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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed November 06, 2025. Claim 18 has been amended. Claims 18-34 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mimar (US Pub No. 2014/0300739 A1).
As per claim 18, Mimar discloses a method for providing assistance in vehicle accidents, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting an accident situation of a vehicle driven by a driver user (paragraph [0143], lines 5-9);
continuously taking audiovisual recordings of a vehicle environment (paragraph [0038], lines 1-5; paragraph [0083]); and
carrying out emergency actions including:
- actions to get assistance; and
- actions to store for protecting the audiovisual recordings from manipulation (paragraph [0100]; paragraph [0138]; paragraph [0207], lines 13-14).
As per claim 19, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the audiovisual recordings comprise recordings prior to, simultaneous with, and after the accident (paragraph [0212], lines 24-33).
As per claim 22, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 20, wherein the data is previously stored in the server (paragraph [0207], lines 13-14).
As per claim 23, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 19, which additionally includes a step of making the audiovisual recordings accessible to an authority or to a contact of a mobile device of the user (paragraph [0214]-[0215]).
As per claim 24, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein the step of making the audiovisual recordings accessible is carried out from the server or from a mobile device of the user (paragraph [0215], lines 11-13).
As per claim 25, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 18, further comprising an additional step of proposing to the user, after the accident is identified, a cancellation action, such that emergency actions are only carried out if the user does not carry out the cancellation action (paragraph [0207], lines 17-19).
As per claim 26, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the step of detecting the accident situation in turn comprises the steps of:
taking measurements of vehicle circulation parameters (paragraph [0094]); and
evaluating measurements according to pre-established criteria (paragraphs [0197] & [201]).
As per claim 27, Mimar discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein the criteria comprise maintaining, for a duration greater than a predetermined time, an inclination, with respect to the ground, of less than a predetermined value (paragraphs [0199] & [0210]).
As per claim 28, Mimar discloses a system for performing a method of providing assistance in vehicle accidents, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting an accident situation of a vehicle driven by a driver user (paragraph [0143], lines 5-9);
continuously taking audiovisual recordings of a vehicle environment (paragraph [0038], lines 1-5; paragraph [0083]); and
carrying out emergency actions including actions to get assistance and actions to send the audiovisual recordings to a server in a tamper-proof manner (paragraph [0100]; paragraph [0138]; paragraph [0207], lines 13-14);
the system comprising:
accident sensors, which take data measurements of vehicle circulation parameters (paragraph [0094]);
a control unit, which receives the measurements from the accident sensors and, based on said measurements and predetermined criteria, identifies an accident situation (Fig. 2, SoC Processor; paragraph [0094]);
a recording means to continuously capture audiovisual recordings in a vehicle environment (Fig. 2, CMOS Sensor & Lens, Audio Front-End, Mic; paragraph [0038], lines 1-5; paragraph [0083]);
a positioning means to determine, in real time, position and itinerary of the vehicle (paragraph [0101]; paragraph [0122], lines 9-10: route); and
a broadcast means for sending the audiovisual recordings to a server to be displayed or sent without the possibility of being manipulated or altered (paragraph [0100]; paragraph [0138]; paragraph [0207], lines 13-14).
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 29 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimar in view of Pang (US Pub No. 2021/0174666 A1).
As per claim 20, Mimar teaches the method according to claim 18, further comprising sending to the server one or more data selected from:
… an indication that the user has had an accident (paragraph [0191]);
a position of the vehicle involved in the accident (paragraph [0214], line 7);
an itinerary of the vehicle up until the accident (paragraph [0122], lines 9-10: route);
a time of the accident (paragraph [0214], line 8)… and
contact details of authorities (paragraph [0100]).
Mimar does not expressly teach an identification of the user driving the vehicle involved in the accident… contact details of at least one contact included in a mobile device of the user.
Pang teaches an identification of the user driving the vehicle involved in the accident (paragraph [0036])… contact details of at least one contact included in a mobile device of the user (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the contact data as taught by Pang, since Pang states that such a modification would result in notifying a select contact of a specific individual being involved in an accident.
As per claim 21, Mimar teaches the method according to claim 18, which includes an additional step of sending, to a contact registered in a mobile device of the user, or to an authority, one or more selected data from:
… an indication that the user has had an accident (paragraph [0191]);
a time of the accident (paragraph [0214], line 8);
a position of the vehicle involved in the accident (paragraph [0214], line 7); and
itinerary of the vehicle up until the accident (paragraph [0122], lines 9-10: route).
Mimar does not expressly teach an identification of the user driving the vehicle involved in the accident.
Pang teaches an identification of the user driving the vehicle involved in the accident (paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the contact data as taught by Pang, since Pang states that such a modification would result in notifying a select contact of a specific individual being involved in an accident.
As per claim 29, Mimar teaches the system according to claim 28, wherein the broadcast means is configured to additionally send to one or more contacts a warning communication comprising at least one data selected from:
an indication of the existence of an accident involving the user (paragraph [0191])…
a time of the accident (paragraph [0214], line 8),
an access to the location of the vehicle involved in the accident (paragraph [0214], line 7);
an access to the itinerary of the vehicle involved in the accident (paragraph [0122], lines 9-10: route); and
an access to audiovisual recordings (paragraph [0214]-[0215]).
Mimar does not expressly teach an identification of the user involved in an accident.
Pang teaches an identification of the user involved in the accident (paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the contact data as taught by Pang, since Pang states that such a modification would result in notifying a select contact of a specific individual being involved in an accident.
As per claim 34, Mimar teaches the system according to claim 28.
Mimar does not expressly teach further comprising a mobile application intended to be installed on the mobile device of the user, which has access to various functionalities of said mobile device of the user, as well as has a user interface that interacts with the user, and communication with the server, to control the operation of the components, as well as to manage the emergency actions.
Pang teaches further comprising a mobile application intended to be installed on the mobile device of the user, which has access to various functionalities of said mobile device of the user, as well as has a user interface that interacts with the user, and communication with the server, to control the operation of the components, as well as to manage the emergency actions (paragraphs [0011] & [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the use of an app for a cellular device as taught by Pang, since Pang states that such a modification would result in driver accessibility to the control of functions related to calling for help during a traffic accident.
Claim(s) 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimar in view of Foghel et al (Foghel; US Pub No. 2013/0069802 A1).
As per claim 30, Mimar teaches the system according to claim 28, further comprising a first capture device that integrates the accident sensors, the recording means and at least part of the broadcast means (Fig. 6, X-Y-Z Accelerometer, X-Y-Z Gyro, CMOS Camera Modules, Audio Front-End, Mic, 3G/4G AFE).
Mimar does not expressly teach wherein the positioning means are intended to be contained in a mobile device of the user, with which the first capture device is communicated through communication means.
Foghel teaches wherein the positioning means are intended to be contained in a mobile device of the user (paragraph [0057], lines 6-7), with which the first capture device is communicated through communication means (paragraphs [0098] & [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the mobile device as taught by Foghel, since Foghel states in paragraph [0100] that such a modification would result in communicating with a driver through the driver’s personal mobile device.
As per claim 31, Mimar in view of Foghel further teaches the system according to claim 30, wherein the first capture device is configured to be fixed to the vehicle (paragraph [0083]: mounted).
As per claim 32, Mimar in view of Foghel further teaches the system according to claim 30, further comprising a second capture device comprising:
a mobile device of the user, with positioning means (Foghel, paragraph [0057], lines 6-7); and
integrated together with the mobile device of the user, the accident sensors, and the recording means (Foghel, paragraph [0100]).
As per claim 33, Mimar in view of Foghel further teaches the system according to claim 32, wherein the capture devices are configured to be fixed to a garment of the user (Mimar, paragraph [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 06, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of “Mimar fails to disclose the step of storing the audiovisual information in a tamper-proof manner”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Mimar discloses detecting disconnection of a data storing device and immediately uploading any stored data to a cloud to prevent any tampering with the stored data (Mimar, paragraph [0138], lines 8-14 & 21-24). Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations, the prior art of Mimar discloses the claim limitation of “actions to store the audiovisual recordings to a server in a tamper-proof manner for protecting the audiovisual recordings from manipulation” as outlined in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685