DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received May 22, 2026. No Claim(s) have been canceled. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18379992 filed 10/13/2023 is a Continuation of 15199043 , filed 06/30/2016 ,now U.S. Patent # 11861715 and having 3 RCE-type filing therein 18379992 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62326315 , filed 04/22/2016
Applicant Name/Assignee: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Inventor(s): Bellas, Eric; Call, Shawn; Carter, Gregory; Duehr, Ronald; Hevrin, Jeffrey; Collins, Sara
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points to MPEP 2016.04(d) arguing that based on the amended limitations the claimed subject matter under step 2A prong 2 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues the amended limitations recite improvements to other technology/technical field reciting use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a technical environment. Applicant emphasizes the limitations of claim 1 which are similarly found in independent claims 8 and 15, arguing the combination of steps improve technical field of crash detection going beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a technical environment:
“after determining that the condition has occurred, determining, using the one or more processors to perform an analysis, whether the condition corresponds to an occurrence of a crash of a vehicle having an expected duration;
after determining that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle, causing a second sensor to transition from a deactivated state to an activated state and to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based at least on the expected duration of the crash of the vehicle, wherein:
the second sensor comprises a gyroscope;
the gyroscope is different from the accelerometer; and
the additional sensor data comprises gyroscope data;
determining, using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data from the predetermined amount of time, and the base sensor data, whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred; and
if it is determined that the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has not occurred, adjusting the analysis to prevent a determination that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle." (Bolded for emphasis.)
Applicant argues the time-bounded sensor operation improves the accuracy of crash detection by constraining the additional sensor data to a window that matches the characteristics of a crash event. Applicant points to the specification ¶ 0039 which discloses that typical vehicle crash has a duration time of less than three tenths of a second and the system causes the additional sensor to output data for that specific duration. The capturing of data within the crash specific window, excludes post-crash noise that would cause a false alarm as discussed in ¶ 0056. The restriction of open ended data gathering provides precise technical method of controlling how long the sensor operates calibrated to the crash event improving reliability of crash detection.
[0039] The one or more processors may cause the at least one additional sensor of the first
mobile computing device 116 (or other suitable mobile computing device, as discussed herein) to
output the additional sensor data for an amount of time (e.g., a predetermined amount of time)
after the at least one additional sensor begins outputting the additional sensor data (block 206).
The amount of time may be, for example, a predetermined amount of time that corresponds to an
expected duration of a crash of the vehicle 102. For example, the insurance provider may have
determined that a typical vehicle crash has a duration of less than three-tenths of a second, and
the app used to perform actions described herein (such an app being discussed above) may thus
cause the first mobile computing device 116, and more particularly the one or more processors
thereof, to cause the at least one additional sensor to output the additional sensor data for three tenths of a second. It will be appreciated any other suitable time may be used as the amount of
time during which the at least one additional sensor is caused to output the additional sensor
data, and that the app may be configured (e.g., by the insurance provider) accordingly.
[0056] If it is determined that the vehicle 102 is stopped, the one or more processors may
cause at least one of a notification of the crash of the vehicle 102 or a prompt associated with the
crash of the vehicle 102 to be provided to the user (e.g., insured party such as the driver 112) of
the first mobile computing device 116, such as via a user interface (e.g., display and/or other
suitable user interface component(s)) of the first mobile computing device 116 (block 306). The
notification and/or prompt may indicate that the first mobile computing device 116 has generated
an indication that the crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, and in some embodiments may
prompt the user to confirm that the crash of the vehicle 102 has actually occurred or,
alternatively, to indicate that the vehicle 102 has not been involved in a crash. For example, the
base sensor data and/or the additional sensor data may represent a "false alarm" and thus indicate
a crash when a crash has not actually occurred. Such a false alarm may occur if, for example, the
first mobile computing device 116 is dropped while within the vehicle 102, or otherwise
experiences a sudden movement and/or change in movement even though the vehicle 102 is not
involved in a crash.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. With respect to the specification, the output of data by sensors for a predetermined amount of time or an expected duration of the crash of the vehicle is not to improve upon any underlying technology. The specification discloses that insurance providers may determine the typical crash duration causing the app of a mobile device to cause sensors to output additional sensor data for the typical crash duration or any other suitable time may be used as the amount of any other suitable time may be used as the amount of time as set forth by the insurance app. The specification or claim limitations do not support applicant’s argument that the insurance app configured for causing the sensors to output additional sensor data for a predetermined time is an attempt to prevent false alarms. The specification discloses in ¶ 0056 that when received data indicates a possible event a notification is sent to the user prompting the user to verify whether a crash has occurred or the data of the sensors is a false alarm. This is not for the purpose of improving the technology to prevent false alarms presented by sensors but rather to verify to insurance companies whether a crash has occurred or not by having the user verify the incident. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(d) arguing that under step 2B the claim limitations recite additional limitations that are not well understood or routine technical process. Applicant argues the limitations as a combination provide improvements beyond well understood routine or conventional in the field beyond any alleged abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The claim limitations recite without technical details “causing …sensor of a mobile…device to output data…”, “determining, using …processors and based …on …sensor data, whether conditioned occurred”, “…determining using the …processors to perform an analysis whether condition corresponds to an occurrence…having an expected duration” which as a combination is merely applying processors to perform generic operations of analyze outputted data to determine a result which according to Electric Power Group is a conventional application of technology.
The additional limitations in combination with the previous limitation recite “after determining …condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash…causing a second sensor to transition from deactivated state to an activated state to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based on expected duration of the crash of the vehicle…”, “determining using the …processors and based on …additional sensor data form the predetermined amount of time and the …sensor data, whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred” and “if it is determined that crash…having the expected duration has not occurred, adjusting the analysis to prevent a determine that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle”. The second set of limitations after the first set merely apply a generic processor at a high level without details of technical implementation used to analyze received additional data that is applied in a conditional action. In Ubicomm LLC v. Zappos IP, Inc. No. 1-13-cv-01029 (d. Del. Nov. 13, 2013), the court found that conditional actions to be abstract. Like as found in UbiComm, the adjusting function simply describes a conditional action that is triggered based on “if it is determined that crash…having the expected duration has not occurred”. According to UbiComm, citing policy considerations of Mayo, a conditional action is a basic tool used in many disciplines from medicine to economics. The court found that if conditional actions should be protected as an abstract idea because patenting conditional actions would impede innovation. The second set of limitations that occur after the analysis of the first sensor do not improve upon sensor technology or the capability of processors. The combination of parts as a technical process are high level performing ordinary operations of applying processors to analyze data to determine results of the analysis and based on the results perform a “adjusting” of the analysis. The limitation “causing a second sensor to transition from deactivated state to an activated state” lacks technical disclosure and is not to solve a problem rooted in technology itself. Instead the activation of the sensor is merely to apply additional sensors to collect data based on a condition. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “determining, using the one or more processors to perform an analysis, whether the condition corresponds to an occurrence of a crash of a vehicle having an expected duration”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art combination Carberry and Ehrman are directed toward collecting data for analyzing whether a condition reflects a crash. Ehrman teaches the calculating a standard deviation enabling the impact sensor to adapt to conditions of vehicle operations and teaches calculating duration of impulse and impulse sustain.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “wherein: the second sensor comprises a gyroscope; the gyroscope is different from the accelerometer; and the additional sensor data comprises gyroscope data”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Carberry teaches Col 9 lines 54-61 “As described above, the sensors 132 may also comprise a compass, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or any other type of sensor”; Col 10 lines 28-45 wherein the prior art teaches “the computing device may request and/or receive additional sensor data from the vehicle sensors 119A and/or sensor data from the mobile device’s sensors 118A. The computing device may automatically collect the sensor data. “’ Col 11 lines 14-25 wherein the prior art teaches “Additionally or alternatively, the sensor may comprise a gyroscope, and the measured data indicative of the accident may comprise rotation data.”, teaches “the computing device may determine additional sources of sensor data based on whether the additional data source was involved in the accident. Whether the additional source of data (e.g., devices within another vehicle or a pedestrian’s mobile device) was involved in the accident may be determined using location data
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “determining, using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data from the predetermined amount of time, and the base sensor data, whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art combination Carberry and Ehrman are directed toward collecting data for analyzing whether a condition reflects a crash. Ehrman teaches the calculating a standard deviation enabling the impact sensor to adapt to conditions of vehicle operations and teaches calculating duration of impulse and impulse sustain
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “if it is determined that the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has not occurred, adjusting the analysis to prevent a determination that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art combination Carberry and Ehrman are directed toward collecting data for analyzing whether a condition reflects a crash. Ehrman teaches the calculating a standard deviation enabling the impact sensor to adapt to conditions of vehicle operations and teaches calculating duration of impulse and impulse sustain
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant's amendments. Based on an updated search of the art, a new reference was used in the rejection below
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “causing a second sensor to transition from a deactivated state to an activated state and to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based at least on the expected duration of the crash of the vehicle “, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art combination Carberry and Ehrman are directed toward collecting data for analyzing whether a condition reflects a crash. Ehrman teaches the calculating a standard deviation enabling the impact sensor to adapt to conditions of vehicle operations and teaches calculating duration of impulse and impulse sustain. With respect to the limitation “causing a second sensor to transition from a deactivated state to an activated state”, applicant’s argument is moot as a new reference has been applied to address the amended limitation.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claim(s) 1-7:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps (1) outputting data (2) determining whether condition has occurred (3) determining whether condition corresponds to a crash occurrence (4) causing second sensor to transition from deactivated state to activated state to output additional data (5) determining whether crash of the vehicle has occurred (6) if it is determined crash of vehicle has not occurred adjusting the analysis to prevent a determination that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle.
The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance commercial activity as the limitations are directed toward analyzing data for risk analysis. The specification titled “System and Method for Indicating whether a Vehicle crash has occurred” makes clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The specification discloses, that using a sensor to detect vehicle crashes has several drawbacks reciting a process that uses technology (sensors) to output sensor data that is analyzed to determine whether a crash has occurred and using a mobile device sensor to collect additional data used for determining whether a crash has occurred (para 0037-0038), where the additional use of sensor data improves the accuracy of an indication of whether a crash has occurred where such data may be used by the insurance provider who is providing coverage for the vehicle (para 0025).
Therefore, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward outputting and analyzing data for determining indications of a crash and additional data is outputted and analyzed in response to a first determination of an indication of a crash for making a second determination that an indication of a crash has occurred. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “first sensor of a mobile device”, the first sensor comprises an accelerometer, “one or more processors”, a “second sensor” the second sensor comprising a gyroscope.
The additional elements “first sensor of a mobile device” is applied to output sensor data. The additional element “second sensor” is applied to perform the operations “output…additional sensor data…for a predetermined time”. According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations (output…data) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “one or more processors” is applied to perform the steps “determining…whether condition occurred”, “determining …whether condition corresponds to an occurrence…”, “cause a second sensor to transition from de-activated state to an activated state to begin outputting …data” and “determine…whether crash of the vehicle occurred” based on sensor data and sensor data from predetermined amount of time, is merely apply or generally link the one or more processors to analyze the data received from the first sensor, second sensor and based on a condition being met cause at a high level additional data from a different sensor to be outputted for use in further analysis.
The “sensors” and “one or more processors” as claimed are described in general terms with high level functions of “outputting data” and “determining whether conditions occurred”, “determining whether condition corresponds to an occurrence”, “determining whether crash has occurred” and “adjusting the analysis”. The additional step “cause …second sensor to begin outputting additional sensor data” is recited at a high level of generality lacking technical disclosure as to how the operation “causing a second sensor to begin outputting…data”. The limitation is so broad as to include manual or automated implementation of “cause a first sensor of a mobile computing device to output…data” and/or “causing a second sensor to …output[ting]…data”.
With respect to the limitation “using the one or more processors to perform an analysis …after determining that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle, causing a second sensor to transition from a deactivated state to an activated state”, the specification lacks any technical disclosure as to the process in which the “one or more processors… causing a second sensor to transition from a deactivated state to an activated state”. The specification ¶ 0037, discloses “the one or more processors may cause one or more of the gyroscope 152, the pressure sensor 154, the magnetic sensor 156, or the sound monitoring component 158 to tum on or otherwise activate or begin operation, and thereby begin outputting additional sensor data.” The specification nominally mentions the activating of the sensor without technical implementation and therefore, can be implemented by any known means that processors typically can perform the operations, in response to the determination that a condition corresponding to a crash has occurred. This is merely applying technology in its ordinary capacity to turn on based on a condition related to an insurance event, collect and output data.
The wherein clauses “wherein: the first sensor comprises an accelerometer and the base sensor data comprises accelerometer data;” and “wherein: the second sensor comprises a gyroscope; the gyroscope is different from the accelerometer and the additional sensor data comprises gyroscope data”, does not further limit the operation of the “causing…sensor to output data” or “causing a second sensor to begin outputting …data”. It merely defines the sensor types.
With respect to the temporal limitations “determining, using the one or more processors to perform an analysis, whether the condition corresponds to an occurrence of a crash of a vehicle having an expected duration”, “causing a second sensor …to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based at least on the expected duration of the crash of the vehicle”, “using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data from the predetermined amount of time, and the base sensor data, whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred” and “if it is determined that the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has not occurred, adjusting the analysis…”, the temporal limitations do not improve upon the capability of the processors or sensors. The specification discloses that insurance providers may determine the typical crash duration causing the app of a mobile device to cause sensors to output additional sensor data for the typical crash duration or any other suitable time may be used as the amount of any other suitable time may be used as the amount of time as set forth by the insurance app (¶ 0039). The further limiting of the sensor data within a predetermined time frame is not directed toward improving any underlying technology or to provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology or caused by the technology itself.
The first sensors of the mobile device, one or more processors or second sensor, as claimed are not attempting to impose meaningful limits upon the judicial exception or improve technology or provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. The claimed steps focus on outputting and analyzing data and not on any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter as set forth under step 2A prong 2. When considered as an ordered combination of parts or as a whole the focus of the claimed steps is to analyze outputted data in order to determine a condition and output additional that is analyzed in order (according to the specification) more accurately determined a condition that an accident has occurred based on the data outputted. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the outputting of data, determining of a condition, or causing sensors to collect additional data or analyze/determine a condition using the additional data. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the sensors and/or one or more processors used to apply the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations when considered as a combination. The combination of parts do not go beyond the concept of analyzing outputted data and not directed toward a process where the combination of generic high level results is an attempt to address issues within technology itself (see Enfish/BASCOM) as the claimed limitations do not change the operations of any technology. The claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
Accordingly the claim limitations whether considered individually or when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The steps recited in the claims recite the concept of outputting and analyzing data for indications of an accident of a vehicle in order to determine the accuracy of the data outputted and analyzed.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to output and analyze data, output additional data based on the result of the analysis in order to confirm the original analysis and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional limitations beyond the abstract idea only add technology as a tool in order to implement abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
There is no indication in the claim language that the structure and/or the manner in which the sensors and/or one or processors operations or capability is changed in any way.
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the sensors “outputting” data and/or the “one or more processors” determining “condition” or “location”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim limitations beyond the abstract idea include a “a first sensor of a mobile device” and “a second sensor” for outputting data and “one or more processors” used for “determining” a “conditions” in the data analysis. The operation of the ”one or more processors” to cause a second sensor to transition from deactivated state to an activated state” lacks any technical details as to implementation. The specification is equally silent as to a technical process. Instead both the specification and claims recite a conditional trigger based on results of a data analysis for the processor to implement the “turn on” sensor operation. The data analysis result is not directed toward technology but rather the determination of a crash for insurance purposes and therefore is part of the abstract idea and not technology.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a “sensor” to output data and “one or more processors” used for “determining” a “condition” and “location” ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. According to Alice using sensors to output data and one or more processors to analyze data and determine location of a device is not enough to qualify as “significantly more”.
The use of the “one or more processors” as claimed to perform the operations
The application of the claimed “sensors” and “one or more processors” used with the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using technology requiring no more than generic sensors and one or more processors to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to the conditional analysis of the data received for determining accident occurrences, the conditional analysis and applying conditions in order to cause additional data to be outputted for use in further analysis without any technical details is not an indication of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. In Ubicomm LLC v. Zappos IP, Inc. No. 1-13-cv-01029 (d. Del. Nov. 13, 2013), the court found that conditional actions to be abstract. Like as found in UbiComm, the determining function in the current limitations simply describes a conditional actions that are triggered based on a determine analysis result condition. According to UbiComm, citing policy considerations of Mayo, a conditional action is a basic tool used in many disciplines from medicine to economics. The court found that if conditional actions should be protected as an abstract idea because patenting conditional actions would impede innovation. Therefore, the determining steps is abstract and are not considered additional elements beyond the identified abstract idea.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses the sensors included in a mobile computing device (spec ¶ 0027) to perform the operations of collecting and outputting data, where the sensors may include any of a “gyroscope 152, a pressure sensor 154 (e.g., a barometric pressure sensor), a sound monitoring component 156 (e.g., a microphone), a magnetic sensor 158 (e.g., a magnetometer), and an accelerometer” (spec ¶ 0029). The specification further disclose the sensors be any “suitable number of each of the sensors (¶ 0029).
With respect to the “one or more processors”, the specification discloses:
[00108]… A hardware module may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost and time considerations.
[00109] Accordingly, the term hardware should be understood to encompass a tangible entity,
be that an entity that is physically constructed, permanently configured (e.g., hardwired), or
temporarily configured (e.g., programmed) to operate in a certain manner or to perform certain
operations described herein. Considering embodiments in which hardware modules are
temporarily configured (e.g., programmed), each of the hardware modules need not be
configured or instantiated at any one instance in time. For example, where the hardware
modules comprise a general-purpose processor configured using software, the general-purpose
processor may be configured as respective different hardware modules at different times.
Software may accordingly configure a processor, for example, to constitute a particular hardware
module at one instance of time and to constitute a different hardware module at a different
instance of time.
With respect to activating sensors, the specification discloses:
[0037] If it is determined that the base sensor data indicates that a condition corresponding to
a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, the one or more processors (e.g., one or more processors of the first mobile computing device 116, as described above) may cause at least one additional sensor of the mobile computing device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116) to begin outputting additional sensor data (block 204). For example, where the base sensor(s) is the accelerometer 160, the one or more processors may cause one or more of the gyroscope 152, the pressure sensor 154, the magnetic sensor 156, or the sound monitoring component 158 to tum on or otherwise activate or begin operation, and thereby begin outputting additional sensor data. In this manner, the accelerometer 160 or other suitable base sensor(s) may advantageously be used to determine whether a condition corresponding to a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred without having to use all sensors of the mobile computing device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116). When such a condition (e.g., which may correspond to particular output(s) of the base sensor(s) as discussed above) has occurred, the additional sensor(s) may be caused to output the additional sensor data in order to increase the accuracy of an indication of whether a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, with such an indication being further discussed below.
US Patent No. 9,925,940 B1 by Christensen et al-Col 19 lines 3-24 wherein the prior art teaches the devices determining an accident occurred based on sensor data and Col 19 lines 47-53 wherein the prior art teaches the device prompting for confirmation an accident occurred.
With respect to multi-sensor data for vehicle event analysis the examiner provides:
Evaluating Localization Accuracy of Automated Driving systems by Rehrl et al. (2021); A Comprehensive Study of IoT based Accident Detection Systems for Smart Vehicles by Alvi et al. (2017); Deep Crash Detection from Vehicular Sensor Data with Multimodal Self-Supervision by Kubin et al. (2021); A Sensor and Sensor Fusion Technology in Autonomous Vehicle a review” by Yeong (2021); Vehicle Sensor Data-based transportation research: Modeling, analysis and management by He et al. (2019); An Automotive Distributed Mobile Sensor Data Collection with machine learning based data fusion and analysis on a Central backend system by Tiedemann et al (2016)
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-7 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward generating location of the device and indication of whether crash has occurred- using technology to analyze crash related data- a business process. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward listing of sensor type options- further limiting the tool applied for collecting/outputting data to generic known sensor types well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward collating data at a time at which additional data is outputted – insignificant extra solution activity of collecting and data manipulation of combining data. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward generating location data- well understood in the art. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward determining whether vehicle is stopped, and when an indication of crash occurred a notification of the crash or prompt provided- data analysis and output- mere data analysis and output - well understood and a business practice. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward adding additional sensor to mobile device- well understood technology.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-7 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 8-14:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 8 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The operations of system claim 8 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The operations of system claim 8 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a system processor comprising a mobile device sensor, memory storing instructions, processor interfaced with the sensor and memory to execute the instructions–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system for implementing an operations of outputting sensor data and/or determining a condition found in the analysis of data or a location of a device will include a “sensors” and/ “processor” capable of performing the basic computer functions -of causing sensors to “output” data, “determine” condition in analysis of data and/or location of a device “ - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The operations of system claim 8 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field and/or fail to provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea itself.
The claimed system and its memory, sensors and processors executing instructions is not truly drawn to a specific system but rather is directed toward the identified abstract idea of analyzing outputted sensor data in order to determine whether an accident has occurred and then outputting additional data that is analyzed if the previous determination indicates the accident condition in order to provide more accurate determination that an accident occurred. Simply reciting the use of a system and its components will not change that the system is merely applied to perform the abstract idea as determined under step 2A prong 1. The “incidental use” of a system does not allow the claim to meet the Alice 2A prong 2 or 2B requirements. Accordingly the claimed limitations do not meet the requirements that the use of a system for performing the abstract idea becomes a special purpose computer once is confined to performing the abstract idea.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses the sensors included in a mobile computing device (spec ¶ 0027) to perform the operations of collecting and outputting data, where the sensors may include any of a “gyroscope 152, a pressure sensor 154 (e.g., a barometric
pressure sensor), a sound monitoring component 156 (e.g., a microphone), a magnetic sensor 158 (e.g., a magnetometer), and an accelerometer” (spec ¶ 0029). The specification further disclose the sensors be any “suitable number of each of the sensors (¶ 0029).
With respect to the “one or more processors”, the specification discloses:
[00108]… A hardware module may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost and time considerations.
[00109] Accordingly, the term hardware should be understood to encompass a tangible entity,
be that an entity that is physically constructed, permanently configured (e.g., hardwired), or
temporarily configured (e.g., programmed) to operate in a certain manner or to perform certain
operations described herein. Considering embodiments in which hardware modules are
temporarily configured (e.g., programmed), each of the hardware modules need not be
configured or instantiated at any one instance in time. For example, where the hardware
modules comprise a general-purpose processor configured using software, the general-purpose
processor may be configured as respective different hardware modules at different times.
Software may accordingly configure a processor, for example, to constitute a particular hardware
module at one instance of time and to constitute a different hardware module at a different
instance of time.
With respect to activating sensors, the specification discloses:
[0037] If it is determined that the base sensor data indicates that a condition corresponding to
a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, the one or more processors (e.g., one or more processors of the first mobile computing device 116, as described above) may cause at least one additional sensor of the mobile computing device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116) to begin outputting additional sensor data (block 204). For example, where the base sensor(s) is the accelerometer 160, the one or more processors may cause one or more of the gyroscope 152, the pressure sensor 154, the magnetic sensor 156, or the sound monitoring component 158 to tum on or otherwise activate or begin operation, and thereby begin outputting additional sensor data. In this manner, the accelerometer 160 or other suitable base sensor(s) may advantageously be used to determine whether a condition corresponding to a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred without having to use all sensors of the mobile computing device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116). When such a condition (e.g., which may correspond to particular output(s) of the base sensor(s) as discussed above) has occurred, the additional sensor(s) may be caused to output the additional sensor data in order to increase the accuracy of an indication of whether a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, with such an indication being further discussed below.
US Patent No. 9,925,940 B1 by Christensen et al-Col 19 lines 3-24 wherein the prior art teaches the devices determining an accident occurred based on sensor data and Col 19 lines 47-53 wherein the prior art teaches the device prompting for confirmation an accident occurred.
With respect to multi-sensor data for vehicle event analysis the examiner provides:
Evaluating Localization Accuracy of Automated Driving systems by Rehrl et al. (2021); A Comprehensive Study of IoT based Accident Detection Systems for Smart Vehicles by Alvi et al. (2017); Deep Crash Detection from Vehicular Sensor Data with Multimodal Self-Supervision by Kubin et al. (2021); A Sensor and Sensor Fusion Technology in Autonomous Vehicle a review” by Yeong (2021); Vehicle Sensor Data-based transportation research: Modeling, analysis and management by He et al. (2019); An Automotive Distributed Mobile Sensor Data Collection with machine learning based data fusion and analysis on a Central backend system by Tiedemann et al (2016)
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 9-14 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 8. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward generate location of the device and indication of whether crash has occurred- using technology to analyze crash related data- a business process. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward listing of sensor type options- further limiting the tool applied for collecting/outputting data to generic known sensor types well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward collate data at a time at which additional data is outputted – insignificant extra solution activity of collecting and data manipulation of combining data. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward generate location data- well understood in the art. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward a mobile device interface and processor used to determine whether vehicle is stopped, and when an indication of crash occurred a notification of the crash or prompt provided- data analysis and output- mere data analysis and output – applying known technology in a generic manner - well understood application of technology and a business practice. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward adding additional sensor to mobile device- well understood technology.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 8. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 9-14 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 15-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer readable medium, as in independent Claim 15 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The instructions of medium claim 15 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The instructions of medium claim 15 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a computer readable storage medium comprising non-transitory readable instructions executable by one or more processors–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer readable medium instruction for implementing a processor is executable by a “processor” capable of performing the basic computer functions -of outputting sensor data and/or determining a condition found in the analysis of data or a location of a device will include a mobile device “sensors” and/ “processor” capable of performing the basic computer functions -of causing sensors to “output” data, “determine” condition in analysis of data and/or location of a device “ - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The instructions of medium claim 15 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field and/or fail to provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea itself.
The claimed manufacture is not truly drawn to a specific readable medium containing non-generic instructions but rather is directed toward the identified abstract idea of analyzing outputted sensor data in order to determine whether an accident has occurred and then outputting additional data that is analyzed if the previous determination indicates the accident condition in order to provide more accurate determination that an accident occurred. Simply reciting the use of a medium as executed by one or more processors will not change that the system is medium is being applied to perform the abstract idea as determined under step 2A prong 1. The “incidental use” of a medium does not allow the claim to meet the Alice 2A prong 2 or 2B requirements. Accordingly the claimed limitations do not meet the requirements that the use of a system for performing the abstract idea becomes a special purpose computer once is confined to performing the abstract idea.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses:
[0007] In yet another embodiment, a computer readable storage medium may be provided that
includes non-transitory computer readable instructions stored thereon for generating an
indication of whether a vehicle crash has occurred. The instructions, when executed on one or
more processors, may cause the one or more processors to determine whether base sensor data output by at least one base sensor of a mobile computing device indicates that a condition
corresponding to a crash of a vehicle has occurred, where the mobile computing device may be
within the vehicle. …
[00106] The methods described in this application may include one or more functions or
routines in the form of non-transitory computer-executable instructions that are stored in a
tangible computer-readable storage medium and executed using a processor of a computing
device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116, one or more of the remote computing
device(s) 106, and/or any other computing devices within the example system 100 in any
suitable combination). The routines may be included as part of any of the modules described in
relation to Figure 1 or as part of a module that is external to the system illustrated by Figure 1….
[00107] Additionally, certain aspects are described herein as including logic or a number of
functions, components, modules, blocks, or mechanisms. Functions may constitute either
software modules (e.g., non-transitory code stored on a tangible machine-readable storage
medium) or hardware modules. A hardware module is a tangible unit capable of performing
certain operations and may be configured or arranged in a certain manner. In example
embodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client or server computer
system) or one or more hardware modules of a computer system (e.g., a processor or a group of
processors) may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) as a
hardware module that operates to perform certain operations as described herein.
[00108] In various embodiments, a hardware module may be implemented mechanically or
electronically. For example, a hardware module may comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is
permanently configured (e.g., as a special-purpose processor, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to perform certain functions). A hardware module may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost and time considerations.
With respect to activating sensors, the specification discloses:
[0037] If it is determined that the base sensor data indicates that a condition corresponding to
a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, the one or more processors (e.g., one or more processors of the first mobile computing device 116, as described above) may cause at least one additional sensor of the mobile computing device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116) to begin outputting additional sensor data (block 204). For example, where the base sensor(s) is the accelerometer 160, the one or more processors may cause one or more of the gyroscope 152, the pressure sensor 154, the magnetic sensor 156, or the sound monitoring component 158 to tum on or otherwise activate or begin operation, and thereby begin outputting additional sensor data. In this manner, the accelerometer 160 or other suitable base sensor(s) may advantageously be used to determine whether a condition corresponding to a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred without having to use all sensors of the mobile computing device (e.g., the first mobile computing device 116). When such a condition (e.g., which may correspond to particular output(s) of the base sensor(s) as discussed above) has occurred, the additional sensor(s) may be caused to output the additional sensor data in order to increase the accuracy of an indication of whether a crash of the vehicle 102 has occurred, with such an indication being further discussed below.
US Patent No. 9,925,940 B1 by Christensen et al-Col 19 lines 3-24 wherein the prior art teaches the devices determining an accident occurred based on sensor data and Col 19 lines 47-53 wherein the prior art teaches the device prompting for confirmation an accident occurred.
With respect to multi-sensor data for vehicle event analysis the examiner provides:
Evaluating Localization Accuracy of Automated Driving systems by Rehrl et al. (2021); A Comprehensive Study of IoT based Accident Detection Systems for Smart Vehicles by Alvi et al. (2017); Deep Crash Detection from Vehicular Sensor Data with Multimodal Self-Supervision by Kubin et al. (2021); A Sensor and Sensor Fusion Technology in Autonomous Vehicle a review” by Yeong (2021); Vehicle Sensor Data-based transportation research: Modeling, analysis and management by He et al. (2019); An Automotive Distributed Mobile Sensor Data Collection with machine learning based data fusion and analysis on a Central backend system by Tiedemann et al (2016)
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 16-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 15. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward generate whether crash has occurred based on sensor data- using technology to analyze crash related data- a business process. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward listing of sensor type options- further limiting the tool applied for collecting/outputting data to generic known sensor types well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward collate data at a time at which additional data is outputted – insignificant extra solution activity of collecting and data manipulation of combining data. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward generate location data- well understood in the art. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward a mobile device interface and processor used to determine whether vehicle is stopped, and when an indication of crash occurred a notification of the crash or prompt provided- data analysis and output- mere data analysis and output – applying known technology in a generic manner - well understood application of technology and a business practice.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 15. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 16-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7; Claim(s) 8- 14; Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,162,800 B1 by Carberry et al (Carberry) in view of US Pub No. 2017/0259753 A1 by Meyhofer et al. (Meyhofer) and further in view of US Pub No. 2012/0130586 A1 by Ehrman et al. (Ehrman)
(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for determining whether a vehicle crash has occurred ((Carberry) in at least Abstract), the method comprising:
causing a first sensor of a mobile computing device to output base sensor data ((Carberry) in at least Col 1 lines 35-51), wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer ((Carberry)in at least Col 2 lines 1-4, Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-4, Col 9 lines 1-6, lines 50-61); and
the base sensor data comprises accelerometer data ((Carberry)in at least Col 2 lines 1-4, Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-46, Col 9 lines 50-61, col 10 lines 28-36);
determining, using one or more processors and based at least on the base sensor data, whether a condition has occurred ((Carberry) in at least Col 9 lines 20-34, Col 11 lines 14-34);
after determining that the condition has occurred, determining, using the one or more processors to perform an analysis, whether the condition corresponds to an occurrence of a crash of a vehicle … ((Carberry) in at least FIG. 2; Col 9 lines 20-34, Col 11 lines 14-34, Col 15 lines 22-59);
after determining that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle, causing a second sensor to… and to begin outputting additional sensor data …((Carberry) in at least Col 9 lines 20-34, Col 11 lines 14-34 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether secondary data source involved and data from one or more sensors of the mobile device), wherein the second sensor comprises a gyroscope ((Carberry) in at least Col 2 lines 5-6, Col 8 lines 56-Col 9 lines 1-6, lines 40-61, Col 10 lines 28-45); and
the gyroscope is different from the accelerometer ((Carberry) in at least Col 2 lines 5-6, Col 8 lines 56-Col 9 lines 1-6, lines 40-61,Col 10 lines 33-45); and
the additional sensor data comprises gyroscope data ((Carberry) in at least abstract; “ As described above, the sensors 132 may also comprise a compass, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or any other type of sensor”; Col 2 lines 5-6, Col 8 lines 56-Col 9 lines 1-6, lines 40-61, Col 9 lines 54-61 “As described above, the sensors 132 may also comprise a compass, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or any other type of sensor”; Col 10 lines 28-45 wherein the prior art teaches “the computing device may request and/or receive additional sensor data from the vehicle sensors 119A and/or sensor data from the mobile device’s sensors 118A. The computing device may automatically collect the sensor data. “’ Col 11 lines 14-25 wherein the prior art teaches “Additionally or alternatively, the sensor may comprise a gyroscope, and the measured data indicative of the accident may comprise rotation data.”, teaches “the computing device may determine additional sources of sensor data based on whether the additional data source was involved in the accident. Whether the additional source of data (e.g., devices within another vehicle or a pedestrian’s mobile device) was involved in the accident may be determined using location data, as explained above. Whether a secondary data source was involved in the accident may also be determined based on some sensor data from the secondary data source[AltContent: ];
determining, using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data …, and the base sensor data, whether the crash of the vehicle has occurred ((Carberry) in at least Col 9 lines 20-Col 10 lines 1-57, Col 11 lines 14-34); and
if it is determined that the crash of the vehicle … has not occurred ((Carberry) in at least Col 6 lines 15-18, lines 33-37, Col 10 lines 20-24), …
Carberry does not explicitly teach:
… using the one or more processors to perform an analysis, whether the condition corresponds to an occurrence of a crash of a vehicle having an expected duration
causing a second sensor, to transition from deactivated state to an activated state to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based at least on the expected duration of the crash of the vehicle
determining, using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data from the predetermined amount of time… whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred
if it is determined that the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has not occurred, adjusting the analysis
Ehrman teaches:
using the one or more processors to perform an analysis, whether the condition corresponds to an occurrence of a crash of a vehicle having an expected duration ((Ehrman) in at least FIG. 5-7; para 0032 wherein the prior art teaches calculating a standard deviation enabling the impact sensor to adapt to conditions of vehicle operations, para 0033, para 0035 wherein the prior art teaches calculating duration of impulse and impulse sustain, para 0039-0040 wherein the prior art teaches determining impact threshold and determines whether period duration should be adjusted where based on statistical analysis to separate normal events from extradentary events, para 0041; Table 1-2)
determining, using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data from the predetermined amount of time… whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred ((Ehrman) in at least Fig. 6; para 0035-0036 wherein the prior art teaches crating impact energy curve used to identify duration of impulse for indication of event);
causing a … sensor,… to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based at least on the expected duration of the crash of the vehicle ((Ehrman) in at least para 0039-0040 wherein the prior art teaches adjusting threshold for sensor setting for impulse period)
determining, using the one or more processors and based at least on the additional sensor data from the predetermined amount of time… whether the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has occurred ((Ehrman) in at least para 0035-0041)
if it is determined that the crash of the vehicle having the expected duration has not occurred, adjusting the analysis to prevent a determination that the condition corresponds to the occurrence of the crash of the vehicle.((Ehrman) in at least Fig. 3; para 0031-0033, para 0036, Table 2; para 0037-0044)
Both Carberry and Ehrman are directed toward analyzing received sensor data in order to identify impact events of the vehicles. Ehrman teaches the motivation of determining a predetermined amount of time for expected duration during a time period for sensor impulse to collect data adjusting the parameters for analyzing and determining possible impact events in response to identifying false alarm impacts in the analysis in order to ensure that the sensor setting are effective to distinguish a lower floor level for event data and prevent false positive for accident detection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis process for detecting possible impacts of Carberry to include modifying the analysis in response to a false detection as taught by Ehrman since Ehrman teaches the motivation of determining a predetermined amount of time for expected duration during a time period for sensor impulse to collect data adjusting the parameters for analyzing and determining possible impact events in response to identifying false alarm impacts in the analysis in order to ensure that the sensor setting are effective to distinguish a lower floor level for event data and prevent false positive for accident detection..
Meyhofer teaches:
…causing a second sensor, to transition from deactivated state to an activated state to begin outputting additional sensor data for a predetermined amount of time based at least on the expected duration of the crash of the vehicle ((Meyhofer) in at least para 0039 wherein the prior art teaches determining collision zone relative to the vehicle and a time when collision occurred (e.g. 1-2 seconds), para 0044 wherein the prior art teaches sensor interface to activate one or more additional sensor systems, based on detection of vehicle movements providing feedback which can initiate an additional sensor to detect and identify hazards)
According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The scope and content of the prior art Carberry, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, included a similar or analogous process of applying additional sensors for collection of additional information based on a condition, which differed from the claimed invention by the positively reciting the additional sensor collecting additional information is caused to turn on from an off state in its use for data collection. The prior art Meyhofer, provides design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the device of Carberry to expand the causing of the additional sensor collecting additional information to turn on from an off state to an on state according to feedback received in order to collect sensor information. Accordingly the prior art references provides evidences that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
Both Carberry and Meyhofer are directed toward causing sensors to collect additional data. Meyhofer teaches the motivation of activating additional sensors for collecting additional data as taught by Carberry since Meyhofer teaches the motivation that in response to feedback activating additional sensors in order to detect and identify potential hazards as taught by Meyhofer or damage as taught by Carberry, since both Carberry and Meyhofer teach applying sensors to collect additional data.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the crash of the vehicle has occurred comprises:
using the one or more processors: based on the additional sensor data, determining a location of the mobile computing device. ((Carberry) in at least Col 1 lines 38-51, Col 2 lines 8-19, Col 5 lines 26-45, lines 55-65)
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (, further comprising:
collating the additional sensor data with a location of the mobile computing device at a time at which the additional sensor data was output. ((Carberry) in at least Col 2 lines 7-33, Col 5 lines 30-45, Col 8 lines 16-37)
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
receiving, from a location module of the mobile computing device, a location of the mobile computing device. ((Carberry) in at least Col 5 lines 30-45, lines 58-Col 6 lines 1-2)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
determining, using the one or more processors, whether the vehicle is stopped ((Carberry) in at least Col 16 lines 19-27)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), further comprising:
when it is determined that the vehicle is stopped and when it is determined that the crash of the vehicle has occurred, causing, using the one or more processors, at least one of a notification of the crash of the vehicle or a prompt associated with the crash of the vehicle to be provided via a user interface of the mobile computing device ((Carberry) in at least Col 16 lines 13-27 wherein the prior art teaches sending simulation to displays).
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the second sensor is included in an additional mobile computing device ((Carberry) in at least Col 2 lines 23-33, Col 9 lines 20-40, Col 11 lines 14-34).
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 8.
The mobile computing device operations of claim 8 correspond to the steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 8 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include a mobile computing device ((Carberry) in at least Fig. 1) to perform the operation that correspond to claim 1 include the structure comprising:
a first sensor ((Carberry) in at least Abstract);
memory storing computer-executable instructions ((Carberry) in at least Col 1 lines 38-51); and
a processor interfaced with the first sensor and the memory, and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the processor ((Carberry) in at least Col 1 lines 38-51)to perform the operations corresponding to claim 1
Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
The operations of device claim 9 corresponds to steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11
The operations of device claim 11 corresponds to steps of method claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
The operations of device claim 12 corresponds to steps of method claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 5
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The operations of device claim 6 corresponds to steps of method claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10
The operations of device claim 10 corresponds to steps of method claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
The operations of device claim 14 corresponds to steps of method claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 15.
The instructions of non-transitory computer-medium medium of claim 15 correspond to the steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 15 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include a non-transitory computer-medium medium ((Carberry) in at least Claim 11) to perform the operation that correspond to claim 1
Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above),
wherein determining whether the crash of the vehicle has occurred comprises using the one or more processors, based on the additional sensor data, determining a location of the mobile computing device is ((Carberry) in at least Col 5 lines 30-45, lines 58-Col 6 lines 1-2)
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), further comprising instructions that when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
collate the additional sensor data with a location of the mobile computing device at a time at which the additional sensor data was output. ((Carberry) in at least Col 2 lines 7-33, Col 5 lines 30-45, Col 8 lines 16-37)
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), further comprising instructions stored thereon that when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receiving, from cause a location module of the mobile computing device, to generate the a location of the mobile computing device. ((Carberry) in at least Col 5 lines 30-45, lines 58-Col 6 lines 1-2)
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The instructions of manufacture claim 20 corresponds to steps of method claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Carberry, Ehrman and Meyhofer discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20. Carberry further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
(The instructions of manufacture claim 17 corresponds to steps of method claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CA-3031040-C by Bose; CN 204066327 U by Li et al. para 0046 “when detecting the first acceleration value, the first acceleration sensor 3 is working, the second acceleration sensor 4 and microcontroller 1 standby, control communication module 5 is in a power-off state; the second acceleration sensor 4 starts to work, controlling the communication module 5 is in the power-off state, when it is judged that there is a traffic accident,”; JP 3940436 B2 by ホワイト，ク et al; U.S. Pat. No. 4,958,851 by – Behr et al- incorporates first and second testable and reconfigurable crash sensors so that in the event of a crash of the crash sensor, the fault sensor is activated and a normal fault sensor. Teaches that other crash sensors can be reconfigured to have a higher detection threshold”.
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 MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights