DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 23-25 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 8/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in light of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Specifically, the Applicant's amendment to claim 1 has been considered, adding the steps of collecting first data in a first data set over a time period, t, from at least one accelerometer, collecting second data in a second data set over the time period, t, from at least one position receiver. However, these amendments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim remains directed to the abstract idea of calculating a cross-correlation between acceleration magnitudes to identify and apply a synchronisation time offset to the data set.
Regarding the amendment to use “the at least one accelerometer” and “the at least one position receiver”: This merely recites a generic computer component to perform a generic computer function. The specification provides no indication that the accelerometer or position receiver is a technical improvement to the computer itself, or that it is anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Merely performing an abstract step on a generic computer does not automatically transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
When considering the claim as a whole, including the added elements, the additional steps, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than a patent upon the abstract idea itself. The claim continues to pre-empt the underlying abstract concept and fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception
4. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 8/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 8/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pal (US20170053461).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES) The examiner has identified claim 1, which substantially includes all the limitations of claim 23, as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A method of correcting for synchronising a dataset of data from at least one first sensor using data from at least one second sensor, the method comprising:
collecting first data in a first data set over a time period, t, from at least one accelerometer; collecting second data in a second data set over the time period, t, from at least one position receiver;
calculating an x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude from the first data set;
calculating an x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude from the second data set;
calculating a cross-correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the first data set and the second data set;
identifying a synchronisation time offset corresponding to a maximum correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the first data set and the second data set;
applying the synchronisation time offset to the second data set to synchronise the second data set with the first data set.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretations, this method is correcting for synchronizing a dataset by applying a synchronization time offset to the dataset. If the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitations entails performance in the human mind, then it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims are abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of collecting first data and second data and calculating a magnitude and cross correlation of the parameters. The steps of collecting first data and second data and calculating a magnitude and cross correlation of the parameters are recited at a high level of generality and do not comprise any of the above additional elements that individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the steps of collecting first data and second data and calculating a magnitude and cross correlation of the parameters constitute mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept-rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-16, 18-20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slatcher (GB2584272A) in view of Pal (US20170053461).
Claim 1.
Slatcher teaches the following limitations:
A method of correcting for synchronising a dataset of data from at least one first sensor using data from at least one second sensor, the method comprising:
collecting first data in a first data set over a time period, t, from at least one accelerometer; collecting second data in a second data set over the time period, t, from at least one position receiver; (Slatcher – [page 1, line 30 – page 2, line 3] receiving first-sensor-data, first-motion-data and first-timing-information associated with the first-sensor-data and the first--motion-data; receiving second-sensor-data, second-motion-data and second- timing-information associated with the second-sensor-data and the second-motion-data; [page 2, line 13 – page 2, line 26] The first-motion-data and second-motion-data may each comprise acceleration-data. The motion-data may comprise one, two or three-dimensional data.)
identifying a synchronisation time offset corresponding to a maximum correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the first data set and the second data set; (Slatcher – [page 2, line 28 – page 2, line 35] Correlating the first-motion-data with the second-motion-data may comprise deriving a time-offset between the first-timing-information and the second timing- information based on the first-timing-information and the sensor timing-information associated with the respective identified one or more features of the camera-motion-data and the similar respective one or more features of the sensor-motion-data.; The time difference, or offset, may be derived from the time difference when the degree of mismatch is less than a threshold) and
Examiner Note: Spec Page 6 lines 7-20 “The software application will preferably calculate a cross-correlation between the datasets at different time offsets in order to identify the time offset which provides the best or maximum cross-correlation.”; “The software application can then apply the identified time offset corresponding to the maximum correlation to one of the datasets in order to synchronise that dataset with the other of the datasets.”; “Smoothing or filtering the data after the cross-correlation has been calculated, retains sufficient granularity of the data upon which the synchronisation occurs to allow the datasets to be synchronised with a high degree of accuracy.”
applying the synchronisation time offset to the second data set to synchronise the second data set with the first data set. (Slatcher – [page 2, line 35 – page 3, line 6] iteratively adjusting a time difference, which may determine a degree of alignment, in the time domain, between the respective features of the first motion-data and the second-motion-data in order to improve a correspondence between the one or more features of the first-motion-data and the similar respective one or more features of the second-motion-data)
Slatcher does not explicitly teach the following limitations: a telematics module configured to receive messages from one or more network devices separate from the host vehicle; However, Pal teaches:
calculating an x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude from the first data set; (Pal – [0152] In a specific example, identifying a single-vehicle accident type of a vehicle crashing head-on into a stationary object can be based on calculating a more negative slope in acceleration measured over time compared to a reference acceleration profile for a multi-vehicle accident type of a first vehicle side-swiping a second vehicle.)
calculating an x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude from the second data set; (Pal – [0152] In another example, Block S163 can include generating an analysis of vehicular acceleration over time; comparing the analysis to reference profiles for a single-vehicle accident (e.g., a vehicle crashing into a highway guardrail) and a multi-vehicle accident (e.g., a vehicle crashing into another vehicle while changing lanes); and identifying a multi-vehicular accident in response to detecting a greater similarity between the analysis and the reference profile for a multi-vehicular accident. In a specific example, identifying a single-vehicle accident type of a vehicle crashing head-on into a stationary object can be based on calculating a more negative slope in acceleration measured over time compared to a reference acceleration profile for a multi-vehicle accident type of a first vehicle side-swiping a second vehicle.)
calculating a cross-correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the first data set and the second data set; (Pal – [0045] In variations, Block S114 can include collecting a motion dataset at an accelerometer of a mobile computing device during a time period, and deriving at least one of position data and velocity data from the motion dataset for the time period. Accelerometer data is preferably used as a source of position data by comparing accelerometer patterns to a map reference with known patterns (e.g., road surface vibration patterns, as measured by the accelerometer, correlate to a specific stretch of road), but can additionally or alternatively be used to derive or estimate position data in any manner.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slatcher with Pal in order to better improve the understanding of correlations between such data and vehicular accident events. (Pal – [0024])
Claim 2.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first data is acceleration data and the second data is position data to correct for any smoothing in the position data. (Slatcher – [page 2, line 13 – page 2, line 26] The first-motion-data and second-motion-data may each comprise acceleration-data. The motion-data may comprise one or more of data regarding a change in position over a period of time, a velocity, such as a linear or angular velocity, an acceleration, such as a linear or angular acceleration, an impulse or force.)
Claim 5.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the at least one first sensor and at least one second sensor capture information in relation to different parameters but the x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes used to synchronise the respective datasets is at least derivable from the different parameters sensed by the at least one first sensor and at least one second sensor. (Slatcher – [page 2, line 13 – page 2, line 26] The first-motion-data and second-motion-data may each comprise acceleration-data. The motion-data may comprise one or more of data regarding a change in position over a period of time, a velocity, such as a linear or angular velocity, an acceleration, such as a linear or angular acceleration, an impulse or force; [page 2, line 28 – page 2, line 35] Correlating the first-motion-data with the second-motion-data may comprise identifying one or more features of the first-motion-data and similar respective one or more features 30 of the sensor-motion-data.)
Claim 7.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 1 implemented in a software application wherein the software application identifies and/or isolates the x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude from the first dataset and/or the second dataset. (Slatcher – [page 4, line 16 – line 21] There may be provided a computer program, which when run on a computer, causes the computer to configure any apparatus, including a circuit, unit, controller, device or system disclosed herein to perform any method disclosed herein. The computer program may be a software implementation.)
Claim 8.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 7 wherein the x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude is identified/isolated with a related time such that each time point in the time period has a value for the x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude which is to be used as a basis for the synchronisation. (Slatcher – [page 1, line 30 – page 2, line 3] receiving first-sensor-data, first-motion-data and first-timing-information associated with the first-sensor-data and the first--motion-data; receiving second-sensor-data, second-motion-data and second- timing-information associated with the second-sensor-data and the second-motion-data; [page 2, line 35 – page 3, line 6] iteratively adjusting a time difference, which may determine a degree of alignment, in the time domain, between the respective features of the first motion-data and the second-motion-data in order to improve a correspondence between the one or more features of the first-motion-data and the similar respective one or more features of the second-motion-data)
Claim 9.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first data and/or second data is collected at a particular frequency wherein the data is processed using the particular frequency in which the date is collected. (Slatcher - [page 7, line 27 – line 36] By recording the angular rotation rates of the gyroscopes sensors of the devices, a dataset can be generated that stores the angular rotation rate data of both devices at a high sampling frequency (100Hz or greater).)
Claim 11.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 9 wherein the data is processed using a lower frequency than the frequency in which the data is collected. (Slatcher - [page 7, line 27 – line 36] By recording the angular rotation rates of the gyroscopes sensors of the devices, a dataset can be generated that stores the angular rotation rate data of both devices at a high sampling frequency (100Hz or greater).)
Claim 12.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 9 wherein when the first data and the second data is collected at different frequencies, the data is processed at the same frequency. (Slatcher - [page 7, line 27 – line 36] By recording the angular rotation rates of the gyroscopes sensors of the devices, a dataset can be generated that stores the angular rotation rate data of both devices at a high sampling frequency (100Hz or greater).)
Claim 13.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
A system of correcting for synchronising a dataset of data from at least one first sensor using data from at least one second sensor comprising a processing device operating a software application to implement the method as claimed in claim 1. (Slatcher – [page 4, line 16 – line 21] There may be provided a computer program, which when run on a computer, causes the computer to configure any apparatus, including a circuit, unit, controller, device or system disclosed herein to perform any method disclosed herein. The computer program may be a software implementation. [page 8, line 27 – line 30] In some examples, the data processing unit 206 may comprise appropriate conventional hardware, including one or more processors and memory comprising computer program code configured to cause the processor to perform a method as described below with reference to Figure 4.)
Claim 14.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The system as claimed in claim 13 comprising at least one first accelerometer to collect the first data in the first data set and at least one position sensor to collect the second data in the second data set. (Slatcher – [page 1, line 30 – page 2, line 3] receiving first-sensor-data, first-motion-data and first-timing-information associated with the first-sensor-data and the first--motion-data; receiving second-sensor-data, second-motion-data and second- timing-information associated with the second-sensor-data and the second-motion-data; [page 7, line 19-20] the motion sensor may be a 1D, 2D or 3D accelerometer)
Claim 18.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The system as claimed in claim 14 wherein position data is collected using at least one position sensor and the software application uses speed information and course information provided from the at least one position sensor to calculate an acceleration magnitude in the x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude. (Slatcher – [page 2, line 19 – line 25] The change in displacement over time may comprise a change in displacement along the x, y or z axis or any combination thereof. The change in orientation over time may comprise a change in pitch, roll or yaw or any combination thereof. The change in acceleration may comprise a continuous or discontinuous change or any combination thereof. The first-motion-data and the second-motion-data may correspond to the same or different types of motion measurement.)
Claim 19.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the system as claimed in claim 18, however Slatcher does not explicitly teach wherein the software application can then calculate a cross-correlation between the first dataset and second dataset using acceleration magnitude in the x-axis and y-axis, in the respective datasets.
However, Pal teaches:
wherein the software application can then calculate a cross-correlation between the first dataset and second dataset using acceleration magnitude in the x-axis and y-axis, in the respective datasets.
(Pal – [0045] In variations, Block S114 can include collecting a motion dataset at an accelerometer of a mobile computing device during a time period, and deriving at least one of position data and velocity data from the motion dataset for the time period. Accelerometer data is preferably used as a source of position data by comparing accelerometer patterns to a map reference with known patterns (e.g., road surface vibration patterns, as measured by the accelerometer, correlate to a specific stretch of road), but can additionally or alternatively be used to derive or estimate position data in any manner.)
See claim 1 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Claim 20.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The system as claimed in claim 19 wherein the software application calculates a cross-correlation between first data in the first dataset and second data in the second dataset at a number of different time offsets of between plus or minus 5 seconds and 10 seconds to identify the synchronisation time offset providing maximum cross-correlation. (Slatcher – [page 2, line 35 – page 3, line 6] iteratively adjusting a time difference, which may determine a degree of alignment, in the time domain, between the respective features of the first motion-data and the second-motion-data in order to improve a correspondence between the one or more features of the first-motion-data and the similar respective one or more features of the second-motion-data)
Claim 23.
Slatcher teaches the following limitations:
A system comprising:
a mobile computing device having at least one on board acceleration sensor for collecting acceleration first data in an x-axis and y-axis and at least one position sensor for collecting position second data including in an x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitude, and (Slatcher – – [page 1, line 30 – page 2, line 3] receiving first-sensor-data, first-motion-data and first-timing-information associated with the first-sensor-data and the first--motion-data; receiving second-sensor-data, second-motion-data and second- timing-information associated with the second-sensor-data and the second-motion-data; [page 2, line 13 – page 2, line 26] The motion-data may comprise one or more of data regarding a change in position over a period of time, a velocity, such as a linear or angular velocity, an acceleration, such as a linear or angular acceleration, an impulse or force [page 7, line 27 – line 28] The sensor-device may be a conventional consumer electronic device such as a mobile telephone or computer, for example. [page 2, line 19 – line 25] The change in displacement over time may comprise a change in displacement along the x, y or z axis or any combination thereof. The change in orientation over time may comprise a change in pitch, roll or yaw or any combination thereof. The change in acceleration may comprise a continuous or discontinuous change or any combination thereof. The first-motion-data and the second-motion-data may correspond to the same or different types of motion measurement)
a software application operating on an onboard processor for implementing a method of synchronising the position second data and acceleration first data (Slatcher – [page 2, line 28 – page 2, line 35] Correlating the first-motion-data with the second-motion-data may comprise deriving a time-offset between the first-timing-information and the second timing- information based on the first-timing-information and the sensor timing-information associated with the respective identified one or more features of the camera-motion-data and the similar respective one or more features of the sensor-motion-data.; The time difference, or offset, may be derived from the time difference when the degree of mismatch is less than a threshold
Slatcher does not explicitly teach the following limitations: a software application operating on an onboard processor for implementing a method of synchronising the position second data and acceleration first data based on calculating a cross-correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the position second data and acceleration data first collected identifying a synchronisation time offset corresponding to a maximum correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the acceleration first data and the position second data; and applying the synchronisation time offset to the position second data to synchronise the position second data with the acceleration first data; However, Pal teaches:
a software application operating on an onboard processor for implementing a method of synchronising the position second data and acceleration first data based on calculating a cross-correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the position second data and acceleration data first collected identifying a synchronisation time offset corresponding to a maximum correlation between the respective x-axis and y-axis acceleration magnitudes from the acceleration first data and the position second data; (Pal – [0152] In a specific example, identifying a single-vehicle accident type of a vehicle crashing head-on into a stationary object can be based on calculating a more negative slope in acceleration measured over time compared to a reference acceleration profile for a multi-vehicle accident type of a first vehicle side-swiping a second vehicle. [0045] In variations, Block S114 can include collecting a motion dataset at an accelerometer of a mobile computing device during a time period, and deriving at least one of position data and velocity data from the motion dataset for the time period. Accelerometer data is preferably used as a source of position data by comparing accelerometer patterns to a map reference with known patterns (e.g., road surface vibration patterns, as measured by the accelerometer, correlate to a specific stretch of road), but can additionally or alternatively be used to derive or estimate position data in any manner)
See claim 1 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Claim 24.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The system as claimed in claim 23 wherein the mobile computing device is a or tablet or similar device. (Slatcher – [page 7, line 27 – line 28] The sensor-device may be a conventional consumer electronic device such as a mobile telephone or computer, for example.)
Claim 25.
The combination of Slatcher and Pal teaches the following limitations:
The system as claimed in claim 23 wherein the mobile computing device is an information capture device. (Slatcher – [page 7, line 3 – line 5] The approach used may enable sensor-data captured by the
sensor-device to be localised within the 3D-map-data generated by the 3D-camera-device
5 to provide additional contextual information for the 3D-map-data.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 VINCENT FENG whose telephone number is (703)756-4715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/VINCENT FENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669