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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 06/04/2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the applicant claims “based on the reconstruction, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device”, said limitations are not supported in the specification. Paragraph 0115 discloses “Once an accident in the vehicle has been identified, one or more changes may be implemented by mobile device 101” and “a second frequency after the accident is detected” and “the second frequency may be lower than the first frequency”. However, none of these limitations support the claim limitation that reduces a sensor sampling frequency based on the reconstruction”. Paragraph 0115 discloses the accident triggering the reduction in the sensor sampling frequency, not the reconstruction of the accident. Furthermore, Paragraphs 0128-0136 are the paragraphs related to the accident reconstruction feature of the claimed invention. However, none of these paragraphs describes or discloses reducing a sensor sampling frequency. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not cure the deficiencies recited above.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal, Watkins, and Chen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pal, Watkins, and Gruler et al US 5,412,570 as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the applicant claims “based on the reconstruction, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device”, said limitations are not supported in the specification. Paragraph 0115 discloses “Once an accident in the vehicle has been identified, one or more changes may be implemented by mobile device 101” and “a second frequency after the accident is detected” and “the second frequency may be lower than the first frequency”. However, none of these limitations support the claim limitation that reduces a sensor sampling frequency based on the reconstruction”. Paragraph 0115 discloses the accident triggering the reduction in the sensor sampling frequency, not the reconstruction of the accident. Furthermore, Paragraphs 0128-0136 are the paragraphs related to the accident reconstruction feature of the claimed invention. However, none of these paragraphs describes or discloses reducing a sensor sampling frequency.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the applicant claims ““based on the reconstruction, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device”. However, as recited above, the specification supports the occurrence of the accident to reduce the sampling frequency regardless of the reconstruction. Therefore, The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as reducing the sampling frequency of the sensor after the accident.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal et al US 2017/0053461 A1 (hence Pal) in view of Watkins et al US 9,628,975 B1 (hence Watkins) and Gruler et al US 5,412,570 (hence Gruler).
In re claims 1, 8, and 15, Pal discloses a new and useful method for smartphone-based accident detection in the vehicle telematics field (Abstract) and teaches the following:
measuring a plurality of movements of a vehicle by operating a sensor of a mobile device in the vehicle during a drive to generate a plurality of measurements (Paragraphs 0033-0035, 0044-0045, and 0065);
identifying an accident in the vehicle during the drive from the plurality of measurements (Paragraphs 0015 and 0028);
identifying an accident time associated with the accident using the plurality of measurements (Paragraphs 0034, 0082, and 0144);
and at least one of: analyzing a first subset of the plurality of measurements that were obtained before the accident time to identify at least one prior event; analyzing a second subset of the plurality of measurements that were obtained during the accident time to identify at least one concurrent event; or analyzing a third subset of the plurality of measurements that were obtained after the accident time to identify at least one subsequent event (Paragraphs 0023, 0043, 0052, and 0081-0089)
determining a severity of the accident based on the reconstructed accident (Paragraph 0055);
based on the reconstruction, transmitting information about the reconstructed accident to emergency services to cause dispatch of the emergency services (Paragraphs 0115-0116, 0119, and 0125-0126)
However, Pal doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
reconstructing the accident by determining at least one event that occurred before, during, or after the accident
Nevertheless, Watkins discloses apparatus and methods for detecting the occurrence of a motor vehicle crash, responding to the detection of the motor vehicle crash, and reporting the detection of the motor vehicle crash (Abstract) and teaches the following:
reconstructing the accident by determining at least one event that occurred before, during, or after the accident (Col.5, line 66 – Col.6, line 8, and Col.6, lines 60-67)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Pal reference to include reconstruction of an accident, as taught by Watkins, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to assist with evaluation of accident causes for resolution purposes (Watkins, Col.11, lines 52-55).
However, Pal doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
based on the reconstruction, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device
Nevertheless, Gruler discloses an apparatus for recording driving data (Abstract) and teaches the following:
based on the reconstruction, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device (Fig.2, after “brief after-running time 14”, the collection frequency switches back to a low-frequency sensing rate 11 (with frequency f1), Col.3, lines 28-34, and Col.3, line 58 – Col.4, line 21)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Pal reference to include collecting and storing data signals at two different frequencies, as taught by Gruler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to keep the storage capacity within an economically reasonable limit (Gruler, Col.1, lines 33-34).
In re claims 2, 9, and 16, Pal teaches the following:
wherein identifying the accident in the vehicle comprises: obtaining a predefined accident threshold value for the sensor, wherein the predefined accident threshold value represents a minimum value obtained from the sensor that is indicative of a potential accident (Paragraphs 0033 and 0092); and identifying a measurement in the plurality of measurements that exceeds the predefined accident threshold value (Paragraphs 0043 and 0084)
In re claims 3, 10, and 17, Pal teaches the following:
wherein identifying the accident time associated with the accident comprises: identifying a time at which the measurement that exceeds the predefined accident threshold value was measured (Paragraphs 0034, 0053, 0077, and 0144)
In re claims 4, 11, and 18, Pal teaches the following:
responsive to identifying the measurement, identifying the accident in the vehicle further comprises: identifying, based on the measurement, an initial subset of the plurality of measurements within a first time window having a first time duration that captures the measurement, wherein the initial subset of the plurality of measurements includes the measurement and at least one measurement measured before the measurement (Paragraph 0034, 0082, Fig.9, Paragraphs 0086-0088 and 0090-0093);
processing the initial subset of the plurality of measurements to identify a second time window having a second time duration less than or equal to the first time duration that includes a smaller subset of the initial subset of the plurality of measurements including the measurement (Paragraphs 0033 and 0106);
and determining that measurements included in the smaller subset are indicative of a vehicle accident involving the vehicle during the drive (Paragraphs 0033 and 0106)
In re claims 5, 12, and 19, Pal teaches the following:
transmitting at least one of the at least one prior event, the at least one concurrent event, or the at least one subsequent event to a third party (Paragraphs 0022 and 0117)
In re claims 6, 13, and 20, Pal teaches the following:
determining whether the vehicle is at fault for the accident using at least one of the at least one prior event, the at least one concurrent event, or the at least one subsequent event (Paragraph 0120)
In re claims 7 and 14, Pal teaches the following:
receiving external information related to the drive; and combining the external information with the at least one prior event to determine a cause of the accident (Paragraph 0072)
Conclusion
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights