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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 01/06/2026. 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 01/06/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument/remark that amended claim 1 constitutes an improvement to accident reconstruction technology, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. This is assessed under Step 2A, Prong Two test, by demonstrating that the claimed additional limitations provide a "meaningful limit" beyond merely applying an abstract idea, for example, by incorporating a novel technology or a specific process that leads to a technical improvement. As recited below, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because 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 (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible. The additional limitation of transmitting information is considered in the rejection below as insignificant extra solution activity, i.e. a generic means of transmitting the results and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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 limitation of reducing a sensor sampling frequency, as detailed below, is not supported in the specification. A broadest reasonable interpretation of said limitation covers a purely mental process i.e. determining a value based on given data or as a mathematical concept of calculating said value using a specific formula. Nothing in the specification supports a specific, technical improvement in device operation such as a non-obvious, context-aware method to reduce power consumption without losing necessary data or such in order not to consider said limitation as an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument that Paragraph 0118 suggests conserving power while maintaining degree of monitoring is not disclosed, claimed, or supported. Paragraph 0118 doesn’t support that argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal and Watkins 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 Chen as detailed below.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) measuring a plurality of movements by operating a sensor to generate a plurality of measurements, identifying an accident, identifying an accident time, reconstructing the accident by analyzing a plurality of subsets of data at different times, determining a severity of the accident, transmitting information and reducing a sensor sampling frequency.
The limitations of measuring a plurality of movements by operating a sensor to generate a plurality of measurements, identifying an accident, identifying an accident time, reconstructing the accident by analyzing a plurality of subsets of data at different times, determining a severity of the accident, and reducing a sensor sampling frequency, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, identifying an accident, identifying an accident time, reconstructing the accident, and analyzing the measurements” in the context of this claim encompasses a user observing the data and mentally identify an event and an event time using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Furthermore, The additional limitation of reducing a sensor sampling frequency, as detailed below, is not supported in the specification. A broadest reasonable interpretation of said limitation covers a purely mental process i.e. determining a value based on given data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element, using a processor, to perform the recited steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of measuring a plurality of movements by operating a sensor to generate a plurality of measurements, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, said limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of transmitting information, said limitation is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending an output from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution output, which is a form of insignificant extra-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 (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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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 well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “measuring a plurality of movements by operating a sensor to generate a plurality of measurements” and “transmitting information” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 “determining a severity of the accident based on the reconstructed accident; responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a first predetermined threshold, transmitting information about the reconstructed accident to emergency services to cause dispatch of the emergency services; and responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a second predetermined threshold, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device”, said limitations are not supported in the specification. Paragraphs 0128-0136 are the paragraphs related a the accident reconstruction feature of the claimed invention. However, none of these paragraphs describes or discloses a first predetermined threshold for transmitting information and a second predetermined threshold for reducing a sensor sampling frequency. Furthermore, the entire specification doesn’t describe or disclose a second predetermined threshold for reducing a sensor sampling frequency for the reconstructed accident.
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 “responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a first predetermined threshold, transmitting information about the reconstructed accident to emergency services to cause dispatch of the emergency services; and responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a second predetermined threshold, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device”. However, no relationship has been established between the first predetermined threshold and the second predetermined threshold. If the first predetermined threshold is larger than the second predetermined threshold, would both actions be performed or one action takes priority over the second. 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 using the same threshold to transmit information and reduce the sensor sampling frequency.
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 Chen US 2018/0154908 A1 (hence Chen).
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);
responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a first predetermined threshold, 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:
and responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a second predetermined threshold, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device
Nevertheless, Chen discloses a multi-purpose vehicle smart monitoring system and method (Abstract) and teaches the following:
and responsive to the severity of the accident exceeding a second predetermined threshold, reducing a sensor sampling frequency of the mobile device (Paragraph 0014)
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 a power-saving standby manner under a smart sleep mode at ordinary times, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the working consumption of a battery is reduced to the maximum extent (Chen, Paragraph 0014).
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
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