DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed 05/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 9-15, 19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29 remain pending. Claims 3, 5-8, 16-18, 20, 23-24, 27, & 30 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 19 line 1 -14, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC §112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-15, 17-19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 16 line 3 to page 17 line 5, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Objections to the Drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 16 lines 5-6):
“While Applicant does not necessarily agree that the quality of the originally filed drawings are deficient in any way,”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Many of the drawings are low resolution. No amount of zooming in or inspection enables a full understanding of the material in the drawings.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 lines 6 - 15, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Objections to the Claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 17 lines 8-12):
“While Applicant does not necessarily agree with the objections, solely to expedite prosecution of the present application, Applicant will have amended the claims, where appropriate, to ensure consistency of the recited preamble and proper antecedent basis of that recited in the preamble thereby rendering moot the outstanding rejection.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Though the previous objections have been overcome, a new objection has been made necessary by the amendments. A physical element such as a “acceleration sensor” is not implemented in a software application at least because software applications are not physical embodiments while an “acceleration sensor” is. Rather, data from an acceleration sensor may be implemented in a software application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 lines 16 - 20, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Amendments to the Specification have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 17 line 17 -18):
“By present response, Applicant will have amended the specification, where appropriate, for consistency with entry of the replacement sheets of drawings.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Many of the replacement sheets are still low resolution and no amount of zoom or consideration enables a full understanding of the drawings.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 18 lines 1 - 21, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 18 line 6-10):
“While Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner’s assertions, as those having ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the limitations in question prior to present amendment, without agreeing to the propriety of the outstanding rejections, and solely to expedite allowance of the application, Applicant will have amended the claims, where appropriate, thereby obviating any remaining basis for the Examiner’s concerns.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The amendments overcome the rejection(s) regarding “material deviations”, “comparing the confidence level value to the threshold”, “calculating a confidence level value of a difference between the minimum value and the maximum value.”, “Lack of antecedent basis”, “indefinite language”. There are new 112(b) rejections due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 19 line 15 to page 21 line 15, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 20 line 7-9):
“In particular, and even assuming, arguendo, that the answer at Prong 1 of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis is YES, it is submitted that amended independent claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed towards a computer program which makes calculations and determinations using data from generic acceleration and position sensors. In particular, though the first line of claim 1 states “a mount security detection method”, there shortly follows “implemented in a software application operating on the in-vehicle information capture device or on a related device” (see 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;”). The claim(s) further recites calculations and determinations which are judicial exceptions of abstract idea groupings either ‘mathematical concepts’ or ‘mental processes’. Any structural recitations are no more than generic elements which are no more than that implied by the judicial exceptions. The claim(s) are not significantly more than software, judicial exceptions, and generic elements necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). Though no computing elements are explicitly recited, generic computing elements would be no more than a tool to implement the judicial exception(s) (see MPEP 2106.05(a): “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool.”)
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 20 line 27 to page 21 line 3, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 21 line 27 to page 22 line 3):
“It is submitted that the dependence on a physical component (e.g. the in vehicle capture device having the at least one acceleration sensor), which is not a part of the prior art, to implement the method should be considered sufficiently integrating the alleged abstract idea/mental process(i.e. the judicial exception) into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The recitation of “at least one acceleration sensor” is not significantly more than a generic acceleration sensor which is necessarily implied by an judicial exception which requires acceleration information. Additionally, the reference of Schmidt in the title states “Method Of Detecting Improper Mounting Of Acceleration Sensors On A Vehicle”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 21 line 16 to page 27 line 15, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 23 line 5-7 ):
“In this regard, Schmidt discloses a vehicle having an electronic crash detection system which utilizes a comparison of noise levels in acceleration signals to determine if a sensor is loose. ”
Examiner respectfully responds:
An accelerometer which is not securely mounted will have noise in the acceleration signal as a result of not being securely mounted. It is the measure of this acceleration in both the instant application and the reference of Schmidt which indicates that the acetometer is not securely mounted.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 21 line 16 to page 27 line 15, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 24 line 5-6):
“Furthermore, it is submitted that Schmidt is clearly directed to a system of components which form a part of an OEM vehicle telematics system provided for crash detection.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The disclosure of Schmidt is directed towards an acceleration sensor which detects if it is loose by analysis of the acceleration signals. That the instant application states that it is not the invention of prior art does not remove the teachings of the prior art without showing sufficiently distinctive limitations and elements which are not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Whether additional hardware is required or not does not change whether or not the prior art teaches the limitations (unless the ‘additional hardware’ is itself distinctive and not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Note: the reference of Barfield is explicitly includes the possibility of an aftermarket device (see column 2 lines 60-63: “Vehicle 210 may include telematics device 212, such as an aftermarket telematics device installed via an On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) port or a telematics device that is installed during manufacture of vehicle 210”
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 21 line 16 to page 27 line 15, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 25 line 13-16):
“Since Schmidt explicitly teaches that the invention utilizes “existing sensors and their generated signals so that no additional hardware is required.” (emphasis added), as discussed supra, it is submitted that those having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably consider modifying the Schmidt configuration to generally incorporate any of the Barfield telematics options as doing so would be incompatible with the teachings of Schmidt.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Schmidt that acceleration sensor data could be used to determine if the acceleration sensor is not securely mounted. This obvious observation would be applicable to any acceleration sensor mounted in a moving vehicle. Neither reference teaches that the acceleration data wouldn’t be applicable to other systems (i.e. does not “teach away from” see MPEP 2143(I)(B): “The Federal Circuit’s discussion in ICON also makes clear that if the reference does not teach that a combination is undesirable, then it cannot be said to teach away. An assessment of whether a combination would render the device inoperable must not "ignore the modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art."”).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 21 line 16 to page 27 line 15, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 25 line 18- 20):
“Furthermore, since Barfield only broadly discloses collecting acceleration data for the purposes of detecting a vehicle collision, and because Schmidt specifically, and more narrowly, discloses detecting noise from an acceleration signal”
Examiner respectfully responds:
It is not the case that each reference must teach all of the limitations of the instant application. A 35 USC 103 rejection is a rejection based on combination of prior art in view of that which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Figures 3A-4B, 7A-7C, 8A-8E, The drawings are not of sufficient quality. The resolution is too low for much of the detail to be determined.
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
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 in lines 1-3 recite the limitation "A mount security detection method for an in-vehicle information capture device independent of an OEM vehicle telematics system and having at least one acceleration sensor to gather acceleration data, and implemented in a software application". Neither a method nor a software application has a physical element (such as an “acceleration sensor”), but rather may interact with physical elements.
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, 9-15, 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 line 1-4 recites the limitation "A mount security detection method for an in-vehicle information capture device independent of an OEM vehicle telematics system and having at least one acceleration sensor to gather acceleration data, and implemented in a software application operating on the in-vehicle information capture device or on a related device". If the invention is “implemented in a software application” then the invention is a computer program/software which is not within one of the four patentable categories (four categories being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (see 101 section below & MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Claim 1 in line 2 recites the limitation "an in-vehicle information capture device independent of an OEM vehicle telematics system". Assuming OEM to be ‘Original Equipment Manufacturer’ this limitation apparently implies that the invention could be the same as that of an OEM manufacturer so long as that manufacturer could be determined to be an OEM. However, if the OEM system teaches the subject matter of the instant application then under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103, the invention of the instant application would not be patentable in view of the teachings of the OEM invention. This limitation is likely intended to imply that the invention is a device which can be removed from or attached to a vehicle.
Claim 1 in lines 3-4 recites the limitation "and implemented in a software application operating on the in-vehicle information capture device or on a related device,". It is not clear what a “related device” is. For example, this could mean that ‘the related device is a generic computer’ or it could mean that ‘there is some application specific device capable of calculations which performs this specific function’, or it could mean ‘there is a phone which can run the software’, or etc. This limitation makes the scope of the claim(s) unclear.
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, 9-15, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-15, 19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
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: calculating a minimum value and a maximum value of acceleration in one or more axes, in a time period from a sample of the acceleration data”
“and calculating a confidence level value of a difference between the minimum value and the maximum value at least at one point within the time period and comparing the confidence level value to a threshold confidence level value to determine whether the in-vehicle information capture device is loose or not”
“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 comparison.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106(I):
“Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it”
See 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.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
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 “calculating a minimum value …”, “calculating a confidence level …”, & “determining whether… ” under at least the broadest reasonable interpretation are mental processes or mathematical concepts performed in the human mind or by generic computing elements.
The “implemented in a software application” & “wherein the software application implements a tiered detection method” further indicate that the invention is directed towards computations and determinations done by generic computing elements.
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:
“in-vehicle information capture device”, “one acceleration sensor”, “a related device”
Note:
“independent of an OEM vehicle telematics system” indicates that this element is not part of the invention, rather than an element which could incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“A mount security detection method for an in-vehicle information capture device independent of an OEM vehicle telematics system and having at least one acceleration sensor to gather acceleration data, and implemented in a software application operating on the in-vehicle information capture device or on a related device”
Note: if the invention is “implemented in a software application” then the invention is a computer program/software which is not within one of the four patentable categories.
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)
“A mount security detection method … and implemented in a software application” 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.
Note:
See MPEP 2106.05(I):
“An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9-15, 19, 21-22, 25-26, & 28-29, These claims are further directed towards the nonstatutory subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, these claims are “not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Note:
All claims are ultimately dependent on claim 1.
However, the only additional elements in the claims other than those in claim 1 are:
Claim 15 lines 4-5: “location sensor”
Claim 29 lines 6: “location sensor”
However, this is a generic element which is necessary for data gathering the data which is necessary for the judicial exceptions. This element is not significantly more than the judicial exception(s). This generic element is not sufficient to incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A Prong Two.
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 for an in-vehicle information capture device independent of an OEM vehicle telematics system and 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.”)), and 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), …, and calculating a confidence level value of a difference between the minimum value and the maximum value at least at one point within the time period and comparing the confidence level value to a threshold confidence level value (Fig. 3 – 132 “Is signal ˃ Threshold Value or Signal ˂ Threshold Value”, system is determining if datum is indicative of a loose sensor) 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.”), 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 comparison (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)).
Schmidt does not as explicitly teach the method comprising comparing: calculating a minimum value and a maximum value of acceleration in one or more axes, in a time period from a sample of the acceleration data
Barfield teaches the method comprising: calculating a minimum value and a maximum value of acceleration in one or more axes, in a time period from a sample of the acceleration data (column 10 lines 3-4: “index of the maximum value of the acceleration magnitude vector”, column 10 lines 9-10: “Let i.sub.premin be the index of the pre-maximum minimum (i.e., the index of the point “Pre Min” in FIG. 8):” & column 10 lines 17-19: “Let i.sub.premax be the index of the pre-maximum maximum (i.e., the index of the point “Pre Max” in (54) FIG. 8):”)
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 detection 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 mount security detection 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 9, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security detection method as claimed in claim 1.
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 detection 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 detection 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 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), detecting acceleration on the surface of the Earth requires detecting differences on at least 1 axis from 1g).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security detection 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 detection 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 detection 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 detection 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 19, Schmidt in view of Barfield teaches the mount security detection method as claimed in claim 1
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 detection method as claimed in claim 21
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 mount security detection 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 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 mount security detection 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 mount security detection 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 mount security detection 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. § 101 .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200386782 A1 "Apparatus and Method for Calibrating Inertial Measuring Unit" (Lee) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & 4.
US 11017476 B1 “Telematics System And Method For Accident Detection And Notification” (Gainer) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2
US 20150246654 A1 “Telematics System with 3D Intertial Sensors” (Tadic) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 3
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 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
Prosecution Insights