DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 04/23/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 04/23/2026.
3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system comprising instructions, when executed, cause the system and/or computer readable medium comprising instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform a method comprising:
receiving, by … one or more communication[s] … , a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one [source] associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the [means] used to obtain the data;
performing … a[n] inspection of the data packets to extract content of the plurality of data and to determine an origin of the plurality of data;
generating, … based on the plurality of the data, a rendering of the event;
determining, … based on feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, additional data is needed in addition to the plurality of data to augment the rendering of the event, the additional data providing a viewpoint … of the event, … disposed in the vehicle during the event;
receiving, … via the one or more communication[s] ..., the additional data …;
converting, …, each data of the plurality of data into a predetermined format;
generating, …, combined data by combining the converted plurality of data; and
generating, …, an updated rendering of the event using the combined data and the additional data, the updated rendering including … depicting the event and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent the event.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to generate a rendering of an accident which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Examiner notes that “processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a rendering system (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a shallow packet or deep packet inspection (see Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), hardware or software platform (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a communications network (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a sensor (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a mobile device (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15) and an animation (Claim(s) 8 and 15).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14 and 17-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data, wherein the rendering system performs at least one of a shallow packet inspection or a deep packet inspection of data packets received via the one or more communication networks to extract content of the plurality of data and to determine an origin of the plurality of data.
Shallow packet inspection does not open a data packet. Shallow packet inspection looks only at the outer header metadata of the data packet, such as source/destination IP addresses and ports. Shallow packet inspection would allow determination of the origin of the plurality of data.
If the rendering system performs a shallow data inspection, the shallow packet inspection would not extract the content of the data packet.
Deep packet inspection opens a data packet to analyze the inner payload data. A deep packet inspection would extract the content of the data packet and allow for determination of the origin of the plurality of data.
Claims 8 and 15, due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim rejection.
5. 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.
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, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binion (US Patent 8,954,226) in view of Creath (US Patent 9,691,189) and Dong (2012/0099597).
Regarding Claim 1, Binion discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system (model generation unit) via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources (sensors), the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality data having a different format (analog or digital formats) dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data. (see col. 5, lines 43-55);
generating, by the rendering system (model generation unit) and based on the plurality of data, a rendering (visual recreation) of the event (see col. 11, lines 12-21);
determining, by the rendering system (model generation unit), additional information (operational data and/or external source data) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate an (accurate) rendering of the event. (see col. 11, lines 22-50; col. 22, line 59 – col. 23, line 22);
the additional data providing a viewpoint from a mobile device of the event, the mobile device being disposed in the vehicle during the event. (see col. 3, lines 39 – col. 4, line 2);
receiving, by the rendering system (model generation unit) via the one or more communication networks, the additional data from the mobile device. (see col. 11, lines 22-50; col. 22, line 59 – col. 23, line 22);
converting, by the rendering system (model generation unit), each data in the plurality of data into a predetermined format (digital format). (see col. 5, lines 43-55);
generating, by the rendering system, combined (paired) data by combining (pairing) the converted plurality of data (or by storing all data in one location) (see col. 5, lines 43-55; col. 19, line 62 and col. 20, line 16)
generating, by the rendering system (model generation unit), a rendering of the event, using the combined data and the additional data, the rendering including an animation depicting the event. (see col. 11, line 12 – col. 12, line 46);
and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event (before impact) or subsequent to the event (after impact). (see col. 15, lines 4-39).
Binion does not explicitly teach a method wherein the determination that additional information is needed is based on feedback indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, although Binion does disclose a method wherein the rendering system (model generation unit) determines additional information is needed to validate accuracy of the rendering of the event (to confirm accuracy of the animated recreation). (see col. 11, lines 22-50).
Binion does not explicitly teach a method wherein the second generated rendering is an updated rendering.
Creath discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system (accident reconstruction system) via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event (accident data) from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality data (audio files and video files) having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform (audio files are an audio format and video files are a video format) used to obtain the data. (see col. 5, lines 30 – 53; col. 14, lines 52-64; col. 17, lines 41-53);
generating, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system) and based on the plurality of data (accident data), a rendering of the event (visual reconstruction of the accident). (see fig. 2; abstract; col. 5, line 21 – col. 6, line 44);
determining, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system) and based on feedback indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event (verification of diagram or user input to more accurately reflect the scene of the accident), additional data (adjustments) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event. (see col. 3, lines 50-60; col. 4, line 61 – col. 11, line 3);
determining, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system), additional data (supplemental data or augmentation data) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event (visual perspective created), the additional data providing a viewpoint (perspective) from a mobile device of the event. (see col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 5, lines 39-50; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 3);
receiving, by the rendering system via the one or more communication networks, the additional data (supplemental data or augmentation data) from the mobile device (mobile or handheld device) (see col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 5, lines 39-50; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 3);
generating, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system), an updated rendering of the event (updated vehicle image) using the combined data and the additional data, the updated rendering of the event including an animation (animated visual perspective) depicting the event (accident). (see abstract; col. 2, lines 4-14; col. 7, lines 17-25; col. 9, lines 12-26),
and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent to the event (animated movement of a vehicle symbol from a starting position to an ending position is a sequence of events). (see col. 7, lines 34-47; col. 8, lines 21-29).
Binion does not teach a method wherein the system performs at least one of a shallow packet inspection or a deep packet inspection of data packets received via the one or more communication networks to extract content of the plurality of data and to determine an origin of the plurality of data.
Dong discloses a method wherein the system performs at least one of a shallow packet inspection or a deep packet inspection of data packets received via the one or more communication networks to extract content (payload) of the plurality of data and to determine an origin (source internet protocol address) of the plurality of data. (see para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Binion by incorporating the usage of feedback indicating validation of accuracy of the rendering, as disclosed by Creath, thereby ensuring accuracy of the rendering of the event.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Binion and Creath by incorporating the usage deep packet inspection, as disclosed by Dong, as deep packet inspection is a key technology in network security. (see Dong, para. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Binion discloses a method wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a speed sensor, a fuel sensor, a torque sensor, a camera, a brake sensor, a weather sensor, and a tire pressure sensor. (see col. 2, lines 16-32).
Regarding Claim 4, Binion discloses a method wherein the plurality of data describing the event includes one or more of video data (digital video), audio data, text data, location data, and photographic data (still images). (see col. 3, line 39-col. 4, line 14).
Regarding Claim 5, Binion discloses a method wherein the additional data includes one or more of video data and audio data collected by the mobile device (an external sensor, a smartphone being an external sensor). (see col. 3, line 53 – col. 4, line 2; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 18).
Regarding Claim 7, Binion discloses a method wherein the event is a vehicular accident. (see col. 1, lines 7-11).
Regarding Claims 8, 10-12, 14-16 and 17-20, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims. Such claim limitations are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale as previously utilized.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current §103 rejection. Some argument(s) were not persuasive and the previously asserted §101 rejection is maintained in the current rejection. Such arguments are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a commercial or legal interaction and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 7-8.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
First, the claims are not directed to a commercial or legal interaction. The Examiner categorizes the claims as a commercial or legal interaction citing Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software (processing insurance claims for a covered loss under an insurance policy). However, the independent claims contain no reference to insurance, claims processing, liability or any commercial or legal transaction. The independent claims, in their broadest sense, are directed to a technical method of receiving heterogenous sensor data, processing and converting it, and generating an animated rendering. Any insurance application of this technology is a field of use context that does not determine the nature of the claims themselves. Thus, the Examiner should not import a commercial context from the specification's background discussion to categorize technically oriented independent claims as a commercial or legal interaction. See Arguments, pp. 8-9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention recites a method comprising receiving data associated with a vehicle involved in an event and generating a rendering of the event based upon the event. The method is performing accident reconstruction.
Accident reconstruction is a concept related to commercial and legal interactions, either a commercial interaction (e.g., to evaluate liability under an insurance policy) or a legal interaction (e.g., to evaluate liability in a legal dispute).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, p. 8.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
As stated above in the Revised Guidance, "On the other hand, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitations that cannot practically be performed in the mind." The Examiner acknowledges in the current Office Action page 9, that "Claims that recite limitations "that cannot practically be performed in the human mind" are not mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is "detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets...These examples require a computer." Similarly, Applicant's method extracts content, e.g. data, from data packets for inspection and analyzes the network packets received via a communications network. Thus, Applicant's claims necessarily also require a computer. See Arguments, p. 8 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner asserts that a human being can inspect incoming data to extract the content of the plurality of data and to determine an origin of the plurality of data. For example, when a human being receives a paper letter, a human being extracts (i.e., reads) the content of the letter and determines the origin of the letter (e.g., the letter is from Aunt Janet).
Examiner notes that the shallow packet inspection and the deep packet inspection do not impact the processing of the data. As written, the data is processed the same regardless of the extracted content or the determined origin.
Additionally, even if the shallow packet inspection or deep packet inspection was analogous to a process “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) that does not negate the fact that the remainder of the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 9-10.
Previously the Examiner asserted that the specification does not provide any evidence that there is a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. And that the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes.
Applicant cites, as evidence, specification, para. 25, which recites:
The current subject matter can provide several advantages including use of sensor data captured at the time of an accident to determine contextual information relating to the cause and/or result of the accident, enabling a user or insurance provider agent (e.g., the claims adjuster) to view an animation of the vehicle accident to add context before and after the accident, facilitating processing of an insurance claim by the insurance provider and/or third parties associated with the accident and/or promoting cost conservation by enabling the insurance provider to cut down on investigation costs. See Arguments, p. 9 – emphasis added.
The Examiner is not disputing the advantages (i.e., the benefits) to be derived from the claimed invention.
The Examiner is asserting that the specification does not provide any evidence that there was a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. The specification does not provide any evidence that there was a technology-based problem that prevented existing and conventional technology from performing the claimed process.
For example, if the technology-based problem was “heterogeneous data integration,” (See Arguments, p. 9) then the specification should “provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing” a solution for the technology-based problem of “heterogeneous data integration.” See MPEP §2106.05(a). The specification provides no evidence that existing and conventional technology are incapable of “heterogeneous data integration.”
Applicant further argues that the specification “describes the technical mechanism enabling the improvement.” See Arguments, p. 10.
However, MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 – emphasis added.
If there was a technology-based problem (i.e., existing technology was incapable of integrating heterogeneous data) then the claims should recite the details of the technology-based solution. However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions are being performed (i.e., heterogeneous data is integrated).
Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is analogous, the court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., visual reconstruction of events using data) that use computers as tools.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and, as such, satisfies Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 10-11.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Applicant asserts that the claim feature "wherein the rending system performs at least one of a shallow packet inspection or a deep packet inspection of data packets received via the one or more communication networks to extract content of the plurality of data and to determine an origin of the plurality of data" is not generic computing. Packet inspection is a specific and technically sophisticated network technique and is not equivalent to "applying it on a computer." See Arguments, p. 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Packet inspection is a generic computing process dating back to the 1990’s. See Syme, p. 76.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
§103 Rejection
Applicant argues that the previously asserted prior art (Creath and Binion) fail to teach or suggest “determining, by the rendering system and based on feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, additional data is needed in addition to the plurality of data to augment the rendering of the event, the additional data providing a viewpoint from a mobile device of the event, the mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event.” See Arguments, p. 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Binion recites:
In one example embodiment, the virtual model generated by model generation unit 82 is an animated re-creation of the event. For example, the model generation unit 82 may process the external sensor data to render a three-dimensional temporal model of the environment of vehicle 12, which may depict the conditions, over time, of an accident that involved or occurred near vehicle 12 (e.g., configuration of a street on which vehicle 12 is driving, other vehicles in the vicinity of vehicle 12, traffic signs or lights near vehicle 12, weather conditions around vehicle 12, etc.). In some embodiments, operational data from one or more of subsystems 40, 42, 44 and/or 46, and/or information obtained by vehicle 12 from external sources, is/are also processed by model generation unit 82. For example, the operational data (e.g., braking data from braking subsystem 40, velocity data from speed subsystem 42, etc.) and/or external source information (e.g., V2X information indicating locations of pedestrians, cyclists and/or vehicles, state of a traffic light, etc.) may be used in order to improve or confirm the accuracy of the animated re-creation. Accuracy may be improved, for example, by using the operational data and/or external source information to fill in gaps or provide greater confidence in the data provided by external sensors 30, 32. In one such embodiment and scenario, information that vehicle 12 had obtained from external sources (e.g., using V2X technology) is utilized to generate portions of the animated re-creation that cannot be determined by data from external sensors 30, 32 (e.g., due to the corresponding geographic areas being out of the range or line of sight of external sensors 30, 32). See col. 11, lines 22-50 – emphasis added.
The method 200 receives sensor data representing information collected by a sensor located on or inside a vehicle and configured to sense an environment external to the vehicle (block 202). The sensor may be a camera device, lidar device, radar device, or sonar device, for example. The sensor may be permanently or removably affixed to an exterior or interior (e.g., passenger cabin) portion of the vehicle, or simply placed on or in a portion of the vehicle (e.g., on a dashboard). In some embodiments, the sensor is included in a general purpose computing device, such as a smartphone having sensor hardware and running a sensor application. In other embodiments, the sensor includes only dedicated hardware and/or software. The sensor data may be data that was directly generated by the sensor, or data that was converted from other information (e.g., other data or analog signals) generated by the sensor, for example. See col. 16, lines 49-64 – emphasis added.
The method 240 retrieves the first plurality of data points, the second plurality of data points, and the synchronization data from memory, and uses that data to generate an animated re-creation of an event involving at least one vehicle (block 252). The event may be an accident, for example, and may involve the vehicle on or in which the sensor is located, and/or one or more other vehicles. Whereas the method 220 of FIG. 5 relates to an embodiment where sensor data and operational data are used to generate visually distinct representations (e.g., captured frames or an animated re-creation as generated from the sensor data, versus an indicator of an operational parameter as generated from the operational data), the method 240 jointly uses the first plurality of data points, the second plurality of data points, and the synchronization data to generate an animated re-creation. In one embodiment, for example, data representing an operational parameter such as vehicle speed or steering is used to fill gaps in the information provided by the sensor data. In one scenario where an external sensor experiences an outage (e.g., is temporarily blocked or disabled), for example, speed, braking and/or steering data may be used to estimate where the vehicle is in relation to other vehicles or objects during the outage. In another embodiment, data representing an operational parameter is instead (or additionally) used to confirm features of the animated re-creation that are initially determined based on the sensor data. In one scenario where an external sensor provides sensor data that indicates a particular closing speed between the vehicle and another vehicle with less than 100% certainty, for example, speed data may be used to confirm the initial estimate of the closing speed, or to refine the initial estimate of the closing speed. See col. 22, line 59 – col. 23, line 22.
Binion discloses a method comprising determining additional data (i.e., external source information) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to augment (i.e., to improve accuracy or fill in gaps of) the rendering of the event. See col. 11, lines 22-50.
Binion discloses a method comprising determining, by the rendering system and based on feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event (i.e., less than 100% certainty), additional data (i.e., speed data) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to augment (i.e., to confirm) the rendering of the event. See col. 22, line 59 – col. 23, line 22.
Binion discloses the additional data providing a viewpoint from a mobile device (i.e., smartphone) disposed in the vehicle (i.e., interior portion of the vehicle) during the event. col. 16, lines 49-64.
Applicant further argues:
Creath discloses "... The accident reconstruction application 110 transmits input data into an editable environment where a user may add a plurality of representative symbols to more accurately reflect the scene of an accident. Once a user has added sufficient detail to the accident scene, a visual perspective of the accident scene may be rendered..." (emphasis added), see Creath at col. 3, lines 50-60. Thus, Creath's "feedback indicating validation of accuracy" is a human generated collaborative review of a manually created accident diagram, not an automated system determination, e.g., determined by the rendering system, as specified in Applicant's claim 1. Thus, in contrast to Binion, Applicant's claim 1 includes a computer, e.g., the rendering system, determining that the rendering requires additional data. See Arguments, p. 13 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim, as written, recites that the determination is made by the rendering system based on feedback. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the feedback is human-generated feedback.
7. 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 August 21, 2026
