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 § 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 abstract idea without significantly more.
[101 Analysis Step 1]
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e. process), claim 9 is directed to a hazard monitoring system (i.e. machine) and claim 17 is directed to a hazard monitoring system for a vehicle (i.e. machine). Thus, claims 1, 9 and 17 are one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[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 recite 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 17 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 17 recites:
A hazard monitoring system for a vehicle, the hazard monitoring system comprising: data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
monitoring, via a hazard monitoring algorithm, for a trigger event;
detecting, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, the trigger event;
receiving, based on the trigger event, event data from a sensor system of the vehicle, the event data including at least one or more of smoke data, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes;
generating, based on the trigger event, a confidence score;
determining, based on the confidence score, a hazard probability level;
executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function; and
executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “monitoring…”, “detecting…”, “generating…” and “determining…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at and using the data collected to formulating a judgement. 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, as a whole, integrates 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”):
A hazard monitoring system for a vehicle, the hazard monitoring system comprising: data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
monitoring, via a hazard monitoring algorithm, for a trigger event;
detecting, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, the trigger event;
receiving, based on the trigger event, event data from a sensor system of the vehicle, the event data including at least one or more of smoke data, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes;
generating, based on the trigger event, a confidence score;
determining, based on the confidence score, a hazard probability level;
executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function; and
executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving, based on the trigger event, event data from a sensor system of the vehicle, the event data including at least one or more of smoke data, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes”, “executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function” and “executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuitry of a computer system) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be performed via sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering exhaust system data for use in the using step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The executing steps of communication function and instruction function and triage function are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of communicating the result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution communicating, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “data processing hardware”, “memory hardware”, “sensor system” and “a hazard monitoring algorithm” are 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.
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 filed, 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 drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (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.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1, 9 and 17 do 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 elements of using a data processing hardware to perform the monitoring, detecting, generating and determining… 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving, based on the trigger event, event data from a sensor system of the vehicle, the event data including at least one or more of smoke data, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes”, “executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function” and “executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,682,242 B1 to Ali et. al. (Ali) in view of Pub No. US 2020/0269995 A1 to Beaven et. al. (Beaven).
In Reference to Claim 1
Ali teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
monitoring, via a hazard monitoring algorithm, for a trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 8 lines 63-67, “the vehicle computing device(s) 604 may include one or more processors 616 and memory system 618 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 616. In the illustrated example, the memory system 618 of the vehicle computing device(s) 604 stores an in-vehicle event component 620, an external-vehicle event component 622, an impact response component 624, an illumination control component 626, one or more system controllers 628” which monitors if the condition for requiring emergency or accident has occurred or not);
detecting, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 6-9 “in some instances, impact response component 624 may sense a vehicular impact, classify that impact, and take immediate post-impact actions accordingly” such that components such as (624) can monitor and detect condition for requiring emergency or accident);
receiving, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), event data from a sensor system of the vehicle, the event data including at least one or more of smoke data, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes (step 706) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 19 lines 31-38 and column 19 lines 53-61, “At operation 706, the vehicle safety system 634 may detect, based at least in part on the data associated with a condition of the vehicle (e.g., from sensors, components, remote signals, passenger input, etc.), a triggering event associated with accessing (i.e., ingress of) a passenger compartment of the vehicle. The vehicle safety system 634 may classify the event as one that triggers the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle” and “Many different events may trigger the activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode. In some instances, the vehicle may detect a sufficiently significant vehicular impact. For example, the trigger may be in response to both a detection that a vehicular impact has occurred, and the impact or damage was sufficient to warrant assistance from a first responder potentially. In some instances, the impact or damage may be sufficient when vehicle airbag curtains (e.g., airbags) are deployed in response”);
generating, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), a confidence score;
determining, based on the confidence score, a hazard probability level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”);
executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function (step 710) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 2 lines 33-40 and column 20 lines 52-60 “If so, the vehicle safety system places the vehicle into the safety exigency-ingress mode. In this mode, the vehicle safety system may perform vehicular safety measures to facilitate, encourage, instruct, and/or enable access to the passenger compartment of the vehicle by a first responder. In this mode, the vehicle safety system may generate a vehicle-proximity notification to a first responder to perform the exigency ingress into the vehicle” and “At operation 710, the vehicle safety system 634 may generate, in response to the obtained indication, a vehicle-proximity notification directing the one or more first responders to perform the exigency ingress into the vehicle. That is, the vehicle safety system 634 may generate notifications to those in the proximity of the vehicle regarding safety exigency-ingress mode. Of course, first responders are expected to be those in proximity to the vehicle when it is in the safety exigency-ingress mode”); and
executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function (step 708) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 3 lines 38-48 and column 20 lines 22-27 “In various examples described herein, the safety measures taken when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, illuminating an exigency access mechanism, deploying an occupant-protection system including a visual indicator showing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, outputting an audible instruction describing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and/or initiating a communication connection between a communication device in an interior of the passenger compartment and a communication device of a first responder” and “At operation 708, the vehicle safety system 634, in response to a detected triggering event, activates the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle. This activation may include the production, transmission, or reception of the indication to permit the exigency ingress into the vehicle by the one or more first responders”).
Ali teaches to determine the hazard probability level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”), however Ali does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to generating, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), a confidence score and using the score to determine the level. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level. For example, Beaven teaches to generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level. Beaven further teaches that performing such step can yield accuracy and effectiveness in making intelligent decisions (see at least Beaven Fig. 3 and paragraphs 18-19, 35-36 and 40). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ali to include the step of generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level as taught by Beaven in order to can yield accuracy and effectiveness in making intelligent decisions.
In Reference to Claim 2
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein detecting the trigger event includes receiving event data from at least one sensor of a vehicle (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 6-9 “in some instances, impact response component 624 may sense a vehicular impact, classify that impact, and take immediate post-impact actions accordingly”).
In Reference to Claim 3
The method of Claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the event data includes one or more of smoke, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision type, and active diagnostic type codes (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 3 lines 12-31 “A non-exhaustive list of events that can trigger activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, an indication of an attempt by a first responder to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, input from a passenger of the vehicle, detection of a vehicular impact, detection of a temperature in the passenger compartment exceeding a threshold temperature, deployment of the airbags occupant-protection system of the vehicle, detection of a thermal event (e.g., smoke and/or fire) in the passenger compartment (in-vehicle medical emergency, detection of a malfunction associated with a component of the vehicle, detection of proximity of an emergency vehicle, detection of one or more error codes associated with one or more components and/or subcomponents (e.g., loss of pressure in a tire or fluidic system of the vehicle, temperature of a battery, a low or overvoltage signal from a battery, etc.), a divergence from a planned trajectory more than a threshold amount (e.g., where the vehicle is unable to move along a planned trajectory), a loss of power and/or communication, and/or an instruction from a remote operations computing device”).
In Reference to Claim 4
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein determining the hazard probability level includes executing a logic check, the hazard probability level including one of a low level, an intermediate level, and a high level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”).
In Reference to Claim 5
The method of Claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein executing the logic check includes identifying a diagnostic type code (levels 0, 1, 2) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33).
In Reference to Claim 6
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein executing the communication function includes executing an emergency communication with a third-party responder (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 3 lines 38-48 and column 20 lines 22-27 “In various examples described herein, the safety measures taken when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, illuminating an exigency access mechanism, deploying an occupant-protection system including a visual indicator showing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, outputting an audible instruction describing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and/or initiating a communication connection between a communication device in an interior of the passenger compartment and a communication device of a first responder” and “At operation 708, the vehicle safety system 634, in response to a detected triggering event, activates the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle. This activation may include the production, transmission, or reception of the indication to permit the exigency ingress into the vehicle by the one or more first responders”).
In Reference to Claim 7
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein executing the triage function includes outputting triage questions and determining, based on a user response, an instruction of the instruction function (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 10 lines 42-54 and column 21 lines 4-17 “In some instances, the in-vehicle event component 620 may receive input regarding an in-vehicle medical emergency. For example, using voice-recognition and behavioral functionality, the in-vehicle event component 620 may determine that the occupant needs emergency assistance based on audio captured by the microphone 506 and video captured by an interior camera (not shown). In another example, an occupant may be experiencing a sudden severe medical difficulty and calls out for “help” or may declare that they are having a “heart attack” and that they need assistance. In still another example, the in-vehicle event component 620 may seek an “all's well” response from the occupant after a minor impact” and “In various other examples described herein, the vehicle-proximity notifications provided when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode may include, for example, an on-screen textual message, on-screen video message, exterior audio message, illumination of a door-release lever, presentation of printed textual message regarding door-release lever, presentation of graphical direction indicators regarding door-release lever, presentation of directions regarding door-release lever on a deployed vehicle airbag curtain, sharing vehicle location information with first responders, sharing vehicle direction-of-travel information with first responders, and message regarding disconnection of the EVB”).
In Reference to Claim 8
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein generating the confidence score includes determining, based on event data, a smoke source (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33, column 20 lines 10-15 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event” and “Other events that might trigger activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, an indication of an attempt by a first responder to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, input from a passenger of the vehicle, detection of a vehicular impact, detection of a temperature in the passenger compartment exceeding a threshold temperature, deployment of an occupant-protection system of the vehicle, detection of at least one of smoke or fire associated with the vehicle, detection of a thermal event (e.g., smoke and/or fire) in the passenger compartment, in-vehicle medical emergency, detection of a malfunction associated with a component of the vehicle, detection of proximity of an emergency vehicle, and/or an instruction from a remote operations computing device”).
In Reference to Claim 9
Ali teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A hazard monitoring system comprising:
data processing hardware (616, 636); and
memory hardware (618, 638) in communication with the data processing hardware (616, 636), the memory hardware (618, 638) storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware (616, 636) cause the data processing hardware (616, 636) to perform operations comprising:
monitoring, via a hazard monitoring algorithm, for a trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 8 lines 63-67, “the vehicle computing device(s) 604 may include one or more processors 616 and memory system 618 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 616. In the illustrated example, the memory system 618 of the vehicle computing device(s) 604 stores an in-vehicle event component 620, an external-vehicle event component 622, an impact response component 624, an illumination control component 626, one or more system controllers 628” which monitors if the condition for requiring emergency or accident has occurred or not);
detecting, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 6-9 “in some instances, impact response component 624 may sense a vehicular impact, classify that impact, and take immediate post-impact actions accordingly” such that components such as (624) can monitor and detect condition for requiring emergency or accident);
generating, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), a confidence score;
determining, based on the confidence score, a hazard probability level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”);
executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function (step 710) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 2 lines 33-40 and column 20 lines 52-60 “If so, the vehicle safety system places the vehicle into the safety exigency-ingress mode. In this mode, the vehicle safety system may perform vehicular safety measures to facilitate, encourage, instruct, and/or enable access to the passenger compartment of the vehicle by a first responder. In this mode, the vehicle safety system may generate a vehicle-proximity notification to a first responder to perform the exigency ingress into the vehicle” and “At operation 710, the vehicle safety system 634 may generate, in response to the obtained indication, a vehicle-proximity notification directing the one or more first responders to perform the exigency ingress into the vehicle. That is, the vehicle safety system 634 may generate notifications to those in the proximity of the vehicle regarding safety exigency-ingress mode. Of course, first responders are expected to be those in proximity to the vehicle when it is in the safety exigency-ingress mode”); and
executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function (step 708) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 3 lines 38-48 and column 20 lines 22-27 “In various examples described herein, the safety measures taken when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, illuminating an exigency access mechanism, deploying an occupant-protection system including a visual indicator showing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, outputting an audible instruction describing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and/or initiating a communication connection between a communication device in an interior of the passenger compartment and a communication device of a first responder” and “At operation 708, the vehicle safety system 634, in response to a detected triggering event, activates the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle. This activation may include the production, transmission, or reception of the indication to permit the exigency ingress into the vehicle by the one or more first responders”).
Ali teaches to determine the hazard probability level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”), however Ali does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to generating, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), a confidence score and using the score to determine the level. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level. For example, Beaven teaches to generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level. Beaven further teaches that performing such step can yield accuracy and effectiveness in making intelligent decisions (see at least Beaven Fig. 3 and paragraphs 18-19, 35-36 and 40). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ali to include the step of generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level as taught by Beaven in order to can yield accuracy and effectiveness in making intelligent decisions.
In Reference to Claim 10
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein detecting the trigger event includes receiving event data from at least one sensor of a vehicle (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 6-9 “in some instances, impact response component 624 may sense a vehicular impact, classify that impact, and take immediate post-impact actions accordingly”).
In Reference to Claim 11
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 10 (see rejection to claim 10 above), wherein the event data includes one or more of smoke, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 3 lines 12-31 “A non-exhaustive list of events that can trigger activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, an indication of an attempt by a first responder to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, input from a passenger of the vehicle, detection of a vehicular impact, detection of a temperature in the passenger compartment exceeding a threshold temperature, deployment of the airbags occupant-protection system of the vehicle, detection of a thermal event (e.g., smoke and/or fire) in the passenger compartment (in-vehicle medical emergency, detection of a malfunction associated with a component of the vehicle, detection of proximity of an emergency vehicle, detection of one or more error codes associated with one or more components and/or subcomponents (e.g., loss of pressure in a tire or fluidic system of the vehicle, temperature of a battery, a low or overvoltage signal from a battery, etc.), a divergence from a planned trajectory more than a threshold amount (e.g., where the vehicle is unable to move along a planned trajectory), a loss of power and/or communication, and/or an instruction from a remote operations computing device”).
In Reference to Claim 12
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein determining the hazard probability level includes executing a logic check, the hazard probability level including one of a low level, an intermediate level, and a high level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”).
In Reference to Claim 13
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above), wherein executing the logic check includes identifying a diagnostic type code (levels 0, 1, 2) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33).
In Reference to Claim 14
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein executing the communication function includes executing an emergency communication with a third-party responder (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 3 lines 38-48 and column 20 lines 22-27 “In various examples described herein, the safety measures taken when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, illuminating an exigency access mechanism, deploying an occupant-protection system including a visual indicator showing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, outputting an audible instruction describing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and/or initiating a communication connection between a communication device in an interior of the passenger compartment and a communication device of a first responder” and “At operation 708, the vehicle safety system 634, in response to a detected triggering event, activates the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle. This activation may include the production, transmission, or reception of the indication to permit the exigency ingress into the vehicle by the one or more first responders”).
In Reference to Claim 15
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein executing the triage function includes outputting triage questions and determining, based on a user response, an instruction of the instruction function (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 10 lines 42-54 and column 21 lines 4-17 “In some instances, the in-vehicle event component 620 may receive input regarding an in-vehicle medical emergency. For example, using voice-recognition and behavioral functionality, the in-vehicle event component 620 may determine that the occupant needs emergency assistance based on audio captured by the microphone 506 and video captured by an interior camera (not shown). In another example, an occupant may be experiencing a sudden severe medical difficulty and calls out for “help” or may declare that they are having a “heart attack” and that they need assistance. In still another example, the in-vehicle event component 620 may seek an “all's well” response from the occupant after a minor impact” and “In various other examples described herein, the vehicle-proximity notifications provided when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode may include, for example, an on-screen textual message, on-screen video message, exterior audio message, illumination of a door-release lever, presentation of printed textual message regarding door-release lever, presentation of graphical direction indicators regarding door-release lever, presentation of directions regarding door-release lever on a deployed vehicle airbag curtain, sharing vehicle location information with first responders, sharing vehicle direction-of-travel information with first responders, and message regarding disconnection of the EVB”).
In Reference to Claim 16
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein generating the confidence score includes determining, based on event data, a smoke source (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33, column 20 lines 10-15 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event” and “Other events that might trigger activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, an indication of an attempt by a first responder to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, input from a passenger of the vehicle, detection of a vehicular impact, detection of a temperature in the passenger compartment exceeding a threshold temperature, deployment of an occupant-protection system of the vehicle, detection of at least one of smoke or fire associated with the vehicle, detection of a thermal event (e.g., smoke and/or fire) in the passenger compartment, in-vehicle medical emergency, detection of a malfunction associated with a component of the vehicle, detection of proximity of an emergency vehicle, and/or an instruction from a remote operations computing device”).
In Reference to Claim 17
Ali teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A hazard monitoring system for a vehicle, the hazard monitoring system comprising:
data processing hardware (616, 636); and
memory hardware (618, 638) in communication with the data processing hardware (616, 636), the memory hardware (618, 638) storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware (616, 636) cause the data processing hardware (616, 636) to perform operations comprising:
monitoring, via a hazard monitoring algorithm, for a trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 8 lines 63-67, “the vehicle computing device(s) 604 may include one or more processors 616 and memory system 618 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 616. In the illustrated example, the memory system 618 of the vehicle computing device(s) 604 stores an in-vehicle event component 620, an external-vehicle event component 622, an impact response component 624, an illumination control component 626, one or more system controllers 628” which monitors if the condition for requiring emergency or accident has occurred or not);
detecting, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 6-9 “in some instances, impact response component 624 may sense a vehicular impact, classify that impact, and take immediate post-impact actions accordingly” such that components such as (624) can monitor and detect condition for requiring emergency or accident);
receiving, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), event data from a sensor system of the vehicle, the event data including at least one or more of smoke data, an impact speed, an airbag deployment, a collision profile, and active diagnostic type codes (step 706) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 19 lines 31-38 and column 19 lines 53-61, “At operation 706, the vehicle safety system 634 may detect, based at least in part on the data associated with a condition of the vehicle (e.g., from sensors, components, remote signals, passenger input, etc.), a triggering event associated with accessing (i.e., ingress of) a passenger compartment of the vehicle. The vehicle safety system 634 may classify the event as one that triggers the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle” and “Many different events may trigger the activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode. In some instances, the vehicle may detect a sufficiently significant vehicular impact. For example, the trigger may be in response to both a detection that a vehicular impact has occurred, and the impact or damage was sufficient to warrant assistance from a first responder potentially. In some instances, the impact or damage may be sufficient when vehicle airbag curtains (e.g., airbags) are deployed in response”);
generating, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), a confidence score;
determining, based on the confidence score, a hazard probability level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”);
executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a communication function (step 710) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 2 lines 33-40 and column 20 lines 52-60 “If so, the vehicle safety system places the vehicle into the safety exigency-ingress mode. In this mode, the vehicle safety system may perform vehicular safety measures to facilitate, encourage, instruct, and/or enable access to the passenger compartment of the vehicle by a first responder. In this mode, the vehicle safety system may generate a vehicle-proximity notification to a first responder to perform the exigency ingress into the vehicle” and “At operation 710, the vehicle safety system 634 may generate, in response to the obtained indication, a vehicle-proximity notification directing the one or more first responders to perform the exigency ingress into the vehicle. That is, the vehicle safety system 634 may generate notifications to those in the proximity of the vehicle regarding safety exigency-ingress mode. Of course, first responders are expected to be those in proximity to the vehicle when it is in the safety exigency-ingress mode”); and
executing, based on the hazard probability level, at least one of an instruction function and a triage function (step 708) (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 3 lines 38-48 and column 20 lines 22-27 “In various examples described herein, the safety measures taken when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, illuminating an exigency access mechanism, deploying an occupant-protection system including a visual indicator showing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, outputting an audible instruction describing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and/or initiating a communication connection between a communication device in an interior of the passenger compartment and a communication device of a first responder” and “At operation 708, the vehicle safety system 634, in response to a detected triggering event, activates the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle. This activation may include the production, transmission, or reception of the indication to permit the exigency ingress into the vehicle by the one or more first responders”).
Ali teaches to determine the hazard probability level (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”), however Ali does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to generating, based on the trigger event (condition for requiring emergency or accident), a confidence score and using the score to determine the level. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level. For example, Beaven teaches to generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level. Beaven further teaches that performing such step can yield accuracy and effectiveness in making intelligent decisions (see at least Beaven Fig. 3 and paragraphs 18-19, 35-36 and 40). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ali to include the step of generating, based on an event, a confidence score and using the score to determine the importance level as taught by Beaven in order to can yield accuracy and effectiveness in making intelligent decisions.
In Reference to Claim 18
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 17 (see rejection to claim 17 above), wherein generating the confidence score includes determining at least one of a smoke color, a smoke location (in the passenger compartment), and a smoke acceleration from the smoke data (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33, column 20 lines 10-15 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event” and “Other events that might trigger activation of the safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, an indication of an attempt by a first responder to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, input from a passenger of the vehicle, detection of a vehicular impact, detection of a temperature in the passenger compartment exceeding a threshold temperature, deployment of an occupant-protection system of the vehicle, detection of at least one of smoke or fire associated with the vehicle, detection of a thermal event (e.g., smoke and/or fire) in the passenger compartment, in-vehicle medical emergency, detection of a malfunction associated with a component of the vehicle, detection of proximity of an emergency vehicle, and/or an instruction from a remote operations computing device”).
In Reference to Claim 19
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 18 (see rejection to claim 18 above), further including executing, via the hazard monitoring algorithm, a logic check and comparing the event data with the executed logic check (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 6 and column 12 lines 8-13 and column 13 lines 28-33 “In some implementations, a vehicular impact may be classified as one of several differing levels. The differing levels are intended to represent the impacts of increasing potential for vehicular damage. For example, one of the levels may have an impact sufficient enough to deploy the occupant restraints” and “In some instances, the event detection and classifier component 640 may detect and classify a vehicular impact as a triggering event. In some instances, only level 2 impacts may be classified as a triggering event. In other instances, level 0 or 1 combined with other factors (e.g., lack of response from an occupant) may be a triggering event”).
In Reference to Claim 20
The hazard monitoring system of Claim 18 (see rejection to claim 18 above), wherein executing the communication function includes communicating at least one of the event data and the hazard probability level with a third-party responder (Ali teaches at least in Fig. 7 and column 3 lines 38-48 and column 20 lines 22-27 “In various examples described herein, the safety measures taken when the vehicle is in safety exigency-ingress mode include, for example, illuminating an exigency access mechanism, deploying an occupant-protection system including a visual indicator showing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, outputting an audible instruction describing how to ingress the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and/or initiating a communication connection between a communication device in an interior of the passenger compartment and a communication device of a first responder” and “At operation 708, the vehicle safety system 634, in response to a detected triggering event, activates the safety exigency-ingress mode for the vehicle. This activation may include the production, transmission, or reception of the indication to permit the exigency ingress into the vehicle by the one or more first responders”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 11,950,316 B1 to Nalevanko et. al. (Nalevanko) teaches user input when the collision of the vehicle has been detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 January 15, 2026