Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 19, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending are presented for examination.
Priority
Priority to 06/19/2023 due to provisional application 63/509,012 is acknowledged.
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 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.
(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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Camus et al. (WO 2018/193056).
With respect to claim 1, Le Camus et al. teach a system for responding to a vehicular accident (see at least Abstract) , the system comprising: a wireless communication interface of a vehicle (see at least page 13, lines 22-27 “second device 20 mounted in or on the vehicle 25” and page 15, lines 12-15 “ the first device 10 and the second device 20 are permanently connected to the wireless communication link L1 in order to be able to detect at any time a change in the distance between the first device 10 and the second device 20”), the wireless communication interface configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote device associated with a rider of the vehicle (see at least page 13, lines 22-27 “a first device 10 carried by the driver 15 of the vehicle 25 “, and ; page 15, lines 12-15 “ the first device 10 and the second device 20 are permanently connected to the wireless communication link L1 in order to be able to detect at any time a change in the distance between the first device 10 and the second device 20”) and a controller including an electronic processor (see at least management module 100 and management module 200 which is a processor or microcontroller), in response to detection of an accident involving the vehicle (see at least page 19, lines 26-29 “ Preferably, the first device can detect, in a step E3, a so-called "singular" acceleration relative to an incident occurring to the pilot 15 such as, for example, a fall or a passage, at least temporarily, in an abnormal position relative to the vehicle 25”), the electronic processor is configured to: wirelessly transmit a signal from the wireless communication interface to the remote device, determine a distance between the wireless communication interface and the remote device based on the signal (see at least page 17, line 7- page 19, line 4 and “page 19, lines 30-33), determine an accident severity based on the determined distance between the wireless communication interface and the remote device, and in response to determining the accident severity, initiate one or more actions to respond to the accident (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party).
With respect to claim 2, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is further configured to determine a change in the distance between the wireless communication interface and the remote device and determine the accident severity based on the change in the distance (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party and pages 20-25 discussing example scenarios wherein on a motorcycle a “safety zone” of distance around the motorcycle is established, the distance between the rider and the vehicle is continuously monitored, and if the distance is beyond the safety zone (severe accident) the same alert process followed in the previous examples is taken).
With respect to claim 3, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine the distance using at least one selected from a group consisting of a Time-of-Flight method and a Received Signal Strength method (see at least page 17, lines 10-22 and page 19, lines 21-25 which discusses measuring the power of the received wireless signal to determine the distance, which is a Received Signal Strength method).
With respect to claim 4, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to initiate the one or more actions to respond to the accident by, in response to the determined distance exceeding a predetermined distance, transmitting a notification to the remote device prompting the rider to confirm a health state or confirm a need for assistance (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party).
With respect to claim 5. Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is further configured to, in response to not receiving a response to the notification within a predetermined period of time, contact an accident assistance service (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party).
With respect to claim 6, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to initiate the one or more actions to respond to the accident by contacting an accident assistance service and communicating, to the accident assistance service, a location of the rider with respect to the vehicle based on the determined distance (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party; and page 23, lines 17-22 “the last known GPS position before the separation can be instantly broadcast to allow a guidance of the rescue pending a more accurate point obtained by the calculation performed”).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinaykumar et al. (WO 2023/046773) in view of Cretu-Sircu et al. (“Evaluation and Comparison of Ultrasonic and UWB Technology for Indoor Localization in an Industrial Environment”).
With respect to claim 7, Vinaykumar et al.teach a method for controlling vehicle operation (see at least Abstract), the method comprising: generating signals by a transceiver of the vehicle, the transceiver positioned to direct the signals toward a seat of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 1b; page 1, lines 12-18; page 1, lines 24-31 and page 2, lines 1-18); detecting reflections of the signals by the transceiver (see at least Fig. 1a-b; page 2, line 20-page 4, line 14); determining, with an electronic processor, whether a rider of the vehicle is wearing protective equipment based on the reflections (see at least page 4, lines 10-14); and in response to determining that the rider is not wearing protective equipment, initiating a response via the vehicle (see at least page 4, lines 16-27). While Vinaykumar et al.teach the use of an ultrasonic sensor using time of flight of the reflected waves to determine if a rider is wearing a helmet, Vinaykumar et al. does not explicitly teach the use of wireless signals (radio signals). However, such matter is taught by Cretu-Sircu et al. (see at least Section I. and Section II. Which discuss the applicability, interchangeability and advantages of radio ranging devices (wireless devices) and sound ranging devices (ultrasound)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to replace the ultrasonic sensor of Vinaykumar et al.with the UWB sensor of Cretu-Sircu et al. as both sensors are used to detect objects/people and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of using a UWB sensor to detect helmets due to their range, accuracy and being less susceptible to noise interference and would have predictably applied it in the system of Vinaykumar et al.
With respect to claim 8, Vinaykumar et al. teach wherein the response includes at least one of providing a notification on a user interface of the vehicle and a playing a sound via a sound-generating mechanism of the vehicle (see at least page 1, lines 20-22 and page 10, lines 12-14)
With respect to claim 9, Vinaykumar et al. does not teach wherein the wireless signals include ultra-wide band signals. However, such matter is taught by Cretu-Sircu et al. (see at least Section I. and Section II. Which discuss the applicability, interchangeability and advantages of radio ranging devices (wireless devices) and sound ranging devices (ultrasound)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to replace the ultrasonic sensor of Vinaykumar et al.with the UWB sensor of Cretu-Sircu et al. as both sensors are used to detect objects/people and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of using a UWB sensor to detect helmets due to their range, accuracy and being less susceptible to noise interference and would have predictably applied it in the system of Vinaykumar et al.
With respect to claim 10, Vinaykumar et al. teach wherein the protective equipment includes a helmet (see at least page 1, lines 12-18).
With respect to claim 11, Vinaykumar et al. teach wherein the response includes limiting operation of the vehicle (see at least page 10, lines 9-10).
With respect to claim 12, Vinaykumar et al. teaches wherein limiting operation of the vehicle includes at least one selected from a group consisting of preventing starting of the vehicle, limiting a speed of the vehicle, limiting acceleration of the vehicle, and disabling one or more vehicle systems (see at least page 10, lines 9-10)..
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Camus et al. (WO 2018/193056) in view of Vinaykumar et al. (WO 2023/046773) and further in view of Cretu-Sircu et al. (“Evaluation and Comparison of Ultrasonic and UWB Technology for Indoor Localization in an Industrial Environment”).
With respect to claim 13, Le Camus et al. eaches system for responding to a vehicular accident (see at least Abstract), the system comprising: a sensor assembly of a vehicle, the sensor assembly including a transceiver configured to generate and transmit a first wireless signal toward a seat of the vehicle and detect a reflection of the wireless signal (see at least page 13, lines 22-27 “second device 20 mounted in or on the vehicle 25” and page 15, lines 12-15 “ the first device 10 and the second device 20 are permanently connected to the wireless communication link L1 in order to be able to detect at any time a change in the distance between the first device 10 and the second device 20”), a wireless communication interface of the vehicle, the wireless communication interface configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote device associated with a rider of the vehicle (see at least page 13, lines 22-27 “a first device 10 carried by the driver 15 of the vehicle 25 “, and ; page 15, lines 12-15 “ the first device 10 and the second device 20 are permanently connected to the wireless communication link L1 in order to be able to detect at any time a change in the distance between the first device 10 and the second device 20”); and a controller including an electronic processor, the electronic processor configured to (see at least management module 100 and management module 200 which is a processor or microcontroller): in response to detection of an accident involving the vehicle: transmit a second wireless signal from the wireless communication interface to the remote device, determine a distance between the wireless communication interface and the remote device based on the second wireless signal (see at least page 19, lines 26-29 “ Preferably, the first device can detect, in a step E3, a so-called "singular" acceleration relative to an incident occurring to the pilot 15 such as, for example, a fall or a passage, at least temporarily, in an abnormal position relative to the vehicle 25”), determine an accident severity based on the determined distance between the wireless communication interface and the remote device, and initiate one or more actions to respond to the accident based on the determined accident severity (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party).
Further, Vinaykumar et al. teaches determining whether the rider of the vehicle is wearing protective equipment based on the detected reflections of the wireless signal, and taking corrective action based on the determination that a rider is wearing a helmet (see at least page 4, lines 10-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of Vinaykumar et al. teaching the use of sensors on a vehicle to determine that a rider is wearing a helmet with the system of Le Camus et al. going to determining the severity of possibly injury during a motorcycle accident as one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a rider wearing or not wearing a helmet will greatly impact the determination of the severity of injury during a motorcycle accident and as such would have predictably used the helmet detection method of Vinaykumar et al. with the system of Le Camus et al. in order to ensure, as accurately as possible, the safety of the rider.
Further still, while Le Camus et al. teaches the use of a wireless sensor, Le Camus et al. uses the sensor only to determine distance, not to specifically identify object. Moreover, Vinaykumar et al. teaches the use of ultrasonic sensors to detect specific objects in an environment of a motorcycle, but does not discuss that a wireless sensor could be used in place of the ultrasonic sensor. However, such matter is taught by Cretu-Sircu et al. (see at least Section I. and Section II. Which discuss the applicability, interchangeability and advantages of radio ranging devices (wireless devices) and sound ranging devices (ultrasound)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to replace the ultrasonic sensor of Vinaykumar et al.with the UWB sensor of Cretu-Sircu et al. as both sensors are used to detect objects/people and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of using a UWB sensor to detect helmets due to their range, accuracy and being less susceptible to noise interference and would have predictably applied it in the system of Vinaykumar et al. as combined with Le Camus et al.
With respect to claim 13, Le Camus et al. as combined with Vinaykumar et al. do not specifically teach wherein the first wireless signal includes an ultra-wideband signal. However, such matter is taught by Cretu-Sircu et al. (see at least Section I. and Section II. Which discuss the applicability, interchangeability and advantages of radio ranging devices (wireless devices) and sound ranging devices (ultrasound)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to replace the ultrasonic sensor of Vinaykumar et al.with the UWB sensor of Cretu-Sircu et al. as both sensors are used to detect objects/people and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of using a UWB sensor to detect helmets due to their range, accuracy and being less susceptible to noise interference and would have predictably applied it in the system of Vinaykumar et al. as combined with Le Camus et al.
With respect to claim 15, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the wireless communication interface wirelessly communicates with the remote device via a short-range communication protocol (see at least page 14, lines 27-32).
With respect to claim 16, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine the distance using a Received Signal Strength method (see at least page 17, lines 10-22 and page 19, lines 21-25 which discusses measuring the power of the received wireless signal to determine the distance, which is a Received Signal Strength method).
With respect to claim 17, Le Camus et al. do not specifically teach wherein the protective equipment includes a helmet. However, such matter is taught by Vinaykumar et al. (see at least page 4, lines 10-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of Vinaykumar et al. teaching the use of sensors on a vehicle to determine that a rider is wearing a helmet with the system of Le Camus et al. going to determining the severity of possibly injury during a motorcycle accident as one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a rider wearing or not wearing a helmet will greatly impact the determination of the severity of injury during a motorcycle accident and as such would have predictably used the helmet detection method of Vinaykumar et al. with the system of Le Camus et al. in order to ensure, as accurately as possible, the safety of the rider.
With respect to claim 18, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the one or more actions includes at least one selected from a group consisting of communicating a notification to the remote device, communicating with an accident assistance service, activating a light of the vehicle, and activating a sound-generating mechanism of the vehicle (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party).
With respect to claim 19, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is further configured to transmit at least one of the accident severity and information indicative of whether the rider is wearing protective equipment to an accident assistance service (see at least page 19, line 34-page 25, line 30, wherein if it is determined that a rider is unconscious, all relevant sensor data is transmitted to the third party/assistance service).
With respect to claim 20, Le Camus et al. teach wherein the electronic processor is further configured to transmit, to an accident assistance service, location information of the rider relative to the vehicle based on the determined distance (see at least page 19, line 34- page 20, line 20 wherein when the change in distance beyond the link distance is detected, the system sends an message to a pilot, if the message is not confirmed, a second message/alert is sent to a third party; and page 23, lines 17-22 “the last known GPS position before the separation can be instantly broadcast to allow a guidance of the rescue pending a more accurate point obtained by the calculation performed”)..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights