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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on January 21, 2026. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In respond to applicant's arguments based on the filed amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
collection unit configured to collect accident information…
an identification unit configured to identify an accident…
an ID information generation unit configured to generate accident ID…
a determination unit configured to determine…
a notification unit configured to provide…
in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youm et al. US2018/0197409 (“Youm”) in view of Hasegawa et al. US2020/0234577 (“Hasegawa”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 6. Youm discloses a server apparatus comprising:
a collection unit configured to collect accident information from a plurality of sources, the sources including at least one surrounding vehicle or at least one portable device, the accident information including at least one of an image, audio data, position information, and time information, (para. 202, FIG. 8, when power is supplied to the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal device 100 installed in the vehicle 10 may communicate with an apparatus included in the vehicle 10 using a first wireless communication at operation S810.);
an identification unit configured to identify the accident vehicle by analyzing images included in the accident information to extract number information including a license plate number from a number plate image of a damaged vehicle, the number information being obtained from at least one of (i) images captured by an imaging device of an advanced driver- assistance system and (ii) drive recorder images of surrounding vehicles (para, 68-73, the state information may include at least one of speed information, vehicular indoor temperature, and air quality information of the vehicle 10, distance information from an adjacent vehicle, captured image information of a passenger, airbag operation detection information, or a tire inflation pressure information. Accordingly, the vehicle terminal device 100 may determine whether an accident occurs based on the state information of the vehicle 10. Para. 205-para. 206, Upon detecting the state information of the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal device 100 may determine whether there is an accident involving the vehicle based on the detected state information of the vehicle 10 at operation S830.);
a storage configured to hold a database in which the ID information and the accident information collected by the collection unit are associated with each other (para. 16, para. 25-para. 27, The accident alert message may include at least one of positional information of the vehicle, time information on a time point of detecting the accident, or identification information of the vehicle terminal device.);
a notification unit configured to notify a requester of the accident information associated with the ID information when it is determined that the accident involving the multiple vehicles occurs, the requester comprising one or more of an emergency notification center, an emergency life-saving organization requesting information, and an insurance company requesting information (para. 32, transmitting to the external server may include transmitting, to the external server, passenger information including emergency contact and human information among the received information when the accident level is a first level, transmitting, to the server, passenger information including emergency contact, blood information, and medical history information among the received information when the accident level is a second level, and transmitting, to the server, passenger information including all the received information when the accident level is a third level.).
Youm does not explicitly disclose an ID information generation unit configured to generate accident ID information associated with information regarding the identified accident vehicle, same accident ID information being assignable across accident information records that respectively (i) capture all vehicles involved in the accident, (ii) capture a subset of the vehicles, and (iii) capture a single one of the vehicles and a determination unit configured to determine that the accident involves multiple vehicles when the database includes multiple records having identical accident ID information.
Hasegawa teaches a server control unit transmits an imaging start command to the second vehicle, which runs within a predetermined range from an accident site, in response to the reception of an accident notification associated with positional information on the accident site from the first vehicle, receives an imaged image from the second vehicle, and stores the imaged image into the server storage unit (abstract). Additionally, Hasegawa further teaches an ID information generation unit configured to generate accident ID information associated with information regarding the identified accident vehicle, same accident ID information being assignable across accident information records that respectively (i) capture all vehicles involved in the accident, (ii) capture a subset of the vehicles, and (iii) capture a single one of the vehicles and a determination unit configured to determine that the accident involves multiple vehicles when the database includes multiple records having identical accident ID information (fig. 5, [0042] The server 2 receives the accident notification from the at least one first vehicle 1, and stores the accident notification into the storage unit 13. FIG. 4 shows an example of the received accident notification. In the accident notification, the positional information is associated with an accident ID and stored. [0046] The server 2 transmits an imaging start command including the positional information on the accident site to the at least one second vehicle 3 that runs within the predetermined range (the vehicle V001 and the vehicle V002 in this case). The server 2 can sequentially carry out the aforementioned extraction and the aforementioned transmission at intervals of a predetermined time. [0048] The server 2 that has received the imaged image from the second vehicle 3 analyzes the imaged image through the use of an arbitrary image analysis method, for example, machine learning or the like. For example, the server 2 can determine, from the imaged image, the number of vehicles involved in a rear-end accident, the number of overturned vehicles, the number of fallen people, the number of wounded people, and the like, and determine a scale of the accident.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Youm by incorporating the applied teaching of Hasegawa to improve vehicle data recording and cross reference data searches in an event of multiple vehicles accident using accident ID and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 2. Youm in view Hasegawa further teaches notification information generation unit configured to sort out the accident information collected and thereby generate notification information (para. 71, , the external server 30 may include a first server 31 (e.g., a cloud server) for storing traffic accident related information and a second server 32 (e.g., an organization server) that is in charge of treating a traffic accident.)
Regarding claim(s) 3. Youm in view Hasegawa further teaches wherein the information regarding the accident vehicle comprises one or both of a chassis frame number and a vehicle identification number (para. 118, accident alert message may include at least one of positional information of the vehicle 10, time information of detecting an accident, or identification information of the vehicle terminal device 100.).
Regarding claim(s) 4. Youm in view Hasegawa further teaches wherein the information regarding the accident vehicle comprises one or both of a chassis frame number and a vehicle identification number (para. 118, accident alert message may include at least one of positional information of the vehicle 10, time information of detecting an accident, or identification information of the vehicle terminal device 100.).
Regarding claim(s) 5 Youm in view Hasegawa further teaches wherein the database further comprises diagnostic information associated with the information regarding the accident vehicle (para. 16, The accident alert message may be a message for transmitting traffic information including at least one of traffic signal information, vehicle speed information, time information, or image information captured that corresponds to at least one of a time or location of the accident).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658