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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pal et al. (2017/0053461).
Regarding claim 1:
Pal teaches:
An Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
an Embedded Controller (EC) [par 20, 31 – the mobile device contains an embedded processor or controller the performs the process]; and
a memory coupled to, or integrated into, the EC, wherein the memory comprises program instructions [par 20, 31 – mobile devices contain memory with program instructions that allow the device to function] that, upon execution by the EC, cause the EC to:
receive sensor data from a sensor [par 20, 24, 31 – multiple types of sensor data are collected, including movement data, location data, etc.],
wherein the sensor data comprises a geolocation of the IHS [par 31, 38 – GPS data collected]
determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, that an accident occurred to the IHS [par 20, 21, 24, 43 – detects accidents as well as freefall of the device itself. Further, the vehicle accident occurred to the mobile device in that the mobile device was involved and the sensor data from the device was used to detect the accident.]; and
in response to the determination, issue a notification [par 115, 119, 120, 126 – various types of notification issued].
Regarding claim 2:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) [par 31].
Regarding claim 3:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the accident comprises at least one of: a drop, a fall, a throw, a hit, a crash, an impact, or a collision involving the IHS or a component thereof [par 20, 21, 24, 43].
Regarding claim 5:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the geolocation of the IHS is measured by GPS or triangulation [par 31, 38].
Regarding claim 6:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the EC to:
receive at least one system parameter policy from a cloud service or an operating system service, wherein the at least one system parameter policy comprises at least one user notification process [par 23, 90, 92, 110-112, 115, 119, 120, 126 – receives model for the detection process, has an SDK for third parties to integrate, get data and provide notifications, various notifications and how to set them to happen automatically]; and
wherein to issue the notification, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the EC to:
issue the notification based, at least in part, on the at least one user notification process [par 23, 90, 92, 110-112].
Regarding claim 7:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein to issue the notification, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the EC to:
write an entry into an event viewer;
present an operating system level user-interface to a user;
issue an audio or video alert [par 119]; or
issue a network notification to a backend service [par 115, 119].
Regarding claim 8:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein to issue the notification, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the EC to: transmit information to a second IHS via a personal area network (PAN) [par 31, 65, 66].
Regarding claim 9:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 8, wherein the sensor data comprises sensor shock event data, and wherein the information transmitted to the second IHS comprises system state information and the sensor shock event data [par 24, 31, 55].
Regarding claim 10:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the EC to: in response to the determination that an accident occurred, capture an image of a camera [par 59, 60, 85].
Regarding claim 11:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the notification comprises at least one of: IHS identification data, the sensor data, or accident classification data [par 23, 115, 119].
Regarding claim 12:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, cause the EC to:
determine, based at least in part upon the sensor data, at least one of:
a type of the accident, or a severity of the accident [par 23, 115, 119],
wherein the notification comprises at least one of:
the type, or the severity [par 23, 115, 119].
Regarding claim 13:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution by the EC, further cause the EC to:
execute an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) model configured to determine whether the sensor data is indicative of the accident [par 90, 110-112].
Regarding claim 14:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 13, wherein the AI/ML model is further configured to:
identify a type of the accident comprising at least one of: an accidental fall or drop, a collision or impact with a stationary object, a collision or impact with a moving object, a collision or impact while onboard a moving vehicle, or a vandalization by a user [par 20, 43]; and wherein the notification comprises information regarding the type of the accident [ par 20, 23, 43, 115, 119].
Regarding claim 15:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution by the EC, further cause the EC to:
identify a severity of the accident [par 24, 43, 146-159] based, at least in part, upon the sensor data, wherein the severity of the accident comprises at least one of:
a height of a drop or fall, a duration of the drop or fall, or a force of a collision or impact [par 24, 43, 146-159]; and
wherein the notification comprises information regarding the severity of the accident [par 24, 43, 146-159].
Regarding claims 16-17, 19, 21 and 23:
See the teachings above with respect to claims 1, 6, and 14.
Pal further teaches methods [par 19].
Claims 16, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrington (2008/0253015).
Regarding clam 16:
Harrington teaches:
A method [par 11 – teaches a method], comprising:
receiving, by an Embedded Controller (EC) or Operating System (OS) service of an Information Handling System (IHS), sensor data from a sensor [par 27 – part of the Linux kernel, thus teaches an OS service of an IHS];
determining, based at least in part upon the sensor data, a type of accident that has occurred to the HIS [par 4, 26, 27, 32, 33 – receives data from an accelerometer and detects if a user shake, keyboard bash or display case smack, among other things, have occurred]; and
issuing a notification, by the EC or OS service, in response to the determination, wherein the notification comprises information regarding the type of accident, and wherein the type of accident comprises at least one of: a collision or impact with a moving object, a collision or impact while onboard a moving vehicle, or a vandalization by a user [par 31, 35, 36 – detects the accident and notifies both a user and a system administrator of the type of accident and possible abuse. Vandalization by a user is not defined in the specification and is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in accordance with MPEP 2111. A shake, keyboard bash, display case smack, or other abuse meets this BRI].
Regarding claim 17:
Harrington teaches:
The method of claim 16, further comprising:
receiving at least one system parameter policy from a cloud service or an OS service, wherein the at least one system parameter policy comprises at least one user notification process; and wherein issuing the notification further comprises [par 31-36 – policy is set in OS service to both detect the type of accident and to notify the user and administrator]:
issuing the notification based, at least in part, on the at least one user notification process [par 35, 36].
Regarding claim 22:
Harrington teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the type of accident is a vandalization by a user [par 14, 27, 33, 36 – as explained above, shakes, bashed, smacks or abuse meet the BRI of vandalization by a user].
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 21-23 overcame the outstanding 35 USC 112 rejections of those claims. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7 and 8, that “Regarding claim 1, assuming page 4 of the Office Action is accurate in that in Pal: "the vehicle accident occurred to the mobile device in that the mobile device was involved and the sensor data from the device was used to detect the accident", Applicant submits that there is no clear and affirmative teaching that the sensor data used to detect the accident comprises geolocation as required by claim 1. In other words, in Pal, geolocation is not used to detect the accident. Thus, Pal does not teach the limitations "receive sensor data from a sensor, wherein the sensor data comprises a geolocation of the IHS; determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, that an accident occurred to the IHS" per claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 16 and 19, Applicant requests that these rejections be held in abeyance until the outcome of claims 21-23 below is determined by the Examiner.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites receiving sensor data, wherein the sensor data comprises geolocation data, and determining an accident occurred to an IHS based at least in part on the sensor data. Thus the claim requires no more than that sensor data is received and included within that sensor data is geolocation data (comprising, by definition, means that the sensor data is not limited to only geolocation data), and further that the received sensor data is at least partially used to determine an accident occurred to the IHS. The claim does not require that the geolocation data itself is explicitly used to make the accident determination, only that at least part of the sensor data was geolocation data. Pal teaches collecting a variety of sensor data from a sensor as detailed in the citations. Included among the multiple types of sensor data is geolocation data. The collected sensor data is used to determine an accident occurred. Pal meets the requirements of the claim limitations.
Applicant argues, on page 8, that “Regarding claims 21 and 22, page 9 of the Office Action points to the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 14 (with claim 14 being the most relevant to claims 21 and 22). With reference to the rejection of claim 14, page 8 of the Office Action states:
Pal teaches:
The IHS of claim 13, wherein the AI/MVL model is further configured to:
identify a type of the accident comprising at least one of: an accidental fall or
drop, a collision or impact with a stationary object, a collision or impact with a
moving object, a collision or impact while onboard a moving vehicle, or a
vandalization by a user [par 20, 43]; and wherein the notification comprises
information regarding the type of the accident [par 20, 23, 43, 115, 119].
However, per the above quoted paragraph, although it appears an "accidental fall or drop" is disclosed in Pal (and which Applicant acknowledges is considered a type of accident), Pal does not teach a type of accident being a collision or impact while onboard a moving vehicle as required by claim 21, and Pal also does not teach a vandalization by a user as required by claim 22. The cited portions of Pal in the quoted paragraph above do not teach these limitations.
Similar arguments apply to claim 23 as those made for claims 21 and 22 above.
Therefore, Pal cannot be the basis of an anticipatory rejection for at least claims 1 and 21-23.
As such, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 21-23 is respectfully requested.
For at least the above distinctions, Applicant submits claims 1 and 21-23 are different than the system/method of Pal and are in condition for allowance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees regarding the arguments concerning claims 21 and 23. Pal teaches a collision or impact while onboard a moving vehicle, which meets the requirements of the BRI of each of the claims at the time of rejection. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Pal teaches both that the device sensor data detects a vehicle accident, i.e. a collision or impact of a moving vehicle, while the device is onboard the moving vehicle and also detects a collision or impact resulting from a freefall which also occurred while onboard the moving vehicle. Both of these detections read on the BRI of the claim language of claims 21 and 23.
The argument regarding claim 22 has been considered but is moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC M DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 730am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113