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 official correspondence below is an after non-final.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 have been canceled.
No new claims have been introduced.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, and 21-22 are currently pending.
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 15 (claim 1 parallel in scope and spirit) IS REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a method (comprising step, i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 15 is within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 15 Recites:
A method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving an accident occurrence signal from a first accident vehicle indicating a first accident section in which an accident of the first accident vehicle occurs;
receiving an accident occurrence signal from a second accident vehicle indicating a second accident section in which an accident of the second accident vehicle occurs;
transmitting, to the first accident vehicle and the second accident vehicle, a request for accident information;
receiving accident record acquired by an accident recording device of at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle;
generating, based on the accident record and based on an accident severity value indicating severity of the accident of the first accident vehicle, an accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle; and
transmitting, the accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle,
wherein the accident severity value is based on:
the accident record,
a quantity of vehicles involved in at least one of the accident of the first accident vehicle or the accident of the second accident vehicle,
a quantity of vehicles in which at least one airbag is deployed, and
a quantity of vehicles of which deceleration rates are greater than or equal to a deceleration threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performances within the limitation in the human mind. A determination (generating instructions based upon received data) in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver, passenger, traffic management center, news anchor for NPR) observing queried/received/collected sensor data and forming a simple judgement. For example, a plurality of vehicles with deployed airbags at an intersection will likely cause congestion, consider alternative route. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 15 Recites:
A method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving an accident occurrence signal from a first accident vehicle indicating a first accident section in which an accident of the first accident vehicle occurs;
receiving an accident occurrence signal from a second accident vehicle indicating a second accident section in which an accident of the second accident vehicle occurs;
transmitting, to the first accident vehicle and the second accident vehicle, a request for accident information;
receiving accident record acquired by an accident recording device of at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle;
generating, based on the accident record and based on an accident severity value indicating severity of the accident of the first accident vehicle, an accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle; and
transmitting, the accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle,
wherein the accident severity value is based on:
the accident record,
a quantity of vehicles involved in at least one of the accident of the first accident vehicle or the accident of the second accident vehicle,
a quantity of vehicles in which at least one airbag is deployed, and
a quantity of vehicles of which deceleration rates are greater than or equal to a deceleration threshold.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the first four additional limitations of receiving, receiving, transmitting, and receiving the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activities that use a computing device (how it is applied) to perform the process. In particular, receiving signals and querying a database amounts to data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). Lastly, regarding the last transmitting step includes an expansion (rules) of how the instruction signal generation step is determined, which is a form of pre-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computing device to perform “generating” amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of transmitting data and querying a database, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is wellunderstood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving” and “transmitting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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. The additional limitations of “transmitting (displaying a notification)” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 16-18 and 21-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 16-18 and 21-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 15. Claim 1 is parallel in scope and spirit to claim 15, and claims 2-8 and 11-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-22 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-8, 11-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal (US 20170053461 A1) in view of Nayak (US 20240144812 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Pal discloses, a communication device configured to communicate with at least one vehicle (Pal: [0117] in response to receiving the request, automatically initiating an accident response action of transmitting the accident confidence metric to the third-party service for initiating a third-party accident response action) and at least one processor (Pal: [0172] computer-executable component can be a processor) configured to: receive, from the at least one vehicle, record data of an accident (Pal: [0016] receiving a supplementary dataset configured to supplement the movement dataset S120, determining an accident characteristic associated with the vehicular accident event S160, and/or receiving accident detection feedback), wherein the record data is acquired by an event data recorder (Pal: [0003] Vehicle telematic devices monitor the location, movements, status, and behavior of a vehicle. Such devices commonly use GPS receivers and an electronic device to transmit the collected data; [0021] Vehicular accident events can be detected when the mobile computing device collecting movement data is in a user's pocket, in a user's hand, mounted within the car, in a cup holder, and/or in other suitable locations within the vehicle) of the at least one vehicle related to the accident (Pal: [ABS] A method and system for detecting an accident of a vehicle, the method including: receiving a movement dataset collected at least at one of a location sensor and a motion sensor arranged within the vehicle); and generate, based on the record data (Pal: [0122] transmitting an accident-related notification to a mapping service (e.g., a navigation service, a directory, etc.) ... Block S151 can include presenting, to a navigation service, an accident-related notification including GPS coordinates, where the accident-related notification is configured to facilitate re-routing of traffic around the accident by the navigation service; [0156-0157]) and based on an accident severity value indicating severity of the accident (Pal: [0024] accident characteristics (e.g., severity …); [0084] changes in vehicle acceleration (e.g., for use in determining an accident severity score in Block S160); [0120] generating and/or transmitting an audio message including accident-related information (e.g., … accident severity score ... )), transmit the accident response instruction signal via the communication device (Pal: [0022] Accident response actions can include any one or more of notifying emergency services, notifying loved ones, requesting roadside assistance, insurance processing, and/or other suitable accident response actions), wherein the accident severity value (Pal: [0084] determining an accident severity score) is based on: the record data, a quantity of accident vehicles involved in the accident (Pal: [0021] distinguish between collision events (e.g., single-vehicle collisions, multi-vehicle collisions); [0091] accident events can include: collisions (e.g., single-vehicle collisions, multi-vehicle collisions; see [0152] for multi vehicle and vehicle type), a quantity of accident vehicles in which at least one airbag is deployed (Pal: [0055] include recording airbag deployment audio data; [0062] vehicle sensor data can provide information on the status of a vehicle before/during/after an accident (e.g., by collecting airbag deployment data); [0146] include interpreting vehicle sensor data (e.g., whether airbags deployed or not) as a measure of accident severity), and a quantity of vehicles of which deceleration rates are greater than or equal to a deceleration threshold (Pal: [0021] hard braking, [0033] movement thresholds, [0100] rapid deceleration (e.g., which can indicate an emergency braking situation), [0106] an acceleration threshold (e.g., deceleration must be greater than free-fall deceleration/9.8 ms.sup.−2), and/or any other suitable threshold).
Pal does not explicitly recite the terminology "deceleration threshold". However, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In this case, Pal discloses establishing a severity level using braking ([0021] hard braking, [0033] movement thresholds, [0100] rapid deceleration (e.g., which can indicate an emergency braking situation), [0106] an acceleration threshold (e.g., deceleration must be greater than free-fall deceleration/9.8 ms.sup.−2), and/or any other suitable threshold), acceleration (deceleration), and turning/steering data (this is also acceleration and deceleration directionally). Which, the examiner respectfully submits, implies or suggests that the braking data breaches a threshold to move a severity rating/score ([0015, 0083-0084, 0149]).
Pal does not explicitly disclose, an accident response instruction signal for a vehicle that follows an accident vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses, (Nayak: [0061] the accident-related information may be provided to users, such as other vehicles travelling on a same route; [0124] one or more personalized routes to avoid a zone/route with the predicted accident), for the benefit of rerouting one or more vehicles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Pal to include communicating response instruction signal for a vehicle that follows an accident vehicle taught by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reroute one or more vehicles.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Pal also discloses, the at least one vehicle comprises the accident vehicle (Pal: [0015]); and the at least one processor is configured to: receive location information of the accident vehicle (Pal: [0059]), and determine, based on the location information of the accident vehicle, an accident location in which the accident occurs (Pal: [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Pal also discloses, transmit, to the at least one vehicle, a request for accident information via the communication device (Pal: [0117]), and receive, based on the request for accident information, the record data of the accident vehicle in response to the request (Pal: [0117]).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Pal also discloses, transmit, to the at least one vehicle, a request for accident information via the communication device (Pal: [0117]), and receive, based on the request for accident information, image data associated with at least one image of the accident acquired by a video recording device of the at least one vehicle (Pal: [0063]; [0059]).
Pal does not explicitly recite the terminology "requesting image data". However, Pal discloses obtaining vehicle exterior and interior images before, during, and after an event, and upon request, transmitting vehicle data. Thus, implying an image data request and transmission (coded instructions or otherwise). In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 4, and further, Pal also discloses, the at least one processor is configured to transmit a request for the record data (Pal: [0063]; [0059]) and the image data to the accident vehicle (Pal: [0063]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 2, and further, Pal also discloses, transmit, to the at least one vehicle, a request for image data (Pal: [0063]; [0059]) within a certain time range associated with an accident time at which the accident occurs (Pal: [0015]; [0023]; [0094]; [0117]).
Pal does not explicitly disclose, wherein the at least one vehicle comprises a nearby vehicle located in the accident location, and receive, based on the request for image data, image data acquired by a video recording device of the nearby vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses, wherein the at least one vehicle comprises a nearby vehicle located in the accident location (Nayak: [0093]; [0108-0110]), and receive, based on the request for image data, image data acquired by a video recording device of the nearby vehicle (Nayak: [0093]; [0108-0110]), for the benefit of rerouting one or more vehicles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Pal to include confirmation taught by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reroute one or more vehicles.
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 6, and further, Pal also discloses, including data associated with EDR data provided from the accident vehicle within the certain time range (Pal: [0015]; [0023]; [0094]; [0117]).
Pal does not explicitly disclose, the nearby vehicle is a vehicle that transmits event data recorder (EDR) data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses, the nearby vehicle is a vehicle that transmits event data recorder (EDR) data (Nayak: [0093]), for the benefit of rerouting one or more vehicles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Pal to include confirmation of event data taught by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reroute one or more vehicles.
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 6, and further, Pal also discloses, specific data associated with the accident within the certain time range (Pal: [0015]; [0023]; [0094]; [0117]).
Pal does not explicitly disclose, the nearby vehicle is a vehicle that transmits event data recorder (EDR) data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses, the nearby vehicle is a vehicle that transmits event data recorder (EDR) data (Nayak: [0093]), for the benefit of rerouting one or more vehicles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Pal to include confirmation of event data taught by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reroute one or more vehicles.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Pal also discloses, transmit, to the vehicle that follows the accident vehicle, accident section information indicating an accident location (Pal: [0122]) and accident image data for the accident via the communication device (Pal: [0122]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 11, and further, Pal also discloses, search for a detour route that bypasses the accident location (Pal: [0122]), and transmit, to the vehicle that follows the accident vehicle, the detour route via the communication device (Pal: [0122]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Pal also discloses, based on the accident severity value (Pal: [0024]; [0084]; [0120]) being less than a certain critical value (Pal: [0094]), the at least one processor transmits accident section information indicating an accident location (Pal: [0059]) and an accident occurrence notification, to the vehicle that follows the accident vehicle, via the communication device (Pal: [0122]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Pal also discloses, the communication device receives a portion of the record data from an audio video navigation telematics (AVNT) device of the accident vehicle (Pal: [FIG. 4-8]; [0119]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Pal discloses, receiving an accident occurrence signal from a first accident vehicle (Pal: [ABS] receiving a movement dataset collected at least at one of a location sensor and a motion sensor arranged within the vehicle, during a time period of movement of the vehicle, extracting a set of movement features associated with at least one of a position, a velocity, and an acceleration characterizing the movement of the vehicle during the time period, detecting a vehicular accident event) indicating a first accident section (Pal: [0015] detecting an accident of a vehicle includes receiving a movement dataset collected at least at one of a location sensor; [0037] collect location-related data for use in detecting one or more vehicular accident events) in which an accident of the first accident vehicle occurs (Pal: [0015] detecting an accident of a vehicle includes receiving a movement dataset collected at least at one of a location sensor; [0037] collect location-related data for use in detecting one or more vehicular accident events); receiving an accident occurrence signal from a second accident vehicle (Pal: [0144] calculating an accident confidence metric indicating a degree of confidence in occurrence of the vehicular accident event, based on at least one of the second location dataset and the second motion dataset) indicating a second accident section in which an accident of the second accident vehicle occurs (Pal: [0144]); receiving accident record acquired by an accident recording device of at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle (Pal: [ABS]); generating, based on the accident record and based on an accident severity value indicating severity of the accident of the first accident vehicle (Pal: [0024] detection and/or determination of accident characteristics (e.g., severity, accident type, etc.); [0084] changes in vehicle acceleration (e.g., for use in determining an accident severity score in Block S160); [0120] message including accident-related information (e.g., location data, motion data, accident severity score, accident type, accident cause, other suitable data)), wherein the accident severity value is based on: the accident record, a quantity of vehicles involved in at least one of the accident of the first accident vehicle or the accident of the second accident vehicle (Pal: [0021] technology can accurately distinguish between collision events (e.g., single-vehicle collisions, multi-vehicle collisions, etc.); [0091] Vehicular accident events can include: collisions (e.g., single-vehicle collisions, multi-vehicle collisions; see [0152] for multi vehicle and vehicle type), a quantity of vehicles in which at least one airbag is deployed (Pal: [0055] include recording airbag deployment … accident characteristic based on the airbag deployment audio data; [0062] information on the status of a vehicle before/during/after an accident (e.g., by collecting airbag deployment data, ABS or other braking system data …); [0136] in-vehicle security services, airbag deployment; [0146] interpreting vehicle sensor data (e.g., whether airbags deployed or not) as a measure of accident severity), and a quantity of vehicles of which deceleration rates are greater than or equal to a deceleration threshold (Pal: [0021] hard braking, [0033] movement thresholds, [0100] rapid deceleration (e.g., which can indicate an emergency braking situation), [0106] an acceleration threshold (e.g., deceleration must be greater than free-fall deceleration/9.8 ms.sup.−2), and/or any other suitable threshold).
Pal does not explicitly recite the terminology "deceleration threshold". However, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In this case, Pal discloses establishing a severity level using braking ([0021] hard braking, [0033] movement thresholds, [0100] rapid deceleration (e.g., which can indicate an emergency braking situation), [0106] an acceleration threshold (e.g., deceleration must be greater than free-fall deceleration/9.8 ms.sup.−2), and/or any other suitable threshold), acceleration (deceleration), and turning/steering data (this is also acceleration and deceleration directionally). Which, the examiner respectfully submits, implies or suggests that the braking data breaches a threshold to move a severity rating/score ([0015, 0083-0084, 0149]).
Pal does not explicitly disclose, transmitting, to the first accident vehicle and the second accident vehicle, a request for accident information; an accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle; and transmitting, the accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses, transmitting, to the first accident vehicle and the second accident vehicle, a request for accident information (Nayak: see [0108-0110] for routing nearby vehicles to record the traffic event); an accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle (Nayak: [0061] the accident-related information may be provided to users, such as other vehicles travelling on a same route; [0124] one or more personalized routes to avoid a zone/route with the predicted accident); and transmitting, the accident response instruction signal for at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle (Nayak: [0061] the accident-related information may be provided to users, such as other vehicles travelling on a same route; [0124] one or more personalized routes to avoid a zone/route with the predicted accident), for the benefit of rerouting one or more vehicles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Pal to include confirmation and data sharing taught by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reroute one or more vehicles.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Pal also discloses, receiving, based on the request for accident information, accident image data (Pal: [0059]) acquired by a video recording device of at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle (Pal: [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Pal also discloses, based on the first accident section and the second accident section being the same (Pal: [0021]; [0156]; [0157]) and based on an accident time at which the accident of the first accident vehicle occurs (Pal: [0034]; [0082]; [0157]) and an accident time at which the accident of the second accident vehicle occurs (Pal: [0034]; [0082]; [0157]) being within a certain time period (Pal: [0034]; [0082]; [0157]), determining that the accident of the first accident vehicle is associated with the accident of the second accident vehicle (Pal: [0034]; [0082]; [0157]).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Pal also discloses, based on a determination that it is necessary to additionally collect accident-related information for the accident of the first accident vehicle and the accident of the second accident vehicle (Pal: [0039]; [0146]; [0163]).
Pal does not explicitly disclose, transmitting, to a nearby vehicle located in the first accident section, a request for image data within a certain time range associated with an accident time at which the accident of the first accident vehicle occurs; and receiving, based on the request for image data, image data acquired by a video recording device of the nearby vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses, transmitting, to a nearby vehicle located in the first accident section, a request for image data within a certain time range associated with an accident time at which the accident of the first accident vehicle occurs (Nayak: see [0108-0110] for routing nearby vehicles to record the traffic event); and receiving, based on the request for image data, image data acquired by a video recording device of the nearby vehicle (Nayak: [ABS]), for the benefit of rerouting one or more vehicles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Pal to include confirmation taught by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reroute one or more vehicles.
REGARDING CLAIM 21, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Pal also discloses, accident section information indicating at least one of the first accident section or the second accident section (Pal: [0055]); and accident image data for the accident (Pal: [0059]); and the transmitting the accident response instruction signal comprises transmitting, to the at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle, the accident response instruction signal based on the accident severity value being greater than or equal to a certain critical value (Pal: [0023]; [0116]; [0120]; see [0125-0140] for detailed section on contacting emergency services).
REGARDING CLAIM 22, Pal and Nayak remain as applied above to claim 21, and further, Pal also discloses, searching for a detour route that bypasses at least one of the first accident section or the second accident section (Pal: [0122]); and transmitting, to the at least one vehicle that follows at least one of the first accident vehicle or the second accident vehicle (Pal: [0122]), the detour route via a communication device, based on the accident severity value being greater than or equal to the certain critical value (Pal: [0122]).
The examiner respectfully submits, that the action of rerouting suggests a threshold has been achieved to initiate rerouting. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-18-2025, beginning on page 11, regarding the rejection of claims 15 and 1 under 35 USC §101, abstract idea/mental process, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the claims 15 (claim 1, parallel in scope and spirit) are integrated into a practical application that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above in §7, generating/determining a message based upon a severity estimation is well within the limitations of the human mind, e.g., multi-vehicle collision at an intersection has potential for causing congestion, avoid. To the examiner’s best understanding, radio stations like NPR relay these messages daily. The examiner respectfully submits, it is well within the limitations of the human mind to observe acquired sensor data and determining, at least an approximate, severity level. Further, as stated above, the additional limitations are pre and post solution activities of data acquisition and displaying (transmitting instruction (a suggestion, not an explicit control or command) signal). Because the claim 15 limitations are comprised of pre and post solution activity paired with a mental process, that is well within limitations of the human mind, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §101, mental process.
Applicant's arguments filed 12-18-2025, beginning on page 12, in regards to the rejection of claim 1 and 15 under 35 USC §103, obviousness, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has contended, to the examiner’s best understanding, and in order of appearance, the prior art of record fails to disclose: (Pal fails to disclose) wherein the accident severity value is based on: the record data (examiner: while every element is giving significant patentable weight, this limitation is interpreted as redundant because the limitations that follow are the “record data”), a quantity of accident vehicles involved in the accident (examiner: Pal discloses, determining severity level based upon single vehicle, multi vehicle, and vehicle type [0021, 0091, 0125]), a quantity of accident vehicles in which at least one airbag is deployed (examiner: Pal discloses, severity based upon airbag data [0055, 0062, 0136, 0146]), and a quantity of vehicles of which deceleration rates are greater than or equal to a deceleration threshold (examiner: Pal discloses, [0021] hard braking, [0033] movement thresholds, [0100] rapid deceleration (e.g., which can indicate an emergency braking situation), [0106] an acceleration threshold (e.g., deceleration must be greater than free-fall deceleration/9.8 ms.sup.−2), and/or any other suitable threshold). Because the prior art of Pal (US 20170053461 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nepomuceno (US 20170292848 A1)
Brandmaier (US 10460534 B1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663