call center, may determine how to best handle the alert. For example, the operator may speak to a driver of the vehicle ask the driver whether the driver needs assistance. In this example, assume that the call center operator determines that emergency response personnel are needed (e.g., the driver may confirm that there has been a non-trivial vehicle collision and/or the driver may fail to respond to voice prompts from the call center operator). In this case, the call center operator may communicate with an emergency response center (e.g., a 911 response center, a police, fire, or ambulance team local to the vehicle collision, etc.) to provide information relevant to the emergency response personnel (e.g., the location of the vehicle collision, the potential severity of the vehicle collision, etc.) (at 1.3, “Dispatch Emergency Response Personnel”).”)
Barfield Jr. does not explicitly disclose an injury probability associated with the collision event.
Sanchez teaches determining an injury probability associated with the collision event (Column 4 lines 61-Column 5 lines 1-2 “According to embodiments, the electronic device 106 may collect sensor/operation data from one or more sensors and determine, from the collected data, that an accident event has occurred, where the accident event may have a particular type. For example, the sensor/operation data may indicate damage to the vehicle 115 (and/or to another vehicle). For further example, the sensor/operation data may indicate that an individual suffered bodily injury, or that there is a high probability that bodily injury occurred.”)
determining that an emergency service provider is needed to address the collision event. (Column 5 lines 3-18 “n response to determining that the accident event has occurred, the electronic device 106 may identify one of the providers 120 that is relevant to the associated type of the accident event (i.e., one of the providers 120 that is capable of addressing effects of the accident event). The electronic device 106 may further access an availability of the identified provider 120, such as a schedule that the provider 120 may avail. The electronic device 106 may automatically schedule an appointment, service, or the like with the provider 120. Accordingly, the provider 120 may address the identified effect(s) of the accident event according to the scheduled appointment without the affected individual having to manually assess the accident event and make an appointment. The electronic device 106 may display an indication of the scheduled appointment for review by the individual associated with the electronic device 106.”)
determining, by the computing device, based on one or more service provider characteristics an emergency service provider that correspond to the injury probability and the one or more damaged vehicle parts (Column 6 lines 46-64 “In determining the type of accident event, the vehicle device 206 may also determine a type of provider that may be needed to assist with or address effects of the accident event. In embodiments, certain providers may specialize in attending to different types of damage to either the vehicle or to an individual. For example, if the sensor data indicates that the vehicle is rendered inoperable, then the vehicle device 206 may determine that a tow truck company is a relevant provider. For further example, if the sensor data indicates that the frame or body of the vehicle is damaged, then the vehicle device 206 may determine that an auto body shop is a relevant provider. Additionally, for example, if the vehicle device 206 determines that there is a higher probability of injury to an individual, then the vehicle device 206 may determine that an emergency medical provider (e.g., an ambulance service) is a relevant provider. It should be appreciated that various providers that may assist with or attend to various situations associated with or effects of accident events are envisioned”);
initiating, by the computing device, based on determining that the one or more service provider characteristics correspond to the one or more of the collision event characteristics, a communication session between the computing device and the emergency service provider(Column 7 lines 56-67 “The vehicle device 206 may present (262) the provider information, including an indication of the provider as well as an appointment availability of the provider. In embodiments, the vehicle device 206 may present the provider information in a user interface so that a user of the vehicle device 206 may view the provider information. The vehicle device 206 may receive (264), via the user interface, a selection of an appointment. In particular, the user may select to schedule an appointment with the provider at an indicated time and date. In some situations, the appointment may be for immediate assistance (e.g., scheduling a tow truck or calling an ambulance).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Barfield Jr. to include the teachings of determining an injury probability for the purpose of improving safety by sending service providers to address the collision event based on the severity of the collision.
Barfield Jr. does not explicitly disclose determining, by the computing device, collision event characteristics representing the injury probability;
Stenneth teaches determining, by the computing device, collision event characteristics representing the injury probability (Paragraph 108 “In some circumstances, it may be desirable to selectively communicate an informative notification based, at least in part, on a relative severity of an accident. For example, an informative notification criteria may be satisfied based, at least in part, on an accident severity value (e.g., a severity scale that may be, for example, 0 to 100, 0 to 10, etc.), an accident severity category (e.g., high, low, medium, fender bender, scratch, etc.), and/or the like. The accident severity value, the accident severity category, and/or the like may be determined based, at least in part, on sensor information received from one or more sensors, such as vibration sensors, seat belt sensors, airbag sensors, impact sensors, etc., on a location of the accident, such as a highway versus a county road, and/or the like. In such an example, the accident severity value, the accident severity category, and/or the like may indicate an accident severity value that is beyond a predetermined threshold, an accident severity category that is below a predetermined threshold, and/or the like.”)
determining, by the computing device, based on collision event characteristics, that an emergency service provider is needed to address the collision event (Paragraph 114 “In many circumstances, one or more remedial measures may be necessary in response to the occurrence of the accident. For example, it may be desirable to notify an emergency responder as to the occurrence of the accident, the severity of the accident, the location of the accident, and/or the like. In such an example, the emergency responder may desire to dispatch one or more emergency response vehicles, such as a police vehicle, a fire truck, an ambulance, and/or the like, to the scene of the accident, and/or the like. In another example, the vehicle may be immobile and, thus, it may be desirable to notify a tow assistance provider as to the occurrence of the accident, the severity of the accident, the location of the accident, and/or the like.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Barfield Jr. to include the teachings determining collision event characteristics for the purpose of improving safety by sending service providers to address the collision event based on the severity of the collision.
Barfield Jr. does not explicitly disclose the collision characteristics representing the collision event, the one or more damaged vehicle parts.
Leise teaches the collision characteristics representing one or more damaged vehicle parts.(Column 4 lines 44-Column 5 lines 1-30 “Some impact characteristics of the crash may be automatically relayed to system personnel and/or the processing center 102 by telematics devices, e.g., sensors, operatively coupled to the vehicle. The sensors enable a computing device to automatically attain impact characteristics such as vehicle acceleration, velocity, position of vehicle parts relative to the vehicle and/or direction at the time of the crash. For example, spatial sensors may be placed at different locations throughout the vehicle. Each spatial sensor may correspond to a vehicle part such as, for example, a front pillar or a portion thereof. A telematics device may communicate with the spatial sensor and determine the position of the sensor relative to the telematics device. In this manner, the telematics device can determine when the spatial sensor moves relative to the telematics device, and can infer that the front pillar has moved from its original position and is therefore damaged by the crash. Moreover, system personnel and/or the processing center 102 may be able to estimate the cost to repair or replace the vehicle part and the extent of the damage to the vehicle part based on the distance in which the spatial sensor moved.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Barfield Jr. to include the teachings of determining one or more damaged parts associated with the collision for the purpose of providing a damage assessment of the collision.
As to claim 22 Barfield Jr. in view of Sanchez, and Stenneth teaches a computer-implemented method wherein the sensor data includes one or more of location data associated with the vehicle, activity data associated with the vehicle, or audio data associated with the vehicle (Barfield Jr. Paragraph 33), and
wherein the collision event characteristics are determined based on one or more of the location data associated with the vehicle, the activity data associated with the vehicle, or the audio data associated with the vehicle(Stenneth Paragraph 114).
As to claim 27 Sanchez teaches a computer-implemented method wherein determining that the one or more service provider characteristics correspond to the one or more of the collision event characteristics comprises:
determining, as a service provider characteristic of the one or more service provider characteristics, a service provider availability via an interface with a calendar application(Column 7 lines 41-55);
determining, as a collision event characteristic of the one or more of the collision event characteristics, a time associated with the collision event(Column 7 lines 41-55); and
determining that the service provider availability corresponds to the time associated with the collision event(Column 7 lines 41-55)
As to claim 28 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 21.
As to claim 29 Sanchez teaches a computing device wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine the emergency service provider by:
causing an interface to be displayed on a mobile device prompting the operator of the vehicle for a selection of one or more emergency service providers form among a plurality of emergency service providers represented on the interface (Column 6 lines 46-64); and
detecting a selection of the emergency service provider from among the plurality of emergency service providers on the interface(Column 9 lines 6-18).
As to claim 30 Sanchez teaches a computing device, wherein causing the interface to be displayed on the mobile device comprises ordering the plurality of emergency service providers represented on the interface based on one or more criteria (Column 6 lines 46-64, Column 9 lines 57-Column 120 lines 1-3).
As to claim 31 Sanchez teaches a computing device, wherein the one or more criteria comprises one or more of a distance from a location of the vehicle, an emergency service provider availability time frame or an emergency service cost(Column 9 lines 57-Column 120 lines 1-3)..
As to claim 33 Sanchez teaches a computing device wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive a first emergency service offer from a first emergency service provider of the plurality of emergency service providers(Column 9 lines 57-Column 120 lines 1-3);
transmit the first emergency service offer to a second emergency service provider of the plurality of emergency service providers(Column 9 lines 57-Column 120 lines 1-3); and
receive a second emergency service offer form the second emergency service provider, wherein the second emergency service offer is generated by the second emergency service provider based on the first emergency service offer(Column 9 lines 57-Column 120 lines 1-3).
.As to claim 34 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 27.
As to claim 35 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 21.
As to claim 36 Barfield Jr. in view of Sanchez, and Stenneth teaches a non -transitory computer readable medium wherein the sensor data includes one or more of location data associated with the vehicle, activity data associated with the vehicle, or audio data associated with the vehicle (Barfield Jr. Paragraph 33), and
wherein the collision event characteristics are determined based on one or more of the location data associated with the vehicle, the activity data associated with the vehicle, or the audio data associated with the vehicle(Stenneth Paragraph 114).
As to claim 37 Barfield Jr. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the computing device to:
transmit the location data associated with the vehicle to the emergency service provider(Paragraph 33).
As to claim 38 Barfield Jr. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the computing device to:
determine, based on the sensor data, that a high impact activity occurred during the operation of the vehicle(Paragraph 43); and
initiate the communication session between the computing device and the emergency service provider in response to determining that the high impact activity occurred during the operation of the vehicle (Paragraph 18).
As to claim 40 Sanchez teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the computing device to initiate contact with the emergency service provider when the response from the operator of the vehicle is received(Column 7 lines 28-40 ).
As to claim 41 Barfield Jr. in view of Sanchez and Stenneth teaches a computer-implemented method further comprising:
receiving, at the computing device from a remote computing device, a plurality of emergency service providers comprising the emergency service provider(Sanchez Column 5 lines 3-18); and
determining the emergency service provider from among the plurality of emergency service providers based on the collision event characteristics (Stenneth Paragraph 112).
As to claim 42 Sanchez teaches a computer-implemented method wherein determining the emergency service provider from among the plurality of emergency service providers comprises:
display, by the computing device, a single interface presenting individually selectable indications of the plurality of emergency service providers (Column 8 lines 41-64); and
detecting, by the computing device via the interface, a user selection of an indication of the emergency service provider form among the indications of the plurality of emergency service providers(Column 8 lines 41-64).
As to claim 43 Sanchez teaches a computer-implemented method wherein the indication of the emergency service provider comprises a representation of one or more of:
A response time,
A distance form a location of the vehicle(Column 7 lines 28-40),
An emergency service provider location, or
A cost.
Claims 23-24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barfield Jr( 2016/0094964) in view of Sanchez (US 9,652,748), Stenneth (US 2017/0046216), and Leise (US 9,904,928) as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Bourke (US 2020/0334928)
As to claim 23 Bourke teaches a computer-implemented method wherein determining the collision event characteristics comprises:
causing, by the computing device, an interface to be displayed on a mobile device prompting the operator of the vehicle for a selection of one or more vehicle parts to confirm the one or more vehicle parts are damaged (Paragraph 144, 152-153);
detecting by the computing device, a selection of a subset of the one or more vehicle parts on the interface by the operator of the vehicle(Paragraph 144, 152-153); and
determining, by the computing device, the one or more damaged vehicle parts as the subset of the one or more vehicle parts(Paragraph 144, 152-153);
As to claim 24 Bourke teaches a computer-implemented method further comprising:
transmitting, by the computing device, to the emergency service provider, data representing the one or more damaged vehicle parts (Paragraph 153-156)
As to claim 26 Bourke teaches a computer-implemented method wherein transmitting the data representing the one or more damaged vehicle parts comprises:
causing, by the computing device, an interface to be displayed on a mobile device prompting the operator of the vehicle for a selection of one or more vehicle parts determined to be damaged based on the sensor data(Paragraph 144, 152-153);
detecting, by the computing device, a selection of a subset of the one or more vehicle parts on the interface by the operator of the vehicle(Paragraph 144, 152-153);
determining, by the computing device, the one or more damaged vehicle parts as the subset of the one or more vehicle parts(Paragraph 144, 152-153) and
transmitting the data representing the one or more damaged vehicle parts to the emergency service provider(Paragraph 144, 152-156).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-24, 26-43 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
2/24/2026