DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 10/4/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0131474 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method of recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the method comprising:
determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from a steering angle sensor, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a vehicle speed sensor; and
storing the non-impact event based on a determination that the non-impact event has occurred.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites A method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 1:
A method of recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the method comprising:
determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from a steering angle sensor, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a vehicle speed sensor; and
storing the non-impact event based on a determination that the non-impact event has occurred;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human either be given the signals from the sensors, or observe steering angle, vehicle acceleration in 3 axis, and vehicle speed. Then the human can analyze the signals or analyze their own observations to determine if the vehicle is in a non-impact event.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there is no additional element.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, there is no insignificant extra-solution activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 2-9,
Similar to the analysis of claim 1. Step 1: claims 2-9 are method claims. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
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.
Claims 10-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “A system for recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the vehicle comprising a camera video processing module configured to store and manage camera videos obtained by at least one camera, an event sensing module configured to determine whether an event has occurred, and a recording module configured to store the camera videos obtained by the camera video processing module according to an event signal generated by the event sensing module, the system comprising:”. As written, at least the limitations “the vehicle comprising a camera video processing module configured to store and manage camera videos obