DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/20/2025.
Claims 1-2, 5-17 are examined.
Claims 1-2, 5-15 have been amended.
Claims 16-17 are new.
Claims 3-4 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive and/or moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Objections are withdrawn, however the claims canceled have some of their limitations added to previous claims where new objections are reevaluated.
112 Rejection
This rejection is withdrawn. Claims are reevaluated in light of the amendments.
101 Rejection
This rejection is maintained. Applicant refers to the Examiner giving suggestions of making the claim more tangible, however the amended limitations appear to only describe where the data of the system comes from, however it is still viewed as gathering and organizing data. See the new 101 evaluation below.
103 Rejection
The Applicant argues remarks for the limitations;
one of: a degree of severity or a degree of urgency for the detected item that needs to be improved for the crew member;
selecting, by using information about the detected item that needs to be improved and by further using at least one of: the decided degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency, a transmission destination of caution information,
wherein the transmission destination is selected from among: a first apparatus, a second apparatus different from the first apparatus, and both of the first apparatus and the second apparatus ...
are not disclosed by the cited prior art. Applicant more specifically states that the cited prior art of Yuza only describes which items a user seeking information considers important as opposed to the “degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency” making the determination of transmission destination. Examiner disagrees by the following rationale.
Yuza states, [¶53] The driving feature information is therefore evaluated on an item basis in this embodiment. If the evaluation result satisfies the condition for any service, corresponding credit information is generated. The evaluation item of Yuza is understood as a compilation of the sensor data evaluated from the vehicle system (vehicle, environment, and driver). The credit information is understood as the evaluation result of all the pertinent sensor data (different conditions will constitute which sensor data is pertinent). Yuza continues by stating, [¶ 57] Then, a weighted sum of the evaluation scores of the first to third items may be calculated with predetermined coefficients to determine whether the credit information is allowed to be generated. This shows that that a decision is made for generating credit information (the information sent to specific users) is based on a determined priority/urgency of the evaluated sensor data. [¶ 79] user A has relatively high evaluation scores for all the first to third items. The user B has a relatively high evaluation score for the first item… The user B has the credit information registered in the database 132 and available for the service P. The user C has no credit information registered in the database 133. The scores are generated with a level of importance/urgency, which are further determined to be registered for transmission or not depending on the determined importance of the evaluation. This at least shows the evaluated data regarding credit information is sent to users based on urgency (to send or not send if their driving meets criterion for being considered safe) and further that the generated information is sent to the pertinent user for which it is prioritized for (a degree of severity for the user is a base for sending it that user, which is a selected apparatus/user from multiple apparatuses/users available).
As the claim language lacks any specifics other than sensed data can be labeled(organized) with an “urgency/severity” to be sent to different terminals based on the given label, prior art Yuza is understood to disclose such limitations. The claims are reevaluated in light of the amendments.
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.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitations:
in information for determining the transmission destination stored in a storage, a transmission destination is defined by a pair of an item and each of the plurality of degrees of the severity, and
the selecting the transmission destination comprises selecting a transmission destination by using the information for determining the transmission destination stored in the storage.
in the last lines. The limitations create a lack of clarity to what the is required from the claim language. The claim states the transmission is “defined” by a pair of an item and each plurality of degrees. What is the purpose of defining the transmission, as in what is done with this information? There is no follow up on using the definition. One could state the detection apparatus is colored/defined red. If there is some identification of the claimed system using red identification markers or something, then it would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the claim limitations as substantive. If it is just stated to be red, with no follow up, it leads one confused to why this is done and maybe that there is some aspect/element omitted from the limitation. The limitation continues to state, “by a pair of an item and each…”. There is a lack of clarity with the use of the newly established item. There are previously claimed items disclosed. Is this item related to previous items or is it its own thing. If the claim is establishing a new item, it isn’t clear to how it relates to the current claim limitations. Is this meant to reference a previous item? Further the issues in combination expand the lack of clarity. As the claim language lacks clarity, and to promote prosecution, the claim is understood to refer to the information having a degree of severity as claimed in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “crew member” and “instructor” throughout the claim. What is the significance of an instructor versus a crew member. Just stating that an instructor who instructs the crew member, is inconsequential. If the claim read the first apparatus is configured to provide information to the cat and second apparatus is configured to provide information to a dog who chases the cat, would not change the current claim limitations. As there is no details to the configuration, only that it is an apparatus that gives information, stating who it’s for does not get patentable weight. For example, if the apparatus alerted by a whistle, both a person and a dog could be alerted. Stating its for a person, a dog, a crew member, or an instructor does not change the claimed limitations. Additionally a crew member and “an instructor” would be alerted just the same as they are both understood as people. Without any additional details, the language of the limitations is understood to disclose the use of two apparatuses that are capable to alert/give off some information separately. Further if a claim tries to patent the actions of person instructing another person, that would be improper as that is not patentable subject matter (Examiner understands this not to be the case) but an Applicant should be cautious with such language. The claim is understood to disclose two apparatuses that indicate information in some manner, separately or together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes -- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations:
detecting, by processing the sensor information in real time, an item that needs to be improved by the crew member,
deciding, by using the processed sensor information, at least one of: a degree of severity or a degree of urgency for the detected item that needs to be improved for the crew member;
selecting, by using information about the detected item that needs to be improved and by further using at least one of : the decided degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency, a transmission destination of caution information,
wherein the transmission destination is selected… ,
wherein the caution information indicates that the item that needs to be improved is detected;
which constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites detecting, by processing the sensor information, an item that needs to be improved by the crew member. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by processing… information”. For example, a person(crew member) can examine a tire and see its low on air and require attention before it should be driven on. A person can also check the dipstick for oil level to determine if the oil is bad or low. A person could also see notification lights on a dashboard indicating a need for an oil change or low fuel. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites deciding, by using the processed sensor information, at least one of: a degree of severity or a degree of urgency for the detected item that needs to be improved for the crew member. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by using processed sensor information”. For example, a person(crew member) can examine a vehicle and determine that an engine bay on fire has a higher severity/urgency over a determined. A person can also check the dipstick for oil level to determine if the oil is a little low or dangerously low. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites selecting, by using information about the detected item that needs to be improved and by further using at least one of : the decided degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency, a transmission destination of caution information,
wherein the transmission destination is selected from among: a first apparatus… ,
wherein the caution information indicates that the item that needs to be improved is detected, and wherein the second apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to an instructor who instructs the crew member. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can decide who to tell that whatever issue that was spotted is in need of attention. A person can further determine a decided degree of severity/urgency for where/who to tell. If the car is determined to be on fire, he can call the fire department (where fire fighters can instruct people to get out of the way). If it is determined that it has a flat, he can forward a work order to the tire repair people. If the fire is bad, it may be vital to tell all departments that there is some potential hazard in the facility (all the people). This step is directed to a mental process.
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “at least one memory… at least one processor configured for…”. That is, other than reciting a processing circuit comprising one or more memory, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Thus the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim recites use of “at least one processor configured for…” and “processing”. This computer element is understood as generic computing components as there is no improvement of the computing. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The Office submits that the foregoing limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of:
acquiring sensor information indicating a result of detection by at least one sensor of which a detection target… being at least one of a vehicle and a crew member of the vehicle, and… a target, wherein the at least one sensor comprises… first camera, a second camera… an acceleration sensor… , wherein… one sensor is provided in the vehicle, and wherein the sensor information comprises… first image data, the second image data, and the acceleration data;
and
wherein the processing the sensor information comprises: determining… motion of a crew member; a moving state of the vehicle; a peripheral situation of the crew member; and a peripheral situation of the vehicle;
The acquiring and processing elements of sensors (cameras/accelerometers) and/or from external sources is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and organizing system data for use in the evaluating step and/or generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment or field of use) and amounts to mere gathering and organizing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recites the additional element of: transmitting the caution information to the selected transmission destination. Transmitting or sending gathered data has been determined to be a form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not considered substantially more.
The computing elements merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processing circuit, i.e. a computer. The computing system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
These additional elements amount to insignificant application of the identified abstraction per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Per the evaluation in step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of determining particular properties is understood as collecting/organizing data which is considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computing system is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 14 and 15 recite similar limitations and are found ineligible under the 101 guidance as per similar rationale of claim 1 above.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2, 5-13, and 16-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 15 above.
Therefore, the dependent claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200020029 (“Yuza”).
As per claim 1 Yuza discloses an improvement item detection apparatus, comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising [Fig. 1-2] :
acquiring sensor information indicating a result of detection by at least one sensor of which a detection target is at least one of: an evaluation target being at least one of: a vehicle and a crew member of the vehicle, and a periphery of the evaluation target [¶ 19 the detection unit includes various types of sensors for detecting information associated with the driving of the vehicle… and driver’s state, Fig. 3.S110 Receive driving feature information],
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of:
a first camera configured to generate first image data of a periphery of the vehicle [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… a camera (e.g., an image sensor)];
an acceleration sensor configured to generate acceleration data indicating acceleration of the acceleration sensor [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… an accelerometer],
wherein the at least one sensor is provided in the vehicle [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information associated with the driving
of the vehicle 30, for example the driving state], and
wherein the sensor information comprises at least one of: the first image data, the second image data, and the acceleration data [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… an accelerometer… a camera];
detecting, by processing the sensor information in real time, an item that needs to be improved by the crew member [¶ 20 The driving state of the vehicle 30 is information indicating the state of the running vehicle…, ¶ 84The information management apparatus 10 may evaluate the driving features based on the driving feature information received from a vehicle 30 and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient],
wherein the processing the sensor information comprises determining at least one of:
motion of a crew member [¶22 The driver’s state… for evaluating… physical condition];
a moving state of the vehicle [¶19 accelerometer, Fig. 2-3];
a peripheral situation of the crew member [¶19 detection unit… the driver’s state]; and
a peripheral situation of the vehicle [¶19 detection unit… the driving environment around the vehicle];
deciding, by using the processed sensor information, at least one of: a degree of severity or a degree of urgency for the detected item that needs to be improved for the crew member [¶55 While the three items corresponding to the respective requirements of the users D to F… items are evaluated, various detection results obtained by the above-described detection unit may be used, ¶ 56 places importance especially on the first item, less importance on the second item than the first item, and substantially no importance on the third item];
selecting, by using information about the detected item that needs to be improved and by further using at least one of: the decided degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency, a transmission destination of caution information [¶53 The driving feature information is therefore evaluated on an item basis in this embodiment. If the evaluation result satisfies the condition for any service, corresponding credit information is generated, ¶ 57 Then, a weighted sum of the evaluation scores of the first to third items may be calculated with predetermined coefficients to determine whether the credit information is allowed to be generated, ¶ 79 user A has relatively high evaluation scores for all the first to third items. The user B has a relatively high evaluation score for the first item… The user B has the credit information registered in the database 132 and available for the service P. The user C has no credit information registered in the database 133 (scores are generated with a level of importance/urgency, and are transmitted to be registered or not depending on the determined importance)],
wherein the transmission destination is selected from among: a first apparatus, a second apparatus different from the first apparatus, and both of the first apparatus and the second apparatus [¶82 Alternatively, the system SYS may be configured such that the information management apparatus 10 manages the credit information while some other server (an information processing apparatus) manages the services, ¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient… For example, if the above evaluation shows that the number of hard-acceleration and hard-braking operations in a predetermined time period exceeds an acceptable (data specific to individual is sent that individual)],
wherein the caution information indicates that the item that needs to be improved is detected [¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network 20. For example, if the above evaluation shows that the number of hard-acceleration and hard-braking operations in a predetermined time period exceeds an acceptable limit, the vehicle 30 or the driver's mobile terminal may be notified of that fact. This can prompt the driver to improve the driving feature, thereby facilitating improvements in traffic conditions such as prevention of accidents], and
wherein the first apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to the crew member [¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network 20, and
wherein the second apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to an instructor who instructs the crew member [¶ 85 As another example, the information management apparatus 10 may notify a user of any risk of an accident to the user's vehicle 30. For example, if the evaluation information (an evaluation score) based on the driving feature information does not reach a predetermined threshold after a lapse of a certain time period from the start of the user's driving, the user may be notified of that fact (Yuza discloses multiple users may be notified depending on the determined scenario gathered for different items regarding the user and vehicles. The claim’s use of “crew member” and “instructor” are interpreted as discussed in the claim objections above. As such, the Yuza is understood to disclose the claim limitations as remarked in the claim objections, being at least two different apparatuses)]; and
transmitting the caution information to the selected transmission destination [¶ 84 the vehicle 30 or the driver's mobile terminal may be notified of that fact. This can prompt the driver to improve the driving feature, Fig. 2, Fig. 4A transmit].
Yuza discloses said limitations via different embodiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Yuza with alternate embodiments taught by Yuza for purposes of using different available information systems to send desired data based on available systems for transmitting data in different scenarios by utilizing whichever communication systems that are available to increase information awareness.
Yuza is silent to disclosing a second camera configured to generate second image data of a periphery of the crew member of the vehicle.
Peirce discloses a second camera configured to generate second image data of a periphery of the crew member of the vehicle [¶16 Additionally, or alternatively, the user device may provide location information … a recording captured at the location (e.g., an audio recording, a video recording, a set of images, ¶21 a wearable communication device (e.g., … pair of smart eyeglasses, etc.), ¶40 Additionally or alternatively, the user device 210 may transmit information associated with the be accident, such as …. , a recordation associated with incident (e.g., … video data, image data, or the like) (Peirce discloses using multiple sensors that can be used in combination, including multiple image capturing devices)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Yuza with the teachings of Peirce to have the available array of sensors to include two camera sensors for gathering image data for making determinations based on environmental and target identifications for making system decisions by including pertinent data.
As per claim 14 Yuza discloses an improvement item detection method, comprising,
by a computer executing [Fig. 1-2]:
acquisition processing comprising acquiring sensor information indicating a result of detection by at least one sensor of which a detection target is at least one of: an evaluation target being at least one of: a vehicle and a crew member of the vehicle, and a periphery of the evaluation target [¶ 19 the detection unit includes various types of sensors for detecting information associated with the driving of the vehicle… and driver’s state, Fig. 3.S110 Receive driving feature information],
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of:
a first camera configured to generate first image data of a periphery of the vehicle [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… a camera (e.g., an image sensor)];
an acceleration sensor configured to generate acceleration data indicating acceleration of the acceleration sensor [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… an accelerometer],
wherein the at least one sensor is provided in the vehicle [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information associated with the driving
of the vehicle 30, for example the driving state], and
wherein the sensor information comprises at least one of: the first image data, the second image data, and the acceleration data [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… an accelerometer… a camera];
detection processing comprising detecting, by processing the sensor information in real time, an item that needs to be improved by the crew member [¶ 20 The driving state of the vehicle 30 is information indicating the state of the running vehicle…, ¶ 84The information management apparatus 10 may evaluate the driving features based on the driving feature information received from a vehicle 30 and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient],
wherein the processing the sensor information comprises determining at least one of:
motion of a crew member [¶22 The driver’s state… for evaluating… physical condition];
a moving state of the vehicle [¶19 accelerometer, Fig. 2-3];
a peripheral situation of the crew member [¶19 detection unit… the driver’s state]; and
a peripheral situation of the vehicle [¶19 detection unit… the driving environment around the vehicle];
decision processing comprising deciding, by using the processed sensor information, at least one of: a degree of severity or a degree of urgency for the detected item that needs to be improved for the crew member [¶55 While the three items corresponding to the respective requirements of the users D to F… items are evaluated, various detection results obtained by the above-described detection unit may be used, ¶ 56 places importance especially on the first item, less importance on the second item than the first item, and substantially no importance on the third item];
selection processing comprising selecting, by using information about the detected item that needs to be improved and by further using at least one of: the decided degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency, a transmission destination of caution information [¶53 The driving feature information is therefore evaluated on an item basis in this embodiment. If the evaluation result satisfies the condition for any service, corresponding credit information is generated, ¶ 57 Then, a weighted sum of the evaluation scores of the first to third items may be calculated with predetermined coefficients to determine whether the credit information is allowed to be generated, ¶ 79 user A has relatively high evaluation scores for all the first to third items. The user B has a relatively high evaluation score for the first item… The user B has the credit information registered in the database 132 and available for the service P. The user C has no credit information registered in the database 133 (scores are generated with a level of importance/urgency, and are transmitted to be registered or not depending on the determined importance)],
wherein the transmission destination is selected from among: a first apparatus, a second apparatus different from the first apparatus, and both of the first apparatus and the second apparatus [¶82 Alternatively, the system SYS may be configured such that the information management apparatus 10 manages the credit information while some other server (an information processing apparatus) manages the services, ¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient… For example, if the above evaluation shows that the number of hard-acceleration and hard-braking operations in a predetermined time period exceeds an acceptable (data specific to individual is sent that individual)],
wherein the caution information indicates that the item that needs to be improved is detected [¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network 20. For example, if the above evaluation shows that the number of hard-acceleration and hard-braking operations in a predetermined time period exceeds an acceptable limit, the vehicle 30 or the driver's mobile terminal may be notified of that fact. This can prompt the driver to improve the driving feature, thereby facilitating improvements in traffic conditions such as prevention of accidents], and
wherein the first apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to the crew member [¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network 20, and
wherein the second apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to an instructor who instructs the crew member [¶ 85 As another example, the information management apparatus 10 may notify a user of any risk of an accident to the user's vehicle 30. For example, if the evaluation information (an evaluation score) based on the driving feature information does not reach a predetermined threshold after a lapse of a certain time period from the start of the user's driving, the user may be notified of that fact (Yuza discloses multiple users may be notified depending on the determined scenario gathered for different items regarding the user and vehicles. The claim’s use of “crew member” and “instructor” are interpreted as discussed in the claim objections above. As such, the Yuza is understood to disclose the claim limitations as remarked in the claim objections, being at least two different apparatuses)]; and
transmission processing comprising transmitting the caution information to the selected transmission destination [¶ 84 the vehicle 30 or the driver's mobile terminal may be notified of that fact. This can prompt the driver to improve the driving feature, Fig. 2, Fig. 4A transmit].
Yuza discloses said limitations via different embodiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Yuza with alternate embodiments taught by Yuza for purposes of using different available information systems to send desired data based on available systems for transmitting data in different scenarios by utilizing whichever communication systems that are available to increase information awareness.
Yuza is silent to disclosing a second camera configured to generate second image data of a periphery of the crew member of the vehicle.
Peirce discloses a second camera configured to generate second image data of a periphery of the crew member of the vehicle [¶16 Additionally, or alternatively, the user device may provide location information … a recording captured at the location (e.g., an audio recording, a video recording, a set of images, ¶21 a wearable communication device (e.g., … pair of smart eyeglasses, etc.), ¶40 Additionally or alternatively, the user device 210 may transmit information associated with the be accident, such as …. , a recordation associated with incident (e.g., … video data, image data, or the like) (Peirce discloses using multiple sensors that can be used in combination, including multiple image capturing devices)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Yuza with the teachings of Peirce to have the available array of sensors to include two camera sensors for gathering image data for making determinations based on environmental and target identifications for making system decisions by including pertinent data.
As per claim 15 Yuza discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an improvement item detection method, the improvement item detection method comprising [Fig. 1-2]
acquiring sensor information indicating a result of detection by at least one sensor of which a detection target is at least one of: an evaluation target being at least one of: a vehicle and a crew member of the vehicle, and a periphery of the evaluation target [¶ 19 the detection unit includes various types of sensors for detecting information associated with the driving of the vehicle… and driver’s state, Fig. 3.S110 Receive driving feature information],
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of:
a first camera configured to generate first image data of a periphery of the vehicle [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… a camera (e.g., an image sensor)];
an acceleration sensor configured to generate acceleration data indicating acceleration of the acceleration sensor [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… an accelerometer],
wherein the at least one sensor is provided in the vehicle [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information associated with the driving
of the vehicle 30, for example the driving state], and
wherein the sensor information comprises at least one of: the first image data, the second image data, and the acceleration data [¶19 The detection unit 32 includes various types of sensors for detecting information… for example the driving state of the vehicle… includes… an accelerometer… a camera];
detecting, by processing the sensor information in real time, an item that needs to be improved by the crew member [¶ 20 The driving state of the vehicle 30 is information indicating the state of the running vehicle…, ¶ 84The information management apparatus 10 may evaluate the driving features based on the driving feature information received from a vehicle 30 and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient],
wherein the processing the sensor information comprises determining at least one of:
motion of a crew member [¶22 The driver’s state… for evaluating… physical condition];
a moving state of the vehicle [¶19 accelerometer, Fig. 2-3];
a peripheral situation of the crew member [¶19 detection unit… the driver’s state]; and
a peripheral situation of the vehicle [¶19 detection unit… the driving environment around the vehicle];
deciding, by using the processed sensor information, at least one of: a degree of severity or a degree of urgency for the detected item that needs to be improved for the crew member [¶55 While the three items corresponding to the respective requirements of the users D to F… items are evaluated, various detection results obtained by the above-described detection unit may be used, ¶ 56 places importance especially on the first item, less importance on the second item than the first item, and substantially no importance on the third item];
selecting, by using information about the detected item that needs to be improved and by further using at least one of: the decided degree of severity or the decided degree of urgency, a transmission destination of caution information [¶53 The driving feature information is therefore evaluated on an item basis in this embodiment. If the evaluation result satisfies the condition for any service, corresponding credit information is generated, ¶ 57 Then, a weighted sum of the evaluation scores of the first to third items may be calculated with predetermined coefficients to determine whether the credit information is allowed to be generated, ¶ 79 user A has relatively high evaluation scores for all the first to third items. The user B has a relatively high evaluation score for the first item… The user B has the credit information registered in the database 132 and available for the service P. The user C has no credit information registered in the database 133 (scores are generated with a level of importance/urgency, and are transmitted to be registered or not depending on the determined importance)],
wherein the transmission destination is selected from among: a first apparatus, a second apparatus different from the first apparatus, and both of the first apparatus and the second apparatus [¶82 Alternatively, the system SYS may be configured such that the information management apparatus 10 manages the credit information while some other server (an information processing apparatus) manages the services, ¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient… For example, if the above evaluation shows that the number of hard-acceleration and hard-braking operations in a predetermined time period exceeds an acceptable (data specific to individual is sent that individual)],
wherein the caution information indicates that the item that needs to be improved is detected [¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network 20. For example, if the above evaluation shows that the number of hard-acceleration and hard-braking operations in a predetermined time period exceeds an acceptable limit, the vehicle 30 or the driver's mobile terminal may be notified of that fact. This can prompt the driver to improve the driving feature, thereby facilitating improvements in traffic conditions such as prevention of accidents], and
wherein the first apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to the crew member [¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network 20, and
wherein the second apparatus is configured to provide the caution information to an instructor who instructs the crew member [¶ 85 As another example, the information management apparatus 10 may notify a user of any risk of an accident to the user's vehicle 30. For example, if the evaluation information (an evaluation score) based on the driving feature information does not reach a predetermined threshold after a lapse of a certain time period from the start of the user's driving, the user may be notified of that fact (Yuza discloses multiple users may be notified depending on the determined scenario gathered for different items regarding the user and vehicles. The claim’s use of “crew member” and “instructor” are interpreted as discussed in the claim objections above. As such, Yuza is understood to disclose the claim limitations as remarked in the claim objections, being at least two different apparatuses)]; and
transmitting the caution information to the selected transmission destination [¶ 84 the vehicle 30 or the driver's mobile terminal may be notified of that fact. This can prompt the driver to improve the driving feature, Fig. 2, Fig. 4A transmit].
Yuza discloses said limitations via different embodiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Yuza with alternate embodiments taught by Yuza for purposes of using different available information systems to send desired data based on available systems for transmitting data in different scenarios by utilizing whichever communication systems that are available to increase information awareness.
Yuza is silent to disclosing a second camera configured to generate second image data of a periphery of the crew member of the vehicle.
Peirce discloses a second camera configured to generate second image data of a periphery of the crew member of the vehicle [¶16 Additionally, or alternatively, the user device may provide location information … a recording captured at the location (e.g., an audio recording, a video recording, a set of images, ¶21 a wearable communication device (e.g., … pair of smart eyeglasses, etc.), ¶40 Additionally or alternatively, the user device 210 may transmit information associated with the be accident, such as …. , a recordation associated with incident (e.g., … video data, image data, or the like) (Peirce discloses using multiple sensors that can be used in combination, including multiple image capturing devices)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Yuza with the teachings of Peirce to have the available array of sensors to include two camera sensors for gathering image data for making determinations based on environmental and target identifications for making system decisions by including pertinent data.
As per claim 2 Yuza discloses further wherein selecting the transmission destination comprises selecting the transmission destination by using a type of the item that needs to be improved [¶ 84 The information management apparatus 10 may evaluate the driving features based on the driving feature information received from a vehicle 30 and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient (e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal) over the network].
As per claim 5 Yuza discloses further wherein, when the first apparatus is included in the transmission destination, the caution information to be transmitted to the first apparatus includes an item name of the item that needs to be improved [¶ 42 uses the above-described credit information(mild driving)… taxi to take is important to the user E. For ease of understanding, the following description assumes that all the users A to C are drivers of taxis running within a certain distance from the user E].
As per claim 6 Yuza discloses further wherein, when the second apparatus is included in the transmission destination, the caution information to be transmitted to the second apparatus includes crew member identification information from which the crew member can be identified and an item name of the item that needs to be improved [¶ 43 According to FIG. 4B, if a request is received from the user E in S230, the process proceeds to S210; otherwise, the process returns to S230. This request is a request to query the credit information and, in this embodiment, asks for a recommended candidate taxi that meets the user E's preference. The request is made using a mobile terminal (such as a smartphone), for example. The information management apparatus 10 thus receives, from the user E, information indicating that the user E wants to use a taxi and what kind of taxi the user E prefers, as well as information indicating the user E's current location].
As per claim 7 Yuza discloses further wherein, when the first apparatus and the second apparatus are included in the transmission destination, at least a part of one of the caution information to be transmitted to the first apparatus and the caution information to be transmitted to the second apparatus is not included in the other [¶ 46 credit information in response to a request to query the credit information from the vehicle 30 (user D) starting the use of the ACC function, or may continuously transmit the credit information to vehicles 30 having the ACC function. In either case, the information management apparatus 10 will return a query result in response to a request to query the credit information].
As per claim 8 Yuza discloses further wherein the sensor is mounted on a portable terminal possessed by the crew member, and the first apparatus is the portable terminal [¶ 22 As another example of the driver’s state, a sensor fixable on the driver’s arm may be used to obtain value of a parameter…(understood as part of a terminal for gathering/communicating data)].
As per claim 9 Yuza discloses further wherein the sensor information indicates a result of detecting the crew member and/or a periphery of the crew member when the vehicle is stopped and the crew member is outside the vehicle [¶ 47 The user F is a service provider, which is, in this example, a service company providing a rental service of vehicles 30… It is therefore important to the user F how a vehicle 30, which is a rental object, is used. For ease of understanding, the following description assumes that all the users A to C are users of the user F's service.(it is understood that user F(crew member) is outside of a vehicle that is stopped in order to be rented to another person)].
As per claim 10 Yuza discloses further wherein the crew member serves a customer when the crew member is outside the vehicle, and the item that needs to be improved is an item related to customer service [¶ 47 The user F is a service provider, which is, in this example, a service company providing a rental service of vehicles 30… It is therefore important to the user F how a vehicle 30, which is a rental object, is used. For ease of understanding, the following description assumes that all the users A to C are users of the user F's service.(it is understood that user F(crew member) is outside of a vehicle that is stopped in order to be rented to another person (customer service)].
As per claim 11 Yuza discloses further wherein the crew member performs work on the vehicle when the crew member is outside the vehicle, and the item that needs to be improved is an item related to the work [¶ 48 when renting out vehicles 30 to the users A to C, the user F can use, e.g., a terminal in the shop (external the vehicle) to make a request to query whether the credit information about the users A to C is registered in the databases 131(related to work of a rental company)].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200020029 (“Yuza”) in further view of US 20140306799 (“Ricci”).
