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
The amendment filed January 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the
application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a mental process because the claim recites a method that includes identifying an accident occurring in a vehicle; transmitting an accident signal, indicating occurrence of the accident in the external vehicle, based on identifying the occurrence of the accident in the external vehicle; transmitting image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs; receiving a request signal that is transmitted to the vehicle identified based on the image information; and transmitting accident-related information as the vehicle identified based on the image information in response to the request signal. This is a method that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pencil and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a sensor, a processor, and an external electronic device does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of identifying; transmitting; transmitting; receiving; and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed sensor, processor, and external electronic device are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of identifying; transmitting; transmitting; receiving; and transmitting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claims 2-4 and 7 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining transmitting the accident signal and information related to the accident. Claim 5 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining causing the information related to the accident to be displayed. Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining transmitting location information and a rescue signal. Claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining identifying and transmitting a request signal to at least one external vehicle. Thus, claims 2-8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-8 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 recites a mental process because the claim recites a method that includes identifying an accident occurring in an external vehicle transmitting an accident signal, indicating occurrence of the accident in the external vehicle, based on identifying the occurrence of the accident in the external vehicle; transmitting image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs; receiving a request signal that is transmitted to a vehicle identified based on the image information; and, transmitting accident-related information as the vehicle identified based on the image information in response to the request signal. This is a method that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pencil and paper. The mere nominal recitation of at least one sensor, a processor, and an external electronic device does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of identifying; transmitting; transmitting; receiving; and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed sensor, processor, and external electronic device are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of identifying; transmitting; transmitting; receiving; and transmitting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 10-14 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as independent claim 9 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claims 10-12 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining transmitting information related to the accident and image information. Claims 13-14 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining providing and storing information related to the accident. Thus, claims 10-14 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 9 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 10-14 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 15 recites a mental process because the claim recites a method that includes transmitting an accident signal indicating the occurrence of the accident occurs; receiving a request signal requesting information related to the accident; transmitting the information related to the accident, wherein vehicles, among at least some vehicles, agree to transmission of the information related to the accident; receiving image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs from the at least some vehicles responding to the request signal; transmitting a request signal to a vehicle identified based on the image information; and receiving the information related to the accident from the vehicle identified based on the image information in response to the request signal. This is a method that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pencil and paper. The mere nominal recitation of at least one of a first vehicle in which an accident occurs, a second vehicle that identifies occurrence of the accident, a sensor, a communication circuit, and a communication center responding to the accident signal does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of transmitting, receiving, transmitting, receiving, transmitting, and receiving in a computer environment. The claimed first vehicle, second vehicle, sensor, communication circuit, and communication center are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of transmitting, receiving, transmitting, receiving, transmitting, and receiving in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 16-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as independent claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 16 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining the information related to the accident. Claim 17 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining transmitting the request signal. Claim 18 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining identifying a location of the first vehicle and/or a location where the accident occurs; and transmitting a request signal. Claim 19 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining requesting vehicle information related to the accident; and, providing an environment in which one or more vehicles other than the first vehicle and the first vehicle share the information related to the accident with each other. Claim 20 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 9 by e.g., defining establishing a communication link. Thus, claims 16-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 15 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 16-20 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
I. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Minowa US 20100201819 A1 and Usami US 20210217096 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising: at least one sensor configured to identify an accident occurring in a vehicle ([0007] vehicle travel information obtained from sensors mounted on main parts of a vehicle, or images obtained from cameras mounted on the vehicle during an accident are stored in a vehicle black box, and the accident is reconstructed using the stored images or travel information. Alternatively, a technology for transmitting accident occurrence information through satellite communication during an accident has been proposed); and
a processor configured to transmit an accident signal, indicating occurrence of the accident, to an external electronic device based on identifying the occurrence of the accident in the vehicle by using the at least one sensor ([0024] The accident information generating device 130 generates accident occurrence information during a vehicle accident, and transmits the accident occurrence information to a related agency through the communication device 140. The accident occurrence information may include time when an accident occurs, location where an accident occurs, and the type of accident. [0017] the terms "-er", "-or", "module", and "block" described in the specification mean units for processing at least one function and operation, and can be implemented by hardware components or software components, and combinations thereof).
Choi does not explicitly teach, however Minowa teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device ([0049] - [0071] Next, it is determined whether or not a predetermined time period has passed from the occurrence of the accident (S02: a time point of judgment of Yes) on the basis of a timing result of the RTC 15 (S05). The predetermined time period is preferably a time period (e.g., 15 seconds to 30 seconds) whereby recording after occurrence of the accident can be performed sufficiently. When the predetermined time period has elapsed (S05: Yes), the processes of generating and recording the traveling data are stopped (S06), and then the movie image data files recorded in the storage section 17 after occurrence of the accident is read to be transmitted to the network device 40 and saved in the detachable memory device 22 (S07). Regarding the movie image data files in a time period after occurrence of the accident, the movie image
data files are transmitted and saved in a time-series manner (e.g., from an old one). Meanwhile, it is possible to perform the generating and the recording of only the movie image data files by omitting the generating and recording of the still image data after the occurrence of the accident (S02: after judgment of Yes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of transmitting image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device as taught in Minowa with the vehicle control apparatus of Choi so that “risk of losing evidence data can be reduced” (Minowa [0057]).
Choi does not explicitly teach, however Usami teaches receive from the external electronic device a request signal that is transmitted to the vehicle identified based on the image information ([0035] When the communication part 101 receives accident information from the in-vehicle terminal
300 mounted on the vehicle which caused the accident or the driver's smartphone 400, the communication part 101 transmits a request for providing information to other in-vehicle terminals or the like. When the communication part 101 receives provision of information from the other in-vehicle
terminal or the like, the communication part 101 requests the measurement part 102 to measure communication traffic volume. [0043] The shock detection part 304 detects a shock applied to the vehicle and determines whether or not the vehicle has had an accident or the like. When it is determined that the vehicle has had an accident or the like, the shock detection part 304 requests the control part 301 to transmit accident information. [0054] Next, the information center apparatus 100
transmits to other in-vehicle terminals and smartphones of pedestrians, a request for providing information including information on time and an accident occurrence site by using the position A and the time B included in the accident information (step S6). [0055] Referring to FIG. 6, first, when the in-vehicle terminal X receives the request for providing informaiton from the information center apparatus
100, the in-vehicle terminal X acquires the driving recorder information which corresponds to information of the position measuring part 306 and the timekeeping part 307 from the recording part 308. (step S11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of receiving from the external electronic device a request signal that is transmitted to the vehicle identified based on the image information as taught in Usami with the vehicle control apparatus of Choi in order to enable the attainment of “records situation of an incident or accident to a terminal(s) and receiving the information which records the situation of the incident or accident from the terminal” ([0012] Usami).
Choi does not explicitly teach, however Usami teaches transmit accident-related information to the external electronic device as the vehicle identified based on the image information in response to the request signal ([0056] Next, the in-vehicle terminal X transmits the information (information provided by a third party) acquired in the step S11 to the information center apparatus 100 (step S12; information provision) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Choi, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 1, as described above. Choi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit information related to the accident to the external electronic device ([0024] The accident information generating device 130 generates accident occurrence information during a vehicle accident, and transmits the accident occurrence information to a related agency through the communication device 140. The accident occurrence information may include time when an accident occurs, location where an accident occurs, and the type of accident. [0017] the terms "-er", "-or", "module", and "block" described in the specification mean units for processing at least one function and operation, and can be implemented by hardware components or software components, and combinations thereof).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Choi, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 2, as described above. Choi further teaches wherein the information related to the accident includes at least one of a location at which the accident occurs, image information of specified duration including a time point at which the accident occurs, traffic situation information within a specified radius from the location after the accident occurs, vehicle information of the vehicle, a number of passengers in the vehicle, age information of one or more passengers in the vehicle, gender information of one or more passengers in the vehicle, a target to which the information related to the accident is to be transmitted, a rescue signal for the accident, or any combination thereof ([0024] The accident information generating device 130 generates accident occurrence information during a vehicle accident, and transmits the accident occurrence information to a related agency through the communication device 140. The accident occurrence information may include time when an accident occurs, location where an accident occurs, and the type of accident).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Choi, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 1, as described above. Choi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit location information, indicating a location at which the accident occurs, to the external electronic device ([0024] The accident occurrence information may include time when an accident occurs, location where an accident occurs, and the type of accident); and
transmit a rescue signal for causing at least one of an ambulance, a fire truck, a police car, or any combination thereof to be dispatched to the location specified by the location information ([0020] the apparatus for providing vehicle accident information of the accident vehicle 10a generates accident occurrence information during the accident, and immediately transmits the accident occurrence information to a related agency 20 such as a traffic information center or a police station so that the accident can be quickly dealt with).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Choi, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 1, as described above. Choi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to transmit the accident signal to at least one of the external electronic device, an external vehicle, or any combination thereof, identified within a specified radius from the vehicle ([0024] The accident information generating device 130 generates accident occurrence information during a vehicle accident, and transmits the accident occurrence information to a related agency through the communication device 140. [0017] the terms "-er", "-or", "module", and "block" described in the specification mean units for processing at least one function and operation, and can be implemented by hardware components or software components, and combinations thereof).
II. Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Minowa, Usami, and Taniguchi JP H06247234 A.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Choi, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 1, as described above. Choi further teaches wherein: the processor is configured to transmit at least one of i) the accident signal or ii) information related to the accident to one or more external vehicles identified within a specified distance from the vehicle, based on identifying the occurrence of the accident ([0030] when an accident occurs on a vehicle (S320), the travel information collecting device 110 of the accident vehicle stores vehicle travel information, which is stored in the internal memory 112, in the storage device 150 (S330). [0031] Further, the accident information generating device 130 of the accident vehicle generates accident occurrence information during an accident, and transmits the accident occurrence information to a related agency (S350-S380)).
Choi does not explicitly teach, however Taniguchi teaches the one or more external vehicles allow, in advance, reception of at least one of the accident signal or the information related to the accident (p. 5 When an accident occurs, it is installed at a predetermined reception facility outside the vehicle, such as a pre-registered hospital, police station, or traffic accident center, or other vehicles or shoulders running around).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of allowing, in advance, reception of at least one of the accident signal or the information related to the accident as taught in Taniguchi with the vehicle control apparatus of Choi because such a combination enables the external vehicles to “contribute to ensuring safety in the event of an accident (Taniguchi, p. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Choi, Minowa, Usami, and Taniguchi teaches the limitations recited in claim 4, as described above. Choi does not explicitly teach, however Minowa teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the information related to the accident to be displayed through one or more displays included in the one or more external vehicles ([0042] The analysis application 32 reads the traveling data and the vehicle information saved in the detachable memory device 22 so as to perform various analysis processes and to display the read traveling data, the vehicle information and the analysis results on the display 33. [0060] Here, an example of displaying the still image data G4 (e.g., still image data recorded in a time period from (-1) to (0)) shown in FIG. 5 is described. As described above, the still image data includes a plurality of still images. In a case where the still image data G4 includes five still images including a still image G41 captured in a time period from (-1.0) to (-0.8), a still image G42 captured in a time period from (-0.8) to (-0.6), a still image G43 captured in a time period from (-0.6) to (-0.4), a still image G44 captured in a time period from (-0.4) to (-0.2) and a still image G45 captured in a time period from (-0.2) to (0.0) as shown in the drawing, the five images are displayed in a time-series manner) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale).
III. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Minowa, Usami, and Chun US 20190012908 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Choi, Minowa, Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 3, as described above. Choi does not explicitly teach, however Chun teaches wherein the processor is configured to: identify at least one external vehicle identifying the accident by using the image information; and cause the external electronic device to transmit a request signal requesting information related to the accident to the at least one external vehicle ([0042] “the first vehicle” is at least one vehicle to which a user's terminal is attached, which requests image information related to the first vehicle from another user's terminal, the second vehicle, an outer server, a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), and/or the like according that a traffic accident occurs while driving or being stationary on a road, and/or the like, or an occurrence of various vehicle-related accidents is expected while driving or being stationary, and “the second vehicle” is at least one neighbor vehicle to which the another user's terminal is attached, which provides the image information related to the first vehicle based on a driving image captured by the second vehicle upon receiving the request for the image information from the terminal, the first vehicle, the outer server, the CCTV, and/or the like while driving or being stationary within a distance adjacent to the first vehicle. [0080] The second terminal 33 transmits, to the first terminal 31, image information where the first vehicle is captured among a driving image of the second vehicle and which is selected according to the determined result at operations 337 and 339. After receiving the selected image information at operation 321, the first terminal 31 integrates a driving image of the first vehicle and the image information received from the second vehicle to generate an integrated image in which an accident situation of the first vehicle may be identified at various viewing angels at operation 323).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of identifying at least one external vehicle identifying the accident by using the image information; and causing the external electronic device to transmit a request signal requesting information related to the accident to the at least one external vehicle as taught in Chun with the vehicle control apparatus of Choi because such a combination enables sharing of images (Chun [0108]).
IV. Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gabel US 20170374502 A1 in view of Minowa and Usami.
Regarding Claim 9, Gabel discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising: at least one sensor configured to identify an accident occurring in an external vehicle; and a processor configured to transmit an accident signal, indicating occurrence of the accident in the external vehicle, to an external electronic device based on identifying the occurrence of the accident in the external vehicle by using the at least one sensor ([0063] Event information may be received by the accident/event detection engine 508 from one or more sensors 522A-522n (which may be sensors included in one or more kiosks, automobiles, street lights, dedicated cameras, etc.). For example, the sensors may be configured to detect accidents, such as car accidents. The sensors may comprise a microphone associated with a signal processing which can detect sounds and determine if the sounds correspond to an impact involving a motor vehicle (e.g., identify the sound of a sudden impact and/or bending or tearing metal such as would occur in a crash). The sensors may comprise a camera and an associated processing system that can visually identify accidents, police operations, etc. [0064] The sensor data may have been received
via the sensor interface 512, and the sensor data may have been processed via the sensor data processing module 510, which may normalize the sensor data, filter the sensor data, scale the sensor
data, etc. [0168] Certain embodiments may be implemented via hardware, software stored on media, or a combination of hardware and software. For example, certain embodiments may include software/program instructions/modules stored on tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic memory/discs, optical memory/discs, RAM, ROM, FLASH memory, other semiconductor memory, etc.), accessible by one or more computing devices configured to execute the software (e.g., servers or other computing device including one or more processors and comprising hardware, wired and/or wireless network interfaces (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, T1, DSL, cable, optical, or other interface(s) which may be coupled to the Internet), content databases, customer account databases, etc.)).
Gabel does not explicitly teach, however Minowa teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device ([0049] - [0071] Next, it is determined whether or not a predetermined time period has passed from the occurrence of the accident (S02: a time point of judgment of Yes) on the basis of a timing result of the RTC 15 (S05). The predetermined time period is preferably a time period (e.g., 15 seconds to 30 seconds) whereby recording after occurrence of the accident can be performed sufficiently. When the predetermined time period has elapsed (S05: Yes), the processes of generating and recording the traveling data are stopped (S06), and then the movie image data files recorded in the storage section 17 after occurrence of the accident is read to be transmitted to the network device 40 and saved in the detachable memory device 22 (S07). Regarding the movie image data files in a time period after occurrence of the accident, the movie image
data files are transmitted and saved in a time-series manner (e.g., from an old one). Meanwhile, it is possible to perform the generating and the recording of only the movie image data files by omitting the generating and recording of the still image data after the occurrence of the accident (S02: after judgment of Yes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of transmitting image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device as taught in Minowa with the vehicle control apparatus of Gabel so that “risk of losing evidence data can be reduced” (Minowa [0057]).
Gabel does not explicitly teach, however Usami teaches receive from the external electronic device a request signal that is transmitted to the vehicle identified based on the image information ([0035] When the communication part 101 receives accident information from the in-vehicle terminal
300 mounted on the vehicle which caused the accident or the driver's smartphone 400, the communication part 101 transmits a request for providing information to other in-vehicle terminals or the like. When the communication part 101 receives provision of information from the other in-vehicle
terminal or the like, the communication part 101 requests the measurement part 102 to measure communication traffic volume. [0043] The shock detection part 304 detects a shock applied to the vehicle and determines whether or not the vehicle has had an accident or the like. When it is determined that the vehicle has had an accident or the like, the shock detection part 304 requests the control part 301 to transmit accident information. [0054] Next, the information center apparatus 100
transmits to other in-vehicle terminals and smartphones of pedestrians, a request for providing information including information on time and an accident occurrence site by using the position A and the time B included in the accident information (step S6). [0055] Referring to FIG. 6, first, when the in-vehicle terminal X receives the request for providing informaiton from the information center apparatus
100, the in-vehicle terminal X acquires the driving recorder information which corresponds to information of the position measuring part 306 and the timekeeping part 307 from the recording part 308. (step S11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of receiving from the external electronic device a request signal that is transmitted to the vehicle identified based on the image information as taught in Usami with the vehicle control apparatus of Gabel in order to enable the attainment of “records situation of an incident or accident to a terminal(s) and receiving the information which records the situation of the incident or accident from the terminal” ([0012] Usami).
Gabel does not explicitly teach, however Usami teaches transmit accident-related information to the external electronic device as the vehicle identified based on the image information in response to the request signal ([0056] Next, the in-vehicle terminal X transmits the information (information provided by a third party) acquired in the step S11 to the information center apparatus 100 (step S12; information provision) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Gabel, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 9, as described above. Gabel further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit information related to the accident to the external electronic device ([0063] Event information may be received by the accident/event detection engine 508 from one or more sensors 522A-522n (which may be sensors included in one or more kiosks, automobiles, street lights, dedicated cameras, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Gabel, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 10, as described above. Gabel further teaches wherein the information related to the accident includes at least one of a location at which the accident occurs, image information of specified duration including a time point at which the accident occurs, traffic situation information within a specified radius from the location after the accident occurs, vehicle information of the external vehicle, a number of passengers in the external vehicle, age information of one or more passengers in the external vehicle, gender information of one or more passengers in the external vehicle, a target to which the information related to the accident is to be transmitted, a rescue signal for the accident, or any combination thereof ([0014] with respect to the terminal system, the user input used to populate the accident reporting user interface comprises user contact information, accident
location information, an indication as to whether the user was a driver of a vehicle involved in the accident, an indication as to how many people were injured in the accident, a description on injuries, a description of property damage, media recordings related to the accident, insurance information, whether the user is above a first age, whether the user is a citizen of the country where the accident occurred, whether the user is lawfully in the country where the accident occurred).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Gabel, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 10, as described above. Gabel further teaches wherein the information related to the accident is stored in at least one of the external electronic device, a communication relay station different from the external electronic device, a server storage associated with the external vehicle or a vehicle equipped with the vehicle control apparatus, an electronic device including a terminal owned by a pedestrian, or any combination thereof, when the information related to the accident is transmitted to the external electronic device ([0063] Event information may be received by the accident/event detection engine 508 from one or more sensors 522A-522n (which may be sensors
included in one or more kiosks, automobiles, street lights, dedicated cameras, etc.) and/or from one or more data stores 524, accident broadcast services, traffic services, navigation services, etc. [0168] Data
stores (e.g., comprising databases) may be used to store some or all of the information discussed herein in memory. The results of the disclosed processed may be stored in a relational databases and/or flat file system).
V. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabel in view of Minowa, Usami, and Speaker US 20200029194 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Gabel, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 9, as described above. Gabel does not explicitly teach, however Speaker teaches wherein the processor is configured to transmit, to the external electronic device, image information of specified duration including a time point at which the accident occurs ([0098] Referring again to FIG. 7, Camera 382 may be provided for various purposes including but not limited to collecting information useable by processor 120 to assess likelihood that an accident occurred, to collect information about circumstances leading up to an accident and circumstances that exist at a location after an accident likely occurred, etc. In some cases when an emergency reporting call is initiated, processor 120 may transmit
camera video to a dispatcher corresponding to a period (e.g., 20 seconds) prior to the start time of the accident as well as video data subsequent to the accident so that a dispatcher can assess accident
likelihood and severity and other circumstances that may warrant dispatch of specific resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of transmitting, to the external electronic device, image information of specified duration including a time point at which the accident occurs as taught in Speaker with the vehicle control apparatus of Gabel so that the “dispatcher can assess accident
likelihood and severity and other circumstances that may warrant dispatch of specific resources” (Speaker [0098]).
VI. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabel in view of Minowa, Usami, and Chun.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Gabel, Minowa, and Usami teaches the limitations recited in claim 9, as described above. Gabel does not explicitly teach, however Chun teaches wherein the processor is configured to provide the external electronic device with information related to the accident based on receiving, from the external electronic device, a request signal requesting the information related to the accident ([0042] “the first vehicle” is at least one vehicle to which a user's terminal is attached, which requests image information related to the first vehicle from another user's terminal, the second vehicle, an outer server, a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), and/or the like according that a traffic accident occurs while driving or being stationary on a road, and/or the like, or an occurrence of various vehicle-related accidents is expected while driving or being stationary, and “the second vehicle” is at least one neighbor vehicle to which the another user's terminal is attached, which provides the image information related to the first vehicle based on a driving image captured by the second vehicle upon receiving the request for the image information from the terminal, the first vehicle, the outer server, the CCTV, and/or the like while driving or being stationary within a distance adjacent to the first vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of providing the external electronic device with information related to the accident based on receiving, from the external electronic device, a request signal requesting the information related to the accident as taught in Chun with the vehicle control apparatus of Gabel because such a combination enables sharing of images (Chun [0108]).
VII. Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Minowa.
Regarding Claim 15, Usami teaches a communication method, the method comprising: transmitting, by at least one of a first vehicle in which an accident occurs, a second vehicle that identifies occurrence of the accident by using a sensor, or any combination thereof, an accident signal indicating the occurrence of the accident occurs, through a communication circuit ([0050] the in-vehicle terminal 1 transmits the accident information to the information center apparatus 100 to report the occurrence of the accident (step S3));
receiving a request signal requesting information related to the accident from a communication center responding to the accident signal ([0054] Next, the information center
apparatus 100 transmits to other in-vehicle terminals and smartphones of pedestrians, a request for providing information including information on time and an accident occurrence site by using the position A and the time B included in the accident information (step S6). Further, a name of a nearby intersection, landmark information, or the like may be added to the accident occurrence site of the request for providing information for the smartphone as well as the position A of the accident information, that is, the latitude/longitude information by GPS);
transmitting, by at least some vehicles responding to the request signal, the information related to the accident to the communication center, wherein vehicles, among the at least some vehicles, agree to transmission of the information related to the accident to the communication center ([0056] Next, the in-vehicle terminal X transmits the information (information provided by a third party) acquired in the step S11 to the information center apparatus 100 (step S12; information provision));
transmitting, by the communication center, a request signal to a vehicle identified based on
the image information ([0035] When the communication part 101 receives accident information from the in-vehicle terminal 300 mounted on the vehicle which caused the accident or the driver's smartphone 400, the communication part 101 transmits a request for providing information to other in-vehicle terminals or the like. When the communication part 101 receives provision of information from the other in-vehicle terminal or the like, the communication part 101 requests the measurement part
102 to measure communication traffic volume. [0043] The shock detection part 304 detects a shock applied to the vehicle and determines whether or not the vehicle has had an accident or the like. When it is determined that the vehicle has had an accident or the like, the shock detection part 304 requests
the control part 301 to transmit accident information. [0054] Next, the information center apparatus
100 transmits to other in-vehicle terminals and smartphones of pedestrians, a request for providing information including information on time and an accident occurrence site by using the position A and the time B included in the accident information (step S6). [0055] Referring to FIG. 6, first, when the in-vehicle terminal X receives the request for providing informaiton from the information center apparatus
100, the in-vehicle terminal X acquires the driving recorder information which corresponds to information of the position measuring part 306 and the timekeeping part 307 from the recording part 308. (step S11); and
receiving, by the communication center, the information related to the accident from the vehicle identified based on the image information in response to the request signal ([0056] Next, the in-vehicle terminal X transmits the information (information provided by a third party) acquired in the step S11 to the information center apparatus 100 (step S12; information provision).
Usami does not explicitly teach, however Minowa teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device ([0049] - [0071] Next, it is determined whether or not a predetermined time period has passed from the occurrence of the accident (S02: a time point of judgment of Yes) on the basis of a timing result of the RTC 15 (S05). The predetermined time period is preferably a time period (e.g., 15 seconds to 30 seconds) whereby recording after occurrence of the accident can be performed sufficiently. When the predetermined time period has elapsed (S05: Yes), the processes of generating and recording the traveling data are stopped (S06), and then the movie image data files recorded in the storage section 17 after occurrence of the accident is read to be transmitted to the network device 40 and saved in the detachable memory device 22 (S07). Regarding the movie image data files in a time period after occurrence of the accident, the movie image
data files are transmitted and saved in a time-series manner (e.g., from an old one). Meanwhile, it is possible to perform the generating and the recording of only the movie image data files by omitting the generating and recording of the still image data after the occurrence of the accident (S02: after judgment of Yes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of transmitting image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device as taught in Minowa with the communication method of Usami so that “risk of losing evidence data can be reduced” (Minowa [0057]).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Usami and Minowa teaches the limitations recited in claim 15, as described above. Usami further teaches wherein the information related to the accident includes at least one of a location at which the accident occurs, image information of specified duration including a time point at which the accident occurs, traffic situation information within a specified radius from the location after the accident occurs, vehicle information of the first vehicle, a number of passengers in the first vehicle, age information of one or more passengers in the first vehicle, gender information of one or more passengers in the first vehicle, a target to which the information related to the accident is to be transmitted, a rescue signal for the accident, or any combination thereof ([0051] FIG. 5 illustrates an example of accident informaiton. In the example of FIG. 5, accident information in which the insurance ID and the personal ID are added to a position A, time B, and driving recorder information C (information obtained from the imaging part 303 and the driving state recording part 305) is shown. The accident ID is an ID added by the information center apparatus 100 side for uniquely identifying the accident. [0042] The imaging part 303, the driving state recording part 305, the position measurement part 306, the timekeeping part 307, and the recording part 308 are each composed of recording devices, such as a camera, a driving state recording apparatus, a GPS (Global Positioning System), a timer, a memory card, and so on. Instead of arranging these discretely, a driving recorder configured to include these functions can also be used. The driving state recording apparatus is an apparatus that records the driving state of a steering wheel/access/brake and the like).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Usami and Minowa teaches the limitations recited in claim 15, as described above. Usami further teaches further comprising: requesting vehicle information related to the accident from the first vehicle ([0069] Each insurance company shares information (position, etc.) of all in-vehicle terminals, and when an accident occurs, an insurance company of an insurance which an accident vehicle has transmits a request for providing information to all in-vehicle terminals regardless of the insurance company of the insurance which they have. When an accident occurs, an insurance company of an insurance which an accident vehicle has transmits a request for providing information to an in-vehicle terminal(s) of the policyholder who has an insurance of the insurance company itself (themselves)); and
providing an environment in which one or more vehicles other than the first vehicle and the first vehicle share the information related to the accident with each other ([0056] Next, the in-vehicle terminal X transmits the information (information provided by a third party) acquired in the step S11 to the information center apparatus 100 (step S12; information provision). FIGS. 3-6),
wherein the vehicle information includes at least one of an identifier of the first vehicle, a location at which the accident occurs, a number of passengers in the first vehicle, age information of one or more passengers in the first vehicle, gender information of one or more passengers in the first vehicle, a target to which the information related to the accident is to be transmitted, a rescue signal for the accident, or any combination thereof, and wherein the information related to the accident includes at least one of image information of specified duration including a time point at which the accident occurs, traffic situation information within a specified radius from the location after the accident occurs, a location where the accident occurs, information related to an accident victim by the accident, or any combination thereof ([0051] FIG. 5 illustrates an example of accident information. In the example of FIG. 5, accident information in which the insurance ID and the personal ID are added to a position A, time B, and driving recorder information C (information obtained from the imaging part 303 and the driving state recording part 305) is shown. The accident ID is an ID added by the information center apparatus 100 side for uniquely identifying the accident. [0042] The imaging part 303, the driving state recording part 305, the position measurement part 306, the timekeeping part 307, and the recording part 308 are each composed of recording devices, such as a camera, a driving state recording apparatus, a GPS (Global Positioning System), a timer, a memory card, and so on. Instead of arranging these discretely, a driving recorder configured to include these functions can also be used. The driving state recording apparatus is an apparatus that records the driving state of a steering wheel/access/brake and the like).
VIII. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Minowa and Lepp US 20210304592 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Usami and Minowa teaches the limitations recited in claim 15, as described above. Usami does not explicitly teach, however Lepp teaches further comprising transmitting the request signal requesting the information related to the accident to vehicles identified in image information based on receiving, from the first vehicle, the image information within specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs ([0057] Probe data (e.g., camera images, license plate readers, etc.) can be collected from an RSU to identify (possibly anonymously) other vehicles in the vicinity of the location of the accident. This can allow the RSU or the AIS 120 to request information from the identified vehicles that were in the vicinity of the accident location at the time of the accident. Comparison of information between the vehicles involved and other vehicles in the vicinity of the accident may show lost or delayed messages which may contribute to understanding what happened).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of transmitting the request signal requesting the information related to the accident to vehicles identified in image information based on receiving, from the first vehicle, the image information within specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs as taught in Lepp with the vehicle control method of Usami because such a combination enables the system to “contribute to understanding what happened” (Lepp [0057]).
IX. Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Minowa and Chun.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Usami and Minowa teaches the limitations recited in claim 15, as described above. Usami does not explicitly teach, however Chun teaches further comprising: identifying at least one of a location of the first vehicle, a location where the accident occurs, or any combination thereof, based on map information ([0050] At least one information which may indicate the location of the terminal or the vehicle which communicates with the terminal such as a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, a speed, GPS information, a driving road, a coordinate value on a map, a driving lane, a driving heading, and/or the like of the vehicle may be used as the location information. Various information which may indicate the location of the vehicle as well as the information as described above may be used as the location information. The location information may be location information which is measured using a Lidar, a Radar, a Global Positioning System (GPS) module, an Inertia Measurement Unit (IMU) as an inertia sensor, an odometry, a camera, and/or the like which are mounted on the terminal or the vehicle or location information which is recognized based on measured information. [0051] For example, location information of a vehicle which is recognized by comparing a surface reflectivity within a map stored as the Lidar information may be used as the location
information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of identifying at least one of a location of the first vehicle, a location where the accident occurs, or any combination thereof, based on map information as taught in Chun with the vehicle control method of Usami because such a combination enables a system “for checking an accident reason when a traffic accident occurs, or for preventing various accidents before the various accidents occur” (Chun [0004]).
Usami does not explicitly teach, however Chun teaches transmitting a request signal requesting the information related to the accident to at least one of i) one or more vehicles located within a specified radius from a location of the first vehicle or a location at which the accident occurs, ii) one or more vehicles passing the specified radius for a specified duration, or any combination thereof ([0042] “the first vehicle” is at least one vehicle to which a user's terminal is attached, which requests image information related to the first vehicle from another user's terminal, the second vehicle, an outer server, a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), and/or the like according that a traffic accident occurs while driving or being stationary on a road, and/or the like, or an occurrence of various vehicle-related accidents is expected while driving or being stationary, and “the second vehicle” is at least one neighbor vehicle to which the another user's terminal is attached, which provides the image information related to the first vehicle based on a driving image captured by the second vehicle upon receiving the request for the image information from the terminal, the first vehicle, the outer server, the CCTV, and/or the like while driving or being stationary within a distance adjacent to the first vehicle. [0093] For example, only an image which is captured for a time interval during which a calculated distance is within a predetermined distance may be selected by omitting operations 407, 409, 411, and 415 and performing only operation
405. For another example, only an image which is captured for a time interval during which the distance calculated at operation 405 satisfies the criterion of <Equation 1> at operation 407 may be selected by omitting operations 409 and 411. For still another example, operations 405 and 407 may be omitted. For still another example, only an image which is captured for a time interval during which operation 407 is omitted, the distance calculated at operation 405 is within a predetermined distance, and it is determined that capturing is performed according to operations 409, 411, and 415 may be selected) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Usami and Minowa teaches the limitations recited in claim 15, as described above. Usami does not explicitly teach, however Chun teaches further comprising establishing a communication link through the communication circuit from the first vehicle and the second vehicle before the accident occurs ([0048] “accident message” is a message which the first vehicle which senses physical crash (i.e., an occurrence of an accident) of a vehicle due to various reasons such as a traffic accident or a landslide, a rockslide, a road state, and/or the like or predicts a situation of the vehicle before an accident occurs notifies the terminal of the occurrence of the accident or the hazardous situation. [0053] embodiments of the present disclosure to be described below will exemplify a method and apparatus for sharing image information related to the first vehicle among vehicles when a traffic accident occurs. However, a situation to which the present disclosure may be applied is not limited to the traffic accident, and may the present disclosure may be applied to a case of notifying a hazardous situation before the accident occurs in the same manner. For example, the present disclosure may be applied to a case of sharing image information for safe driving among vehicles. [0079] The first terminal 31 transmits a message for requesting image information related to the selected moving route (hereinafter, “image information request message”) through a wireless communication at operation 317. In a case of transmitting and receiving the image information for the moving route for the predetermined time before sensing the accident, the first terminal 31 and the second terminal 33 may transmit and receive only image information which corresponds to a corresponding moving route) (see claim 18 rejection above for combination rationale).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[t]he subject matter of each of the amended claims 1, 9, and 15 covers more than performance of the limitation in the human mind” (p. 8). Applicant fails to provide any support or arguments to uphold this conclusory statement.
Applicant argues that “the subject matter of the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 pertains to a technical improvement in the functioning of accident-related information provision technology for vehicles” (p. 8). The Examiner disagrees. Contrary to the position taken by Applicant, the claims do not pertain to an improvement in technology (e.g., there is no improvement to the claimed sensor, processor, and external electronic device). Rather, the claims purport to improve a method of transmitting and receiving information between people (e.g., drivers and first responders).
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the claimed feature “wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit image information captured within a specified duration from a time point at which the accident occurs to the external electronic device” (p. 12). As discussed more fully above, such features are taught by the newly cited reference Minowa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights