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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 June 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Figures 2-4, 7-8 The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9-15, 17-19, & 21-22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 9-15, 17-19, 21-22 in lines 1-2 (for each of these claims) recite the limitation "The mount security method as claimed in claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “the mount security detection method as claimed in claim 1”.
Regarding typographical, grammatical, or spelling:
Claim 18 line 4 states "the maximum value at at least one point"; there should be just one "at".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-15, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 1 in lines 3-4 recites the limitation "comparing a sample of the acceleration data for one or more material deviations from a threshold". It is not clear what a “material deviation” is. For example, this could mean that ‘the acceleration data is some number of standard deviations away from a previously determined average’ or it could mean that ‘one or more characteristics of some “material” deviates from specified amounts by some threshold values’. It is also not clear what “material” is referring to; what “material” is deviating.
Claim 18 in lines 3-5 recites the limitation "calculating a confidence level value of a difference between the minimum value and the maximum value at at least one point within the time period and comparing the confidence level value to the threshold". However, a parent claim of claim 18, Claim 1 in lines 3-5 recites the limitation "comparing a sample of the acceleration data". Therefore, claim 18 makes it unclear as to whether “the threshold” is a confidence level (unitless) or an acceleration value (units of meters/second2).
Claim 18 in lines 2-4 recites the limitation "calculating a minimum value, maximum value and/or a mean value of acceleration" and then "calculating a confidence level value of a difference between the minimum value and the maximum value". The first limitation recites “minimum value” & “maximum value” as optional values but the second limitation requires the “minimum value” & the “maximum value”. An embodiment which doesn’t have element ‘A’ can’t then require element ‘A’. For the purposes of examination, claim 18 is interpreted as ‘comparing acceleration data against typical value ranges to determine whether there is an indication of a loose acceleration sensor’.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claims 4, 8, 25-26, & 28-29 in lines 1-2 (for each of these claims) recite the limitation "The method as claimed in claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “the mount security detection method as claimed in claim 1”. There are multiple limitations within claim 1 which could be referred to as “the method”.
Claim 22 in lines 1-2 recites the limitation "wherein ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear to what “the frequency range” refers to.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding ‘Indefinite Language’:
Regarding claim 11 in lines 1-3, the phrase "wherein when a value relating to the acceleration data in at least one axis deviates from approximately 1g over time" renders the claim indefinite because “approximately” is broad enough such that there are teachings from related art which would potentially be within the scope of the claim depending on what “approximately” is. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III) .
Regarding claim 25 in lines 1-3, the phrase "based on a comparison of changes in acceleration data in at least one axis, over a time period of approximately 1 to 2 seconds." renders the claim indefinite because “approximately” is broad enough such that there are teachings from related art which would potentially be within the scope of the claim depending on what “approximately” is. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III) .
Regarding rejections for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected:
Claims 2, 4, 8-15, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29 are rejected for inheriting the limitations of parent claim 1 without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-15, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29 are 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 1 in lines 3-4 recites the limitation "comparing a sample of the acceleration data for one or more material deviations from a threshold". It is not clear what a “material deviation” is. Page 2 lines 8-10 states “comparing a sample of the acceleration data for one or more material deviations from a threshold to determine whether the in-vehicle information capture device is loose or not.”. There are further references to “material deviations” in page 8 lines 15-18. The specification does not clarify what a “material deviation” is. It could be ‘a standard deviation in the acceleration data from a mean value’ or ‘one or more characteristics of some “material” deviates from specified amounts by some threshold values’.
Claims 2, 4, 8-15, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29 are rejected for inheriting the limitations of parent claim 1 without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“the method comprising comparing a sample of the acceleration data for one or more material deviations from a threshold to determine whether the in-vehicle information capture device is loose or not.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
Analysis:
The claimed “comparing … data … to determine” under at least the broadest reasonable interpretation are concepts performed in the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional element(s) of:
“A mount security detection method for an in-vehicle information capture device having at least one acceleration sensor to gather acceleration data,”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
1)
In order to perform the judicial exception of “comparing a sample of the acceleration data” it is necessary to have collected “acceleration data”. The claims are no more specific than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception. Since there are no elements/limitations which are not either the judicial exception or are necessarily implied by the judicial exception, the claim is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
2)
Claim 8 discloses that all the elements/limitations of claim 1 can be implemented in a “software application”. This indicates that claim 1 is code or programming which is not within one of the four statutory categories.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no additional elements beyond those which were addressed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two. The Revised Step 2A Prong Two analysis did not rely on the ‘well-understood, routine, conventional consideration’, and therefore no prior art is considered to establish the conventional nature of any elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception as inherited from claim 1
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the threshold is determined based on acceleration data from a second in-vehicle device”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
Analysis:
The claimed “determined based on acceleration data” under at least the broadest reasonable interpretation are concepts performed in the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional element(s) of:
“having at least one acceleration sensor to gather second acceleration data.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
In order to perform the judicial exception of “comparing a sample of the acceleration data” it is necessary to “gather second acceleration data”. The claims are no more specific than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception. Since there are no elements/limitations which are not either the judicial exception or are necessarily implied by the judicial exception, the claim is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no additional elements beyond those which were addressed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two. The Revised Step 2A Prong Two analysis did not rely on the ‘well-understood, routine, conventional consideration’, and therefore no prior art is considered to establish the conventional nature of any elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception as inherited from claim 1
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“further comprising comparing an orientation of the in-vehicle information capture device using the acceleration data from at least one acceleration sensor at one time with an orientation of the in-vehicle information capture device at another time.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
Analysis:
The claimed “determined based on acceleration data” under at least the broadest reasonable interpretation are concepts performed in the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional element(s) of:
“having at least one acceleration sensor to gather second acceleration data.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
In order to perform the judicial exception of “comparing a sample of the acceleration data” it is necessary to “gather second acceleration data”. The claims are no more specific than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception. Since there are no elements/limitations which are not either the judicial exception or are necessarily implied by the judicial exception, the claim is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no additional elements beyond those which were addressed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two. The Revised Step 2A Prong Two analysis did not rely on the ‘well-understood, routine, conventional consideration’, and therefore no prior art is considered to establish the conventional nature of any elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim is directed towards “method … implemented in a software application” which is code or programming and therefore not one of the four statutory categories.
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.03(I) : “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: … Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;”
Analysis:
The claim is directed towards ‘a method implemented in a software application’. Software is code or programming and therefore not within one of the four statutory categories.
Conclusion:
The claim is not patentable subject matter.
Note:
If the claim were directed towards either “in-vehicle information capture device” or “a related device” then the claim would be determined to be directed towards one of the four statutory categories (machine). However, in the continued analysis these elements would then be determined to not be significantly more than indicating a computer environment (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “Performing a mental process in a computer environment.”). The claim would then be determined to be not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Regarding claims 9-15, 17-19, & 21-22, These claims are further directed towards the nonstatutory subject matter of claim 8. Therefore, these claims are “not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 25:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception as inherited from claim 1
Claim 25 additionally recites:
“based on a comparison of changes in acceleration data in at least one axis, over a time period of approximately 1 to 2 seconds.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
Analysis:
The claimed “based on a comparison of changes in acceleration data” under at least the broadest reasonable interpretation are concepts performed in the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 26:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception as inherited from claim 1
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 26 additionally recites:
“wherein the acceleration data is captured at a frequency of approximately 100 Hz.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”
Analysis:
The limitation is directed towards the collection of data and does not recite any elements which are more specific than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those recited in Revised Step 2A – Prong Two.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 28:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception as inherited from claim 1
Claim 28 additionally recites:
“wherein the threshold changes dynamically over time.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
Analysis:
The claimed “threshold changes dynamically” at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed by the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 29:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception as inherited from claim 1
Claim 29 additionally recites:
“and wherein the method further comprises calculating a correlation co-efficient between a portion of the acceleration information from the at least one acceleration sensor and course change rate information from the at least one location sensor.”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
Limitations directed towards ‘Calculating coefficients from information’ are within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 29 additionally recites:
“wherein the in-vehicle information capture device further comprises at least one location sensor to gather location information”
Explanation:
Rule:
MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “Performing a mental process in a computer environment.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the limitations are no more than mental processes done in a computing environment with data gathering which is no more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion
Therefore, the additional elements/limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no additional elements beyond those which were addressed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two. The Revised Step 2A Prong Two analysis did not rely on the ‘well-understood, routine, conventional consideration’, and therefore no prior art is considered to establish the conventional nature of any elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-15, 17-19, 22, 25-26, & 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6670888 B2 (Schmidt) in view of US 9392431 B2 (Barfield).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a mount security detection method (Abstract: “A method of detecting the improper mounting of a sensor on a motor vehicle includes monitoring the output signals of the sensor”) [for an in-vehicle information capture device] having at least one acceleration sensor to gather acceleration data (Fig. 1 – 18 “central control module”, column 3 lines 46-49: “The central control module 18 includes one or more sensors in the form of accelerometers (not shown) that measure the deceleration within the passenger compartment 16.”), the method comprising comparing a sample of the acceleration data for one or more material deviations from a threshold to determine whether the in-vehicle information capture device is loose or not (column 2 lines 11-16: “A loose sensor will generate a higher level of noise than a properly mounted sensor. By monitoring the noise levels of different acceleration sensors and comparing those monitored levels with a predetermined noise threshold or with the noise levels of one or more counterpart sensors, a loose sensor can be detected.”).
Schmidt does not as explicitly teach for an in-vehicle information capture device.
Barfield teaches for an in-vehicle information capture device (Fig. 2 – 222 “vehicle crash and user data”, system collects vehicle information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Schmidt with the teachings of Barfield. One would have added to the “Method Of Detecting Improper Mounting Of Acceleration Sensors On A Vehicle” of Schmidt the “Automatic Vehicle Crash Detection Using Onboard Devices” of Barfield. The motivation would have been that it is important for a vehicle crash detection system (such as that of Barfield) to collect accurate data and loose sensors would prevent the collection of such accurate data (see Barfield column 1 lines 24-26)
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 1
Schmidt further teaches wherein the threshold is determined based on acceleration data from a second in-vehicle device having at least one acceleration sensor to gather second acceleration data (column 2 lines 41-43: “The present invention also provides another method for detecting the improper mounting of a sensor on a motor vehicle having a first sensor and a second sensor.”, where “sensors” are acceleration sensors as indicated by the title of the patent).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the method as claimed in claim 1
Schmidt further teaches further comprising comparing an orientation (column 4 lines 60-67: “the measured acceleration signals of each sensor are compared with threshold values that are predetermined based on vehicle characteristics. During each cycle of the algorithm, if the threshold value for a given sensor is exceeded in either the positive or negative direction, a counter is incremented for that sensor. If a predetermined counter threshold is exceeded, the sensor is determined to be improperly mounted.”, orientation/(“direction”)) of the in-vehicle information capture device using the acceleration data from at least one acceleration sensor at one time with an orientation of the in-vehicle information capture device at another time (Column 2 lines 37-40: “the sensors will increment a counter each time the threshold value is exceeded and will issue a warning when the counter is incremented a predetermined number of times.”, system can use acceleration data from different times to determine changes in orientation/(i.e. “loose”)).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the method as claimed in claim 1
Schmidt further teaches implemented in a software application operating on the in-vehicle information capture device or on a related device (Fig. 3, column 5 lines 13-14: “FIG. 3 outlines an algorithm 124 that can be used to practice the method according to the present invention.”, to implement the algorithm there is necessarily software).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 8
Schmidt further teaches wherein the software application implements a tiered detection method, determining whether the in- vehicle information capture device is completely loose (Fig. 3 – 136 and 160 and Fig. 3 – 148, if the system increments the noise counter then it is determining that the sensor is loose and if it issues a warning then it is determining that the sensor is completely loose).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 9
Barfield further teaches wherein the software application analyses acceleration data to calculate an orientation of the in- vehicle information capture device relative to gravity (Fig. 7 “acceleration (g’s)”, Fig. 10 – 1010 “Sample three-axis acceleration data”, Fig. 8 shows that sensors are detecting components of acceleration relative to gravity and Fig. 10 shows that there are three axis for determining orientation).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 10
Schmidt further teaches wherein when a value relating to the acceleration data in at least one axis deviates from approximately 1g over time, then the in-vehicle information capture device is classified as completely loose (Fig. 3 – 144 & Fig. 3 – 136 or 140 “noise counter”, system collects acceleration data over time and after some time/(increments of the counter) the system determines that the sensor is completely loose/(issue warning)).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 10
Barfield further teaches including calculating an orientation of the in-vehicle information capture device relative to at least one axis of motion known at a previous time (Fig. 4 – 430 “Perform standardization and/or normalization of the collected data” & Fig. 10 – 1010 “Sample three-axis acceleration data”, the system is determining orientations/(“three-axis acceleration data”) and comparing to previous times/(“standardization and/or normalization”)).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 12
Schmidt further teaches wherein the orientation of the in-vehicle information capture device is calculated relative to the at least one axis of motion at an end of a first journey and saved for comparison purposes with the orientation of the in-vehicle information capture device calculated relative to the at least one axis of motion at a start of a second journey (Fig. 3 – 128 “Record output signal from left side crash sensor”, saved for comparison/(“record output”).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 13
Barfield further teaches when a difference in the at least one axis of motion is greater than a predetermined angle between the end of the first journey and the start of the second journey (Fig. 7 “acceleration (g’s)”” & Fig. 10 – 1010 “Sample three-axis acceleration data”, system is keeping track of orientations and angles of the sensor elements),
Schmidt further teaches then the in-vehicle information capture device is classified as completely loose (Fig. 3 – 148 “issue warning”, when the recorded values exceed a threshold for enough time then the system classifies the sensor as completely loose).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 10
Barfield further teaches including calculating a correlation coefficient between acceleration data in at least one axis from the at least one acceleration sensor, and acceleration data derived from course change rate information and speed information available from at least one location sensor (column 5 lines 7-10: “GPS component 330 may include circuitry or other logic to receive and process GPS signals. GPS component 330 may obtain, or assist in obtaining, a geographic location of telematics device 212.”, system uses a location sensor/(GPS) to correlate/(“assist in obtaining”) acceleration data with data from the acceleration sensors).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 8
Schmidt further teaches wherein the software application implements a tiered detection method, the software application determining whether the mounting of the in-vehicle information capture device is fixed but loose based on the threshold (Fig. 3 – 136 and 160 and Fig. 3 – 148, if the system increments the noise counter then it is determining that the sensor is loose and if it issues a warning then it is determining that the sensor is completely loose, if the noise counter is less than a threshold then the system determines that the device is loose but still fixed).
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 17
Barfield further teaches including calculating a minimum value, maximum value and/or a mean value of acceleration in one or more axes, in a time period (column 8 lines 32-35: “Examples of computed values include: an average of a number of measured sensor values (e.g., the average of the last 50 acceleration magnitude measurements), a sum of a number of measured values,”, calculating/(“computing”) a mean value/(“average”)),
Schmidt further teaches calculating a confidence level value of a difference between the minimum value and the maximum value at at least one point within the time period and comparing the confidence level value to the threshold (Fig. 3 – 132 “Is signal ˃ Threshold Value or Signal ˂ Threshold Value”, system is determining if datum is indicative of a loose sensor).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 17
Schmidt further teaches including calculating a difference between at least one acceleration point value measured and a smoothed or filtered value calculated in at least one axis of acceleration (column 8 lines 27-30: “Reliability could also be increased by adding one or more filtering steps between blocks 128 and 132 for the left side readings and between blocks 152 and 156 for the right side readings in FIG. 3.”),
Barfield further teaches calculating a mean of the absolute value of the difference, selecting a maximum value of the mean from each of the at least one axis and comparing the maximum value to the threshold (column 8 lines 32-35: “Examples of computed values include: an average of a number of measured sensor values (e.g., the average of the last 50 acceleration magnitude measurements), a sum of a number of measured values,”, calculating/(“computing”) a mean value/(“average”)).
Regarding claim 22, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security method as claimed in claim 19
Barfield further teaches wherein the frequency range is between 30 and 50 Hz (column 7 lines 65-67: “For example, it may be desirable to ensure that all acceleration data is sampled at the same sampling rate (e.g., 50 Hz).”).
Regarding claim 25, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the method as claimed in claim 1
Barfield further teaches based on a comparison of changes in acceleration data in at least one axis, over a time period of approximately 1 to 2 seconds (column 13 lines 29-33: “In one implementation, the sampled acceleration values or the calculated magnitude values may be stored in a buffer, such as a first-in-first-out (FIFO) buffer of a predetermined size, such as a size required to store K seconds (e.g., K may be set to two) of acceleration data.”).
Regarding claim 26, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the method as claimed in claim 1
Schmidt further teaches wherein the acceleration data is captured at a frequency of approximately 100 Hz (column 8 lines 58-62: “In another embodiment, the signals can be filtered using an adjustable high-pass filter with the cutoff frequency adjusted to the specific vehicle. The typical cutoff frequency is in the range of 100 Hz to 300 Hz, with the preferred setting being approximately 200 Hz.”).
Regarding claim 28, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the method as claimed in claim 1
Barfield further teaches wherein the threshold changes dynamically over time (column 5 lines 33-38: “Collision detection model 355 may implement a classification model (or other algorithm) that is used to determine when vehicle 210 is involved in a collision. The model may be dynamically downloaded or updated, from model generation server 220, at various times, such as when an updated model is available at model generation server 220.”, the models would include thresholds on acceleration data so an update to models implies updates to thresholds).
Regarding claim 29, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the method as claimed in claim 1
Barfield further teaches wherein the in-vehicle information capture device further comprises at least one location sensor to gather location information and wherein the method further comprises calculating a correlation co-efficient between a portion of the acceleration information from the at least one acceleration sensor and course change rate information from the at least one location sensor (column 5 lines 7-10: “GPS component 330 may include circuitry or other logic to receive and process GPS signals. GPS component 330 may obtain, or assist in obtaining, a geographic location of telematics device 212.”, system uses a location sensor/(GPS) to correlate/(“assist in obtaining”) acceleration data with data from the acceleration sensors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 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, and further amended in order to overcome rejections relating to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), & 35 U.S.C. § 101 .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10440451 B2 "System And Method For Obtaining Vehicle Telematics Data" (Balakrishnan) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 6 "Run Auto Alignment Algorithm".
US 20200386782 A1 "Apparatus and Method for Calibrating Inertial Measuring Unit" (Lee) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858