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 Arguments
The examiner would like to acknowledge that this case has been inherited from a previous examiner. This acknowledgement is provided for the convenience of the applicant in an attempt to preemptively explain any perceived differences in interpretation or application of relevant statutes throughout the continued prosecution of this application. The new examiner’s contact information is provided in the conclusion section of this action.
The applicant has argued that the previous examiner in this application erroneously identified the incorrect provisional application relevant to this application. This argument is persuasive and the correct provisional application - 63/542,581 - is being considered for the purpose of priority in this office action.
The applicant has argued that amendments made to Claims 1 and 17 overcome the previously rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. This argument is persuasive, specifically the addition of the claim limitation, “activating, based at least in part on a movement of a vehicle exceeding an acceleration threshold or a braking threshold of the vehicle, a rear-facing camera installed on the vehicle” represents an additional element that is sufficient to cause the abstract idea recited in the claims to be integrated successfully into a practical application leading the eligibility of the claims and their respective dependent claims. However, Claims 9-16 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The previous examiner stated in a Final Rejection dated 03/24/2026 on Page 8 that these claims were not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 “because a control operation is initiated to control the vehicle”. However, “initiating a control operation on the vehicle” does not equate to “performing a control operation on the vehicle”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “initiating” includes the mental process of thinking about performing a control action as well as the routine, well-understood, function of sending a control signal which can be interrupted or overridden before actual performance of the control operation on the vehicle occurs. These interpretations cause the limitation to become, instead of an additional action sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, either a part of the abstract idea itself (in the case of the interpretation of thinking about performing a control operation) or a generic well-understood computer function performed by generic computing components (in the signal interpretation). It is recommended that the word “initiating” be replaced with the word “performing” as is supported by Paragraph [0076] of the instant application.
Furthermore, based on definitions provided by the applicant, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “control operation” includes insignificant post-solution activity (see Claim 11 where “initiating the control operation comprises: transmitting a notification…via an audio or visual system of the vehicle” and an abstract idea (see Claim 12 where “initiating the control operation of the vehicle comprises: determining a deceleration value for a braking maneuver performed by the vehicle” which represents an abstract idea as it can be performed solely within the human mind). It is recommended that Claims 11 and 12 be cancelled and Claim 9 include limitations that define what a “control operation” is that include only elements in which direct control is taken over the movement of the vehicle by the system.
The applicant has argued that the previously rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn. However, these arguments are moot as new grounds of rejection have been identified for prior art rejections of the claims.
Priority
The priority date of this application is 09/29/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata (US 2020/0380806) in view of Reyes (US 2019/0122460).
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0048502).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Titley (US 2018/0157919).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Shaffer (US 2008/0136911).
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 9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A step-by-step analysis of the independent claim is provided below:
Step 1: is the claim directed towards a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, Claim 9 is directed towards a system (machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, Claim 9 recites “receiving…image data…”, “determining…a characteristic of a second vehicle…”, “determining…a high-risk driving condition…”. These limitations represent an abstract idea as they are all possible solely within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception? No, the additional elements recited represent either generic computing components performing routine, well-understood, functions such as processors and memory, or insignificant extra-solution activity such as initiating a control operation that can consist of only outputting data to a display.
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the additional elements recited to cause the solution provided in the invention to be directed away from the judicial exception and therefore do not cause the claim as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0048502).
As per Claim 9:
Kim discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle-based computing system for determining high- risk driving conditions based on image data from a rear-facing vehicle camera, the vehicle-based computing system comprising: one or more processors, and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle-based computing system to perform operations including: receiving, by an image analysis system of a vehicle, image data captured by a rear- facing camera installed on the vehicle;”
Kim Paragraph [0029] discloses receiving image data from a camera that is at least mounted in a rear-facing direction as evidenced by the fact that the detection means, which includes the camera, is used to detect vehicles in the rear of the instant vehicle (see Paragraph [0032]).
“determining, based at least in part on the image data, a characteristic of a second vehicle located behind the vehicle”
Kim Paragraph [0031] discloses identifying the speed of a vehicle in the rear of the instant vehicle.
“determining, by the image analysis system, a high-risk driving condition, based at least in part on the characteristic of the second vehicle”
Kim Paragraph [0029] discloses identifying an event by the likelihood for the potential of an accident between two vehicles, therefore identifying a high-risk driving condition.
“and initiating a control operation on the vehicle, based at least in part on determining the high-risk driving condition.”
Kim [Abstract] discloses displaying information of other vehicles that are deemed to have a possibility of an accident based on a determination of a high-risk driving environment. Displaying information constitutes a "control operation on the vehicle" in accordance with the applicant's own definition of this term as presented in Claim 11 and Paragraph [0076] of the instant application.
With regards to Claim 11, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein initiating the control operation on the vehicle comprises: transmitting a notification identifying the high-risk driving condition, via an audio or visual system of the vehicle, to a driver of the vehicle.”
Kim [Abstract] discloses displaying information of other vehicles that are deemed to have a possibility of an accident based on a determination of a high-risk driving environment
With regards to Claim 13, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“the operations further including, based at least in part on determining the high-risk driving condition: storing the image data and the characteristic of the second vehicle within a storage unit on the vehicle; and transmitting the image data and the characteristic of the second vehicle to a remote server.”
Kim [Abstract] discloses storing and transmitting data concerning other vehicles based on a dangerous situation, including collisions, being identified.
With regards to Claim 15, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the characteristic of the second vehicle comprises at least one of: a following distance of the second vehicle; a speed of the second vehicle; an acceleration of the second vehicle; or a driver behavior or the second vehicle.”
Kim Paragraph [0031] discloses identifying the speed of a vehicle in the rear of the instant vehicle.
With regards to Claim 16, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the high-risk driving condition further comprises: receiving additional data associated with the image data, from at least one of: a telematics system of the vehicle; a front-facing or side-facing camera of the vehicle; or a road condition or weather condition data source associated with the vehicle; and determining the high-risk driving condition, based at least in part on the additional data.”
Kim Paragraphs [0029]-[0032] disclose a system where image information is attained from both rear-facing cameras and front-facing cameras.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata in view of Reyes. These references are analogous as they are both related to data collection on vehicles.
As per Claim 1:
Tabata discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle-based computing system for on-vehicle event detection using image data from a rear-facing vehicle camera, the computing system comprising: one or more processors, and memory operably connected to the one or more processors, the memory storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations including: activating, based at least in part on a movement of a vehicle exceeding an acceleration threshold or a braking threshold of the vehicle, a rear-facing camera installed on the vehicle”
Tabata Paragraph [0067] discloses determining that an event has occurred based on acceleration being detected above a threshold and activates a vehicle recording control device to activate a camera that is disclosed as recording 360 degrees in Paragraph [0020]. Paragraph [0042] also discloses changes in the threshold whether the vehicle is travelling or parking.
“receiving image data captured by the activated rear-facing camera, the image data representing driving environment the vehicle is operating in”
Tabata Paragraph [0020] discloses an activated camera that records the surrounding area of the vehicle.
“storing the image data within a storage unit on the vehicle”
Tabata Paragraph [0020] discloses storing data locally in a camera.
“detecting an event during operation of the vehicle within the driving environment”
Tabata Paragraph [0067] discloses determining that an event has occurred based on acceleration being detected above a threshold.
Tabata does not disclose the following limitations that Reyes teaches:
“determining, based at least in part on an on-vehicle analysis of the image data, a characteristic of a second vehicle located behind the vehicle”
Reyes Paragraph [0029] teaches identifying characteristics of another vehicle with a camera.
“and in response to detecting the event, transmitting the image data and information indicating the characteristic of the second vehicle from the storage unit to an off-vehicle server.”
Reyes Paragraph [0003] teaches transmitting image data of another vehicle in the event of a collision.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Tabata with the identifying characteristics and transmitting taught by Reyes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by identifying details in a scene for later analysis.
With regards to Claim 2, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein detecting the event comprises at least one of: determining a collision or a potential collision involving the vehicle; determining damage to the vehicle; determining that a risk level of the operation of the vehicle is higher than a risk threshold; or determining an expiration of a periodic timer associated with the rear-facing camera.”
Tabata Paragraph [0034] discloses identifying whether a risk level of operation of the vehicle is high.
With regards to Claim 3, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein detecting the event comprises: receiving additional data corresponding to a time at which the image data was captured, from at least one of: a telematics system of the vehicle; a front-facing or side-facing camera of the vehicle; or a road condition or weather condition data source associated with the vehicles wherein the event is detected based at least in part on the additional data.”
Tabata Paragraph [0080] discloses acquiring wind information around a vehicle. Additionally Paragraph [0020] discloses cameras on all sides of a vehicle.
With regards to Claim 4, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the event comprises a collision on an impact surface of the vehicle, and wherein the operations further include: determining a subset of the additional data, based at least in part on the impact surface of the vehicle; and transmitting the subset of the additional data to the remote off-vehicle server.”
Reyes Paragraph [0052] teaches transmitting data including impact force, angle of an accident, and location on the vehicle impact occurred base on the impact surface of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Tabata with the identifying characteristics and transmitting taught by Reyes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by identifying details in a scene for later analysis.
With regards to Claim 6, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the characteristic of the second vehicle comprises at least one of: a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle; a model of the second vehicle; or a behavior of a driver of the second vehicle.”
Reyes Paragraph [0100] teaches identifying information of another vehicle including license plate numbers and vehicle details such as the model of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 8, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein storing the image data comprises: determining a level of risk associated with the driving environment; causing the image data to be retained within the storage unit for a duration of time, based upon the level of risk”
Tabata Paragraph [0006] teaches recording and storing image data for different periods based on whether an "event" is detected, i.e. the danger level of the area.
As per Claim 17: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 18, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 17 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein transmitting the image data and the information to the off-vehicle server comprises at least one of: transmitting the image data and the information via an Internet connection associated with the vehicle; transmitting the image data and the information via a wireless network connection associated with the rear-facing camera; or transmitting the image data and the information via a mobile device of an occupant of the vehicle.”
Reyes Paragraph [0076] teaches transmitting via wireless connections.
With regards to Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 21, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the rear-facing camera is activated further based at least in part on a detection of a bump or jerk during operation of the vehicle, and the movement is determined, by the one or more processors, in real-time.”
Reyes Paragraph [0052] teaches collecting data in real-time upon detection of an impact, which constitutes a "bump" as recited in the claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Tabata in view of Reyes further with the impact detection taught by Reyes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more accurate by considering different parameters in event detection.
With regards to Claim 22, Tabata in view of Reyes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein storing the image data within the storage unit comprises: automatically retaining the captured image data within storage unit, based at least in part on a storage criteria, wherein the storage criteria comprises at least one of: a speed threshold of the vehicle; an acceleration threshold of the vehicle; a braking threshold of the vehicle; or a detection of a bump or jerk during operation of the vehicle.”
Tabata Paragraph [0067] discloses retaining recorded image data based on a result of an acceleration sensor.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Titley. These references are analogous as they are both related to identifying situations around a vehicle.
With regards to Claim 10, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 but does not disclose the following limitations that Titley teaches:
“wherein initiating the control operation on the vehicle comprises at least one of: activating a brake light or hazard light on the vehicle; initiating an acceleration maneuver by the vehicle; or initiating a steering maneuver by the vehicle.”
Titley Paragraph [0033] teaches applying the brakes when a dangerous situation is identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kim with the initiation of the brakes in a dangerous situation taught by Titley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by utilizing information to identify dangerous situations and avoiding them.
With regards to Claim 12, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 but does not disclose the following limitations that Titley teaches:
“wherein initiating the control operation on the vehicle comprises: determining a deceleration value for a braking maneuver performed by the vehicle.”
Titley Paragraph [0033] teaches applying braking for avoiding spinning out of control, such an action would necessitate determining an appropriate deceleration value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kim with the initiation of the brakes in a dangerous situation taught by Titley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by utilizing information to identify dangerous situations and avoiding them.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Shaffer (US 2008/0136911). These references are analogous as they are both related to vehicle camera uses.
With regards to Claim 14, Kim discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 but does not disclose the following limitations that Shaffer teaches:
“wherein the rear-facing camera comprises an integrated backup camera of the vehicle, wherein integrated backup camera is configured to activate the rear-facing camera when the vehicle is put into reverse.”
Shaffer Paragraph [0017] teaches a camera that is activated when the vehicle has been placed in reverse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify they system disclosed by Kim with the reverse camera taught by Shaffer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more convenient by using a commonly available camera set-up.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights