DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 09 September 2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0029532, filed on 08 March 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
The image quality of Figs. 1-3 need to be improved. The lines in the figures should be uniformly thick, black, and solid. The text should be uniformly thick, black, solid and legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, “when the time information of the autonomous driving record data and the image data is both global positioning system (GPS) time” should read -- when the time information of the autonomous driving record data and the image data are both global positioning system (GPS) time--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claims 12-15 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 12: “…when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data, the autonomous driving record data and the image data are reproduced to correspond to each other on the basis of a reproduction requested time.”
Claim 13: “…when the vehicle accident analysis data is generated, the vehicle accident analysis data is generated including the accident analysis data.”
Claim 14: “…a time difference with second time information of the image data is set as a correction time based on first time information of the autonomous driving record data to correct the second time information and then the autonomous driving record data and the image data is synchronized with each other, when a time difference occurs between the first time information, which is a GPS time, and the second time information, which is a non-GPS time.”
Claim 15: “…a time point of accident occurrence is grasped from the image data through machine learning using an accident identification algorithm, timelines of the autonomous driving record data and the image data are corrected to correspond to each other by matching second time information of the image data at the time point of accident occurrence with first time information of the autonomous driving record data at a time point of accident occurrence in the autonomous driving record data, and then the autonomous driving record data is synchronized with the moving image data, when different standard times are applied to the autonomous driving record data of which the first time information is a GPS time and the image data of which the second time information is a non-GPS time.”
With respect to conditional limitations in process claims, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
As claims 12-15 are process claims, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to claims 12-15. See MPEP 2111.04, Il “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. .. [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claims 12-15 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13 does not require “…the vehicle accident analysis data is generated including the accident analysis data” since “when the vehicle accident analysis data is generated” introduces a non-required step since the vehicle accident analysis data is generated are not required to occur.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “… generates and provides vehicle accident analysis data including… and generates vehicle accident analysis data so that when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data, the autonomous driving record data and the image data are reproduced to correspond to each other on the basis of a reproduction …receives vehicle accident analysis data…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear the “vehicle accident analysis data” of lines 6-7 is the same “vehicle accident analysis data” of line 12 and lines 19-21. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “… generates and provides vehicle accident analysis data including…and generates the vehicle accident analysis data so that when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data, the autonomous driving record data and the image data are reproduced to correspond to each other on the basis of a reproduction…receives the vehicle accident analysis data…” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 12 recites “… generating and providing, by the vehicle accident analysis server, vehicle accident analysis data including… wherein, in the generating of the vehicle accident analysis data, vehicle accident analysis data is generated…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear the “vehicle accident analysis data” of line 7 is the same “vehicle accident analysis data” of the last limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “… generating and providing, by the vehicle accident analysis server, vehicle accident analysis data including… wherein, in the generating of the vehicle accident analysis data, the vehicle accident analysis data is generated…”” for the purpose of examination.
Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle accident analysis system (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle accident analysis system comprising:
a vehicle accident analysis server which is provided with a wired/wireless communication function to acquire autonomous driving record data and image data of an autonomous driving vehicle, generates and provides vehicle accident analysis data including accident analysis data and accident situation data which are obtained by synchronizing the acquired autonomous driving record data and image data on the basis of time information included in each of the acquired autonomous driving record data and image data, and generates vehicle accident analysis data so that when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data, the autonomous driving record data and the image data are reproduced to correspond to each other on the basis of a reproduction requested time; and
a user terminal which is provided with a wired/wireless communication function, and receives vehicle accident analysis data to output the vehicle accident analysis data on a screen according to a reproduction request signal input by a user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generates and provides vehicle accident analysis data...” and “generates vehicle accident analysis data…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle accident analysis system comprising:
a vehicle accident analysis server which is provided with a wired/wireless communication function to acquire autonomous driving record data and image data of an autonomous driving vehicle, generates and provides vehicle accident analysis data including accident analysis data and accident situation data which are obtained by synchronizing the acquired autonomous driving record data and image data on the basis of time information included in each of the acquired autonomous driving record data and image data, and generates vehicle accident analysis data so that when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data, the autonomous driving record data and the image data are reproduced to correspond to each other on the basis of a reproduction requested time; and
a user terminal which is provided with a wired/wireless communication function, and receives vehicle accident analysis data to output the vehicle accident analysis data on a screen according to a reproduction request signal input by a user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire autonomous driving record data and image data...”, “receive vehicle accident analysis data” and “output…on a screen...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (server/user terminal) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring…and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The output…on a screen… step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the result from the generating steps), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle accident analysis server” and “user terminal” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose computer environment. The “vehicle accident analysis server” and “user terminal” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server to perform the generating... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire…”, “receive…” “output…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquire…”, “receive…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the steps are merely data transmission, and the specification does not provide any indication that the server is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “output...” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 11.
Claim 11, an apparatus claim (a user terminal), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 an apparatus claim (a vehicle accident system). Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claims 12.
Claim 12, a process claim (a vehicle accident analysis method), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 an apparatus claim (a vehicle accident system). Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 13-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US10387962).
As to claim 1, Potter teaches a vehicle accident analysis system comprising:
a vehicle accident analysis server which is provided with a wired/wireless communication function to acquire autonomous driving record data and image data of an autonomous driving vehicle (Potter col 8, lines 1-20: … the server 40 may be a remote server… configured to receive, collect, and/or analyze telematics…data in accordance with any of the methods described herein. The server 40 may be configured for one-way or two-way wired or wireless communication via the network 30 with a number of telematics and/or other data sources, including the accident database 42, the third party database 44, the database 46 and/or the front-end components 2..., col 13, lines 3-23: audio and/or video data may be recorded… associated with… vehicle braking, vehicle speed…; col 16, lines 21-46: The method 100 may include collecting accident data associated with a vehicle accident involving a driver (block 102) … The accident data may include telematics data…associated with or generated by… an insured vehicle or a computer system of the insured vehicle (e.g., vehicle 8 or smart vehicle controller 14 of FIGS. 1 and 2, or one or more sensors mounted on the vehicle)…; also see col 11, lines 46-67; Fig. 1, Fig. 4), generates and provides vehicle accident analysis data including accident analysis data and accident situation data which are obtained by synchronizing the acquired autonomous driving record data and image data on the basis of time information included in each of the acquired autonomous driving record data and image data (Potter col 13, lines 3-49: …audio and/or video data may be recorded. To facilitate accurate reconstruction of the sequence of 15 events, the audio and video data may capture time-stamped sound and images, respectively. Sound and visual data may be associated with and/or indicate, for example, vehicle braking; vehicle speed; vehicle turning; tum signal… The telematics and/or other data gathered may facilitate accident reconstruction, and an accident scene or series of events may be recreated…a graphical or virtual moving or animated representation of the events…may be generated; col 11, lines 46-60: telematics data and/or other types of data…and may be time-stamped…), and generates vehicle accident analysis data so that when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data, the autonomous driving record data and the image data are reproduced to correspond to each other on the basis of a reproduction requested time (Potter, col 12 lines 54-67: The telematics and/or other data gatherer…may facilitate recreating the series of events that led to an accident…the data gathered may be used by investigative services associated with an insurance provider to determine, for a vehicle accident…; col 15 lines 59-67: The FOIA requests may be automatically generated and/or submitted by an insurance provider remote server (e.g., server 40 of FIG. 1) once an insured event is detected/determined to have occurred from the telematics and/or other data collected, and/or analyzed at the insurance provider remote server; col 13, lines 3-49: …The telematics and/or other data gathered may facilitate accident reconstruction, and an accident scene or series of events may be recreated…a graphical or virtual moving or animated representation of the events…may be generated; also see col 11 lines 30-45; col 20 lines 23-32; Fig. 4); and
a user terminal which is provided with a wired/wireless communication function, and receives vehicle accident analysis data to output the vehicle accident analysis data on a screen (Pottter col 13, lines 3-49: …audio and/or video data may be recorded. … The telematics and/or other data gathered may facilitate accident reconstruction, and an accident scene or series of events may be recreated… The data gathered may facilitate scene reconstructions, such as graphic presentations on a display of a virtual map…a graphical or virtual moving or animated representation of the events…may be generated; col 20, lines 1-32, …displaying the virtual reconstruction to a user; Fig. 2).
Yet, Potter does not explicitly disclose …according to a reproduction request signal input by a user.
However, Potter does teach the telematics and/or other data gatherer…may facilitate recreating the series of events that led to an accident…the data gathered may be used by investigative services associated with an insurance provider to determine, for a vehicle accident… (Potter col 12 lines 54-67); …the method may also include determining (e.g., based upon a virtual reconstruction of the accident generated…by displaying the virtual reconstruction to a user (e.g., insurance provider employee) for human interpretation/analysis… (Potter col 20 lines 23-32); …an insured may opt-in to an insurance program that allows an insurance provider to collect telematics and/or other data, and to analyze that data for low- or high-risk driving and/or other behavior (e.g., for purposes of fault determination). The analysis of the data …may be used to handle an insurance claim... (Potter col 11 lines 30-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the virtual reconstruction of the accident can be displayed to the user when the insurance provider need to analyze the data for the benefit of achieving more accurate determination of the causes of, and/or fault for, accidents, which may give rise to improved claim handling, more accurate/fair adjustments to insurance policies and/or premiums… (Potter col 3 lines 37-52).
As to Claim 5, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous driving record data is data acquired through vehicle sensors including a GPS device, a lidar, a radar, an ultrasonic sensor, a computer system, and a photographing device mounted on the autonomous driving vehicle (Potter col 5, lines 9-35: …GPS unit, …camera…LIDAR, radar…ultrasonic…; col 4, lines 1-28: …computer…).
As to Claim 6, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous driving record data includes at least one of an ON/OFF of an autonomous driving function, a takeover request, a takeover, a minimal risk maneuver, faults, a speed, a lane change, deceleration, a field of view, and a distance between vehicles (Potter col 5, lines 9-20: speedometer…; col 7, lines 5-27: data stored…include…speed of the vehicle…).
As to Claim 7, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 6, wherein the user terminal reproduces at least one item of the autonomous driving record data corresponding to a reproduction time of the image data when reproducing the image data, when a reproduction request is issued for any one of the autonomous driving record data and the image data (Pottter col 13, lines 3-49: …audio and/or video data may be recorded. … The telematics and/or other data gathered may facilitate accident reconstruction, and an accident scene or series of events may be recreated… The data gathered may facilitate scene reconstructions, such as graphic presentations on a display of a virtual map…a graphical or virtual moving or animated representation of the events…may be generated; col 20, lines 1-32, …displaying the virtual reconstruction to a user; Fig. 2).
As to Claim 8, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous driving record data and the image data include identification information and vehicle model information of the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle, respectively (Potter col 9 lines 47-64: telematics data…information of the vehicle and/or insured driver…; col 10 lines 40-64: telematics data…send data about driver behavior…identification of a driver that may have a high risk of accident…; col 22 lines 12-26: …type of vehicle…depicted by the virtual reconstruction).
As to Claim 9, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1, wherein the image data includes at least one of moving image data photographed by a vehicle image recording device provided in the autonomous driving vehicle, moving image data photographed by a vehicle image recording device provided in another vehicle, moving image data photographed by a traffic image recording device around the autonomous driving vehicle, and a still image and moving image photographed by a mobile communication terminal (Potter col 9 lines 18-23: …time-stamp the date and time that information is gathered or sensed by various sensors. For example, the clock 84 may record the time and date that 20 photographs are taken by the camera 88, video is captured by the camera 88, and/or other data is received by the mobile device 10 and/or smart vehicle controller).
As to Claim 10, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous driving record data and image data when the accident occurs include data before and after a preset time based on a time point when an accident occurs in the autonomous driving vehicle (Potter col 13 lines 25-34: The telematics and/or other data gathered may facilitate accident reconstruction, and an accident scene or series of events may be recreated. As noted above, from the series of events leading up to, during, and/or after the accident; also see col 20 lines 1-22).
As to claim 11, Claim 11 includes limitations analogous to claim 1. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Potter.
As to claim 12, Claim 12 includes limitations analogous to claim 1. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Potter.
As to claim 13, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis method of claim 12, wherein the generating of the vehicle accident analysis data further includes generating at least one accident analysis data related to the autonomous driving vehicle based on the autonomous driving record data, and when the vehicle accident analysis data is generated, the vehicle accident analysis data is generated including the accident analysis data (Potter col 13, lines 3-49: …audio and/or video data may be recorded. To facilitate accurate reconstruction of the sequence of 15 events, the audio and video data may capture time-stamped sound and images, respectively. Sound and visual data may be associated with and/or indicate, for example, vehicle braking; vehicle speed; vehicle turning; tum signal… The telematics and/or other data gathered may facilitate accident reconstruction, and an accident scene or series of events may be recreated…a graphical or virtual moving or animated representation of the events…may be generated; col 11, lines 46-60: telematics data and/or other types of data…and may be time-stamped…).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Christ (US20170124745).
As to Claim 2, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1.
Potter further teaches wherein the vehicle accident analysis server synchronizes the autonomous driving record data and the image data with each other based on the time information (Potter col 13, lines 3-49: …audio and/or video data may be recorded. To facilitate accurate reconstruction of the sequence of 15 events, the audio and video data may capture time-stamped sound and images, respectively…a graphical or virtual moving or animated representation of the events…may be generated; col 11, lines 46-60: telematics data and/or other types of data…and may be time-stamped…).
Potter does not teach …when the time information of the autonomous driving record data and the image data is both global positioning system (GPS) time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Christ teaches …FIG. 2 illustrates how the aerial vehicle navigation system 210 and the camera 230 can be configured to synchronize information …both the aerial vehicle navigation system 210 and the camera 230 should maintain a precise clock such as GPS. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the time (or time stamp) from the aerial vehicle navigation system clock (not shown) can be saved in the GPS eXhange format (GPX) log file 220 located in the aerial vehicle navigation system 210 (see at least Christ, para 0025-0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter so as to include when the time information of the autonomous driving record data and the image data is both global positioning system (GPS) time in view of Christ et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the vehicle systems maintaining a precise clock such as GPS of Christ can be used in Potter, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Potter and Christ because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Lewandowski (GPS: primary tool for time transfer).
As to Claim 3, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1.
Potter further teaches synchronizes the autonomous driving record data and the image data with each other (Potter col 13, lines 3-49, col 11, lines 46-60).
Potter does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle accident analysis server sets a time difference with second time information of the image data as a correction time based on first time information of the autonomous driving record data to correct the second time information and then synchronizes the autonomous driving record data and the image data with each other, when a time difference occurs between the first time information, which is a GPS time, and the second time information, which is a non-GPS time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewandowski teaches … GPS is a versatile and global tool which can be used to both distribute time to an arbitrary number of users and synchronize clocks over large distances with a high degree of precision and accuracy (see at least Lewandowski, page 164 Section II, also see equations 1a and/or 1b and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter so as to include wherein the vehicle accident analysis server sets a time difference with second time information of the image data as a correction time based on first time information of the autonomous driving record data to correct the second time information and then synchronizes the autonomous driving record data and the image data with each other, when a time difference occurs between the first time information, which is a GPS time, and the second time information, which is a non-GPS time in view of Lewandowski et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that synchronize clock with a more accurate clock of GPS of Lewandowski can be used in Potter, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Potter and Lewandowski because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 14, Claim 14 includes limitations analogous to claim 3. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 3, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Lewandowski.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Lewandowski and further in view of Leise (US20210342946).
As to Claim 4, Potter teaches the vehicle accident analysis system of claim 1.
Potter further teaches wherein the vehicle accident analysis server corrects timelines of the autonomous driving record data and the image data to correspond to each other by matching second time information of the image data at the time point of accident occurrence with first time information of the autonomous driving record data at a time point of accident occurrence in the autonomous driving record data, and then synchronizes the autonomous driving record data and the moving image data (Potter col 13, lines 3-49, col 11, lines 46-60).
Potter does not teach …grasps a time point of accident occurrence from the image data through machine learning using an accident identification algorithm…when different standard times are applied to the autonomous driving record data of which the first time information is a GPS time and the image data of which the second time information is a non-GPS time.
Lewandowski is directed to using GPS as a time-transfer system. Lewandowski teaches … GPS is a versatile and global tool which can be used to both distribute time to an arbitrary number of users and synchronize clocks over large distances with a high degree of precision and accuracy (see at least Lewandowski, page 164 Section II, also see equations 1a and/or 1b and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter so as to include when different standard times are applied to the autonomous driving record data of which the first time information is a GPS time and the image data of which the second time information is a non-GPS time in view of Lewandowski et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Potter and Lewandowski because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Leise is directed to methods of using a blockchain for managing the subrogation claim process related to a vehicle collision. Leise teaches inputting the new or current sensor, telematics, image, and/or audio data into the processor configured with the trained machine learning algorithm to determine or estimate (i) a vehicle collision occurred…wherein the trained machine learning algorithm may determine that a vehicle collision occurred; a vehicle operational mode at the time of the collision… an indication of the operational mode for the vehicle at the time of vehicle collision and/or before, during, and/or after the vehicle collision, and/or an indication of the percentage of fault determined… (Leise para 0224, para 0237)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter so as to include grasps a time point of accident occurrence from the image data through machine learning using an accident identification algorithm in view of Leise et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Potter and Leise because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 15, Claim 15 includes limitations analogous to claim 4. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 4, claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Lewandowski and Leise.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664