As per claim 12 Yuza is silent to however Ricci discloses further wherein the sensor information indicates a location of the vehicle, and the item that needs to be improved is related to a location where the vehicle is stopped [¶ 407 This detection may be based on sensors associated with the vehicle and/or with a mobile device. In one example, a valet may cause damage to a vehicle while parking it in a lot. In response, the vehicle may take action by sending a message, ¶ 412 The one or more vehicle sensors 242 are configured to detect damage to vehicle 104 and/or identify its location, ¶ 433].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the embodiments of Yuza with the teachings of Ricci for including location data related to items of interests involving the vehicle for purposes of accommodating necessary actions required by users by including relevant information to more comprehensively assess the situation and response.
As per claim 13 Yuza is silent to however Ricci discloses further wherein the operations further comprise causing a terminal to display a setting screen for setting the item that needs to be improved to be detected, and detecting the item that needs to be improved comprises setting, as a detection target, an item set by using the setting screen [¶ 122 The user interface may be operable to receive user input, ¶ 392 The definition of "near the vehicle" may be defined by a selectable threshold value. For example, a distance of one foot surrounding the vehicle (i.e. line 120 of FIG .1) may be defined as a threshold distance. The threshold distance may comprise a plurality of thresholds, i.e. a first threshold and a second threshold wherein different actions are taken, ¶ 411 selectable sampling rate, ¶ 448 vehicle subsystems included].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the embodiments of Yuza with the teachings of Ricci for including user interface parameters related to items of interests involving the vehicle for purposes of accommodating necessary actions required by users by including relevant interaction information to more comprehensively assess the situation and response.
As per claim 16 Yuza discloses further, wherein the selecting the transmission destination comprises: selecting one of the first apparatus and the second apparatus as the transmission destination in a case where acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is equal to or less than a reference value; and selecting both the first apparatus and the second apparatus as the transmission destination in a case where the acceleration or the deceleration of the vehicle exceeds the reference value, or wherein the selecting the transmission destination comprises:
selecting one of the first apparatus and the second apparatus as the transmission destination in a case where an exceeding value of velocity for a traffic violation by the vehicle is equal to or less than a reference value; and selecting both the first apparatus and the second apparatus as the transmission destination in a case where the exceeding value exceeds the reference value [¶20 The driving state of the vehicle 30 is information indicating the state of the running vehicle 30 itself, and this information is a direct index for evaluating the driving features of the vehicle 30. Examples of the driving state of the vehicle 30 include… the vehicle speed, the amounts of changes in vehicle speed (acceleration and deceleration), the frequency of changes in vehicle speed ¶ 21 The driving environment around the vehicle 30 is information indicating the state of the surroundings (outside) of the running vehicle 30. This information is an index for evaluating, for example, whether the driver is not driving in a manner that could make other drivers or pedestrians feel discomfort or danger. Examples of the driving environment around the vehicle 30 include… the speed limit, ¶85 As another example, the information management apparatus 10 may notify a user of any risk of an accident to the user's vehicle 30. For example, if the evaluation information (an evaluation score) based on the driving feature information does not reach a predetermined threshold].
As per claim 17 Yuza discloses further wherein:
the item includes a plurality of degrees of the severity or a plurality of degrees of the urgency, in information for determining the transmission destination stored in a storage, a transmission destination is defined by a pair of an item and each of the plurality of degrees of the severity, and the selecting the transmission destination comprises selecting a transmission destination by using the information for determining the transmission destination stored in the storage [¶53 The driving feature information is therefore evaluated on an item basis in this embodiment. ¶ 56 places importance especially on the first item, less importance on the second item than the first item, and substantially no importance on the third item (scores are generated with a level of importance/urgency, and are transmitted to be registered or not depending on the determined importance), ¶ 84 …and provide a notification of, e.g., driving features that should be improved, to a preregistered recipient ( e.g., the vehicle 30 or its driver's mobile terminal)].
Additional Art to Consider
Application Pat No. 10692304 titled, Autonomous Communication And Control System For Vehicles, further includes a system for an autonomous vehicle that communicates indications of the action taken with respect to equipment and status of the vehicle. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s system logs and communicates information regarding a vehicle and potential needs that require attention from a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights