DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/44,037 filed on February 14, 2024 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites a method claim including the limitations “deciding if any other vehicles were involved in the vehicle accident, when one or more other vehicle(s) were involved, then attempting to establish direct communication between the connected vehicle and the other vehicle(s) to ascertain their connected status, and determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status.” (Emphasis added). The plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation does not require “deciding if any other vehicles were involved in the vehicle accident, when one or more other vehicle(s) were involved” because it allows for a situation in which no vehicles are involved in the accident; for example a bicycle accident in the road. Additionally, the plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation does not require “attempting to establish direct communication between the connected vehicle and the other vehicle(s) to ascertain their connected status” or “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status” to occur because this claim allows for a situation in which no other vehicles were involved in the accident and those two limitation are predicated on other vehicles being involved. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)). See, e.g., Ex parte Sheinfeld Appeal No. 2018-007091 (PTAB 2019) at *13; Ex Parte Vdovjak 2018-007087 (PTAB 2019) at 18; Ex parte Ionescu 2018-002662 (PTAB 2018) at *4; Ex parte Shier 2017-011168 (PTAB 2019) at *23; and Ex parte Blight 2017-006004 (PTAB 2018) at *12 (supporting the interpretation that “upon” limitations are conditional). See, e.g., Ex parte Sabin (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 16/723,088), at 2-3; Ex parte Baltar (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/714,480) at *5; Ex parte Silvestre (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/532,953) at *11; and Ex parte Banescu (PTAB 2021) (App. S.N. 14/898,856) at *12 Ex parte Mehta, PTAB Appeal No. 2017-011252 at *20–22 (Application No. 13/422,647, Aug. 23, 2019) (“identifying, by the insurance computer system, the online group for an insurance offering update based on a size of the online group changing beyond a threshold amount”), Ex parte Carasso, PTAB Appeal No. 2018-005963 at *17–20 (Application No. 14/611,093) (Jan. 24, 2019) (“based on user input indicating that development of a text extraction rule is complete”), Ex parte Xiu, PTAB Appeal 2025-000743 at *5, ft. 3 (Application 17/211,498) (Aug. 29, 2025) (in the footnote, the Board recommends that the Examiner treat, as conditional language, the limitation of “based on the adaptive color space transform enablement indication indicating that the adaptive color space transform is disabled”) (supporting the interpretation that “based on” limitations are conditional).
Claim 6 recites a method including the limitation “deciding if any other vehicles were involved in the vehicle accident, when one or more other vehicle(s) were involved.” (Emphasis added). The plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation does not require the deciding to occur because it allows for a situation in which no vehicles are involved in the accident; for example a bicycle accident in the road. The plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation does not require “attempting to establish direct communication between the connected vehicle and the other vehicle(s) to ascertain their connected status” or “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status” to occur because this claim allows for a situation in which no other vehicles were involved in the accident and those two limitation are predicated on other vehicles being involved. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).
Claim 14 includes the limitation “after the receiving step, evaluating images or video that was included with the accident information in order to recognize license plate characters and/or other indicia and to identify the non-connected vehicle.” (Emphasis added). This appears to be a statement of the intended use of the evaluation and does not appear to require any recognition of the license plate. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 15 includes a limitation that presents an accident report “that can assist authorities investigating the accident” in the final two lines of the claim. This appears to be a statement of the intended use of the report and does not appear to affirmatively require that the report assists authorities in any manner. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: These claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-20, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method and system for generating accident reports. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least 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 recites 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 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of:
detecting a vehicle accident;
determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident;
receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident;
combining accident information into an aggregated data set; and
using the aggregated data set to generate an accident report, wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute both “certain methods of organizing human activity” and a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers fundamental economic practices in the form of generating an insurance accident report and performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “detecting” and “receiving” steps can be performed merely by looking at the accident, the “determining” and “combining” steps can be performed in the human mind, and the “using” step can be performed with pen and paper, due to the breadth at which these limitations are claimed. 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/s, as a whole, integrate/s 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”):
1. A cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of:
detecting a vehicle accident;
determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident;
receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident;
combining accident information into an aggregated data set; and
using the aggregated data set to generate an accident report, wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the vehicle being “non-connected” and the entity being “connected,” the examiner submits that these limitations are instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In particular, the connected and non-connected statuses are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general facts about the vehicle and entity), and amount to a mere instruction apply a known method of generating an accident report with computer enabled vehicles.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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 the non-connected status of the vehicle and the connected status of the entity amounts to nothing 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: the mental process. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental process and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental process into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-19 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites 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 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 20 recites:
20. A cooperative detection system for use with vehicles, comprising:
a plurality of connected vehicles, each of the connected vehicles is configured to detect a vehicle accident; and
a cloud-based backend system, the cloud-based backend system is in wireless communication with the plurality of connected vehicles and is configured to: determine if a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident detected by one of the connected vehicles, receive accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident; combine accident information into an aggregated data set; and use the aggregated data set to generate an accident report, wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute both “certain methods of organizing human activity” and a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers fundamental economic practices in the form of generating an insurance accident report and performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “detecting” and “receiving” steps can be performed merely by looking at the accident, the “determining” and “combining” steps can be performed in the human mind, and the “using” step can be performed with pen and paper, due to the breadth at which these limitations are claimed. 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/s, as a whole, integrate/s 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”):
20. A cooperative detection system for use with vehicles, comprising:
a plurality of connected vehicles, each of the connected vehicles is configured to detect a vehicle accident; and
a cloud-based backend system, the cloud-based backend system is in wireless communication with the plurality of connected vehicles and is configured to: determine if a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident detected by one of the connected vehicles, receive accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident; combine accident information into an aggregated data set; and use the aggregated data set to generate an accident report, wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the vehicle being “non-connected” and the entity being “connected,” along with the presence of a “cloud-based backend system” and a “wireless connection” the examiner submits that these limitations are instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the fact that the vehicles are “configured to detect a vehicle accident” is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
In particular, the connected and non-connected statuses and the presence of a “cloud-based backend system” and a “wireless connection” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general facts about the vehicle and entity), and amount to a mere instruction apply a known method of generating an accident report with computer enabled vehicles.
Further, the fact that the vehicles are “configured to detect a vehicle accident" amounts to mere data gathering because it is merely gathering sensor data that is used to determine an accident.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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 the non-connected status of the vehicle and the connected status of the entity amounts to nothing 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the use of sensors configured to detect a vehicle accident is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), Kaur et al., US Publication 2018/0211529, and Seth et al., US Patent 11,562,436.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, this claim includes the limitation “filtering out accident information that is duplicative and/or otherwise not useful.” (Emphasis added). The term “otherwise not useful” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “otherwise not useful” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to judge when information was useful or not within the scope of this claim. Therefore, this limitation is indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, this claim depends from claim 15 above and, therefore, inherits the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 1-10, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur et al., US Publication 2018/0211529 (hereinafter Kaur) in view of Seth et al., US Patent 11,562,436 (hereinafter Seth).
Regarding claim 1, Kaur discloses a cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of “detecting a vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining the cause of a “flock traffic pattern,” which is later stated to include “accidents.” Additionally, Kaur discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶¶ 23, 39) by determining the location of non-connected vehicles in the accident, which would include those vehicles in the accident itself. (Kaur ¶ 23). Kaur later discloses that it determines whether or not the vehicle involved in the “emergency situation,” is a connected vehicle or not. Further, Kaur discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39, see also ¶¶ 40-41) by receiving images from a connected vehicle in relation to a traffic situation. Moreover, Kaur discloses “combining accident information into an aggregated data set” (Kaur ¶ 28) by combining flock data to determine road traffic patterns. Finally, Kaur discloses “using the aggregated data set to generate an accident report” (Kaur ¶ 28) where the road traffic patterns are based on the presence of an accident, making it an accident report within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Kaur does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.”
However, Seth discloses a cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of “detecting a vehicle accident” (Seth col. 2, ll. 22-32) by detecting accident occurrences. Additionally, Seth discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident. Further, Seth discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 13, ll. 4-59) by receiving data from a sensor data from other electronic devices in proximity to the scene. Finally, Seth discloses “generate an accident report, wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) where the incident response plan includes information about the offline vehicle.
Kaur and Seth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle accident reporting.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur and Seth before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur to include the specifically claimed information of Seth.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kaur teaches the “base device” for generating an accident report. Further, Seth teaches the “known technique” of including specific non-functional data within an accident report that is applicable to the base device of Kaur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would not require any changes to the structure of Kaur.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “gathering accident information with one or more vehicle sensor(s) and/or vehicle camera(s) mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining if the vehicle involved in the emergency situation is a connected vehicle and, if so, receives information about that vehicle. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “providing the accident information from the vehicle sensor(s) and/or the vehicle camera(s) to a control module mounted on the connected vehicle” (Kaur ¶ 39 and Fig. 4), by providing the information to the wireless communication module 408, which is shown to be mounted on the connected vehicle. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “evaluating the accident information at the control module” (Seth col. 20, ll. 47-67) by performing the analysis of Kaur at the input device of Seth. Likewise, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “detecting the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining the cause of a “flock traffic pattern,” which is later stated to include “accidents.” Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “sending a wireless message or signal from the connected vehicle to a cloud-based backend system indicating that the vehicle accident has been detected” (Kaur ¶¶ 16, 24) where the system uses “wireless electronic communications technology” (Kaur ¶ 16) and may transmit the data to a cloud-based server system. (Kaur ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “gathering accident information with one or more vehicle sensor(s) and/or vehicle camera(s) mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining if the vehicle involved in the emergency situation is a connected vehicle and, if so, receives information about that vehicle. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “providing the accident information from the vehicle sensor(s) and/or the vehicle camera(s) to a control module mounted on the connected vehicle” (Kaur ¶ 39 and Fig. 4), by providing the information to the wireless communication module 408, which is shown to be mounted on the connected vehicle. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “sending a wireless message or signal that includes the accident information from the connected vehicle to a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 39) by sending the data to the traffic management system. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “evaluating the accident information at the cloud-based backend system and detecting the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 11, ll. 24-47) by performing the analysis at the server, which, when combined with Kaur, would be the cloud-based backend servers of Kaur.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “gathering accident information with one or more sensor(s) and/or camera(s) mounted on a connected entity that was not involved in the vehicle accident but was in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by monitoring images from a camara and other sensors of any vehicle that has opted in to assist in an emergency situation, including those that are in the vicinity but not involved in the accident. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “sending a message or signal that includes the accident information from the connected entity to a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 39) by sending the data to the traffic management system. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “evaluating the accident information at the cloud-based backend system and detecting the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 11, ll. 24-47) by performing the analysis at the server, which, when combined with Kaur, would be the cloud-based backend servers of Kaur.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “evaluating accident information at a control module mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident, ” (Seth col. 20, ll. 47-67) by performing the analysis of Kaur at the input device of Seth. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “deciding if any other vehicles were involved in the vehicle accident, when one or more other vehicle(s) were involved” (Seth col. 14, ll. 44-62) by determining the damage done to other vehicles in the accident. Likewise, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “then attempting to establish direct communication between the connected vehicle and the other vehicle(s) to ascertain their connected status” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “evaluating accident information at a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 24) where the traffic management system may occur on a cloud-based server. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “deciding if any other vehicles were involved in the vehicle accident, when one or more other vehicle(s) were involved” ” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining if the vehicle involved in the emergency situation is a connected vehicle. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “then checking the status of all vehicles in the vicinity of the vehicle accident to ascertain their connected status” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining the positions of both the connected and non-connected vehicles. By determining the positions of these by status, the system is necessarily determining their status. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status” (Kaur ¶39) by determining that the vehicle involved in the emergency incident is connected or not.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “identifying a location of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining the GPS location of the GPS location of the vehicle that is being searched for in the emergency situation. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “establishing an area of interest that includes the location of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 48 and Fig. 8) by establishing the flock (i.e., the area of interest) includes the accident in the right lane. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity within the area of interest” (Kaur ¶ 47) by receiving sensor data from the vehicles in the flock.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “wherein the area of interest is established by defining a perimeter around the location of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 9, ll. 16-36) by establishing the area (i.e., perimeter) around the accident.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “wherein a size of the area of interest is inversely proportional to the density of connected entities located within the area of interest” (Kaur ¶ 48, and Fig. 8) where the flock with higher density is closer together, making the size of the area smaller (i.e., inversely proportional).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “wherein the area of interest is established by identifying an intersection or section of road that includes the location of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 48) by identing that the accident is in the right lane (i.e., a section of road).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “after the receiving step, evaluating images or video that was included with the accident information in order to recognize license plate characters and/or other indicia and to identify the non-connected vehicle” (Kaur ¶ 39) by analyzing the camera image to determine if the information matches the vehicle description, which may be a license plate.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “collecting accident information that was previously acquired” (Seth col. 11, l. 48-col. 12, l. 3) where pre-accident data is used, which must necessarily have been previously acquired. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “filtering out accident information that is duplicative and/or otherwise not useful” (Seth col. 20, l. 47-67) by filtering out data, which would be data that is “not useful” or it would not be filtered out. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “presenting the filtered accident information in a report that can assist authorities investigating the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a filter report is a report that has been filtered and by presenting the report, it is the filtered report.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “wherein the report includes identification information that identifies the non-connected vehicle involved in the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 9, ll. 16-36) by including license plate numbers for all the vehicles involved in the accident.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “establishing an accident timeline that extends from a starting point before the vehicle accident to an ending point at or after the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 10, ll. 21-25) by generating a virtual accident scene including various scene details at different points in time. Further, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “establishing an area of interest that encompasses the location of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 9, ll. 16-36) by establishing the area around the accident. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “using the aggregated data set to generate the accident report with the accident timeline” (Seth col. 10, ll. 21-25) where the act of displaying the virtual accident scene is displaying the report with the timeline. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses “wherein the accident timeline includes information pertaining to a plurality of vehicles that were located within the area of interest at some point during the accident timeline” (Seth col. 14, ll. 19-43) by giving an example of the virtual accident scene displaying the vehicles involved in the accident (i.e., located within the area of interest).
Regarding claim 20, Kaur discloses a cooperative detection system for use with vehicles, comprising “a plurality of connected vehicles” (Kaur ¶ 47) by including connected vehicles 802-1, 802-2, 802-3, and 802.4. Additionally, Kaur discloses “each of the connected vehicles is configured to detect a vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) where each connected vehicle is configured to use sensor data to detect information about an emergency situation, such as an accident. Further, Kaur discloses “a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶24) by transmit the data to a cloud-based server system. (Kaur ¶ 24). Moreover, Kaur discloses “the cloud-based backend system is in wireless communication with the plurality of connected vehicles” (Kaur ¶ 16) where the system uses “wireless electronic communications technology.” Likewise, Kaur discloses “determine if a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident detected by one of the connected vehicles” (Kaur ¶¶ 23, 39) by determining the location of non-connected vehicles in the accident, which would include those vehicles in the accident itself. (Kaur ¶ 23). Kaur later discloses that it determines whether or not the vehicle involved in the “emergency situation,” is a connected vehicle or not. Kaur also discloses “receive accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39, see also ¶¶ 40-41) by receiving images from a connected vehicle in relation to a traffic situation. In addition, Kaur discloses “combine accident information into an aggregated data set” (Kaur ¶ 28) by combining flock data to determine road traffic patterns. Finally, Kaur discloses “use the aggregated data set to generate an accident report” (Kaur ¶ 28) where the road traffic patterns are based on the presence of an accident, making it an accident report within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Kaur does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.”
However, Seth discloses a cooperative detection system for use with vehicles, comprising “a plurality of connected vehicles” (Seth col. 2, ll. 36--40) by analyzing data from one or more vehicles. Additionally, Seth discloses “each of the connected vehicles is configured to detect a vehicle accident” (Seth col. 2, ll. 22-32) by detecting accident occurrences. Further, Seth discloses “the … backend system is in wireless communication with the plurality of connected vehicles; determine if a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident detected by one of the connected vehicles” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident. Moreover, Seth discloses “receive accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 13, ll. 4-59) by receiving data from a sensor data from other electronic devices in proximity to the scene. Likewise, Seth discloses “use the … data set to generate an accident report” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by generating the incident response plan. Finally, Seth discloses “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) where the incident response plan includes information about the offline vehicle.
Kaur and Seth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle accident reporting.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur and Seth before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur to include the specifically claimed information of Seth.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kaur teaches the “base device” for generating an accident report. Further, Seth teaches the “known technique” of including specific non-functional data within an accident report that is applicable to the base device of Kaur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would not require any changes to the structure of Kaur.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur in view of Seth, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Monteuuis et al., US Publication 2023/0408642 (hereinafter Monteuuis).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth does not appear to disclose “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected vehicle.”
However, Monteuuis discloses a cooperative detection that receives vehicle data, “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected vehicle” (Monteuuis ¶¶ 34-35) by using V2X to send the data about collisions (i.e., accident information, Monteuuis ¶ 35) and where the V2X message may be from “other vehicles” that are connected to the V2X system. (Monteuuis ¶ 34).
Kaur, Seth, and Monteuuis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Seth, and Monteuuis before him or her to modify the communication process of Kaur and Seth to include the V2X messaging process of Monteuuis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that the use of V2X provides known technological advantages such as low-latency and a broad user base, enabling large scale compatibility. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth does not appear to disclose “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a piece of connected infrastructure.”
However, Monteuuis discloses a cooperative detection that receives vehicle data, “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a piece of connected infrastructure” (Monteuuis ¶¶ 34-35) by using V2X to send the data about collisions (i.e., accident information, Monteuuis ¶ 35) and where the V2X message may be from “traffic infrastructure.” (Monteuuis ¶ 34).
Kaur, Seth, and Monteuuis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Seth, and Monteuuis before him or her to modify the communication process of Kaur and Seth to include the V2X messaging process of Monteuuis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that the use of V2X provides known technological advantages such as low-latency and a broad user base, enabling large scale compatibility. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth does not appear to disclose “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected pedestrian.”
However, Monteuuis discloses a cooperative detection that receives vehicle data, “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected pedestrian” (Monteuuis ¶¶ 34-35) by using V2X to send the data about collisions (i.e., accident information, Monteuuis ¶ 35) and where the V2X message may be from “pedestrians.” (Monteuuis ¶ 34).
Kaur, Seth, and Monteuuis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Seth, and Monteuuis before him or her to modify the communication process of Kaur and Seth to include the V2X messaging process of Monteuuis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that the use of V2X provides known technological advantages such as low-latency and a broad user base, enabling large scale compatibility. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur in view of Seth, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Cordova et al., US Publication 2019/0043273 (hereinafter Cordova).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth does not appear to disclose “wherein the starting point and/or the ending point can be adjusted to change the duration of the accident timeline.”
However, Cordova discloses a cooperative detection method allowing for the review of accident reports, “wherein the starting point and/or the ending point can be adjusted to change the duration of the accident timeline” (Cordova ¶ 87) where the entire timeframe (i.e., time line) of the situation in the accident report may be specified (i.e., adjusted) by the reviewing adjuster.
Kaur, Seth, and Cordova are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Seth, and Cordova before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur and Seth to include the timeline adjustment of Cordova.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a system that reduces the amount of time required to review the report. (Cordova ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kaur and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Seth does not appear to disclose “wherein the area of interest can be adjusted to change the size of the area encompassed by the accident timeline.”
However, Cordova discloses a cooperative detection method allowing for the review of accident reports, “wherein the area of interest can be adjusted to change the size of the area encompassed by the accident timeline” (Cordova ¶ 74) by allowing the viewer of the accident report to “zoom” in on the map, which is changing the size of the area.
Kaur, Seth, and Cordova are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Seth, and Cordova before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur and Seth to include the area adjustment of Cordova.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a system that reduces the amount of time required to review the report. (Cordova ¶ 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Pal et al., US Publication 2018/0033220, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Xu et al., US Publication 2020/0175873, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Liu, US Publication 2022/0277598, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Leise et al., US Publication 2023/0360140, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Fisher, US Patent 11,452,062, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Rodriguez et al., US Publication 11,627,195, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Garg et al., US Patent 11,735,050, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Kim et al., US Patent 12,101,578, System and method for detecting data from connected vehicles regarding traffic issues including accidents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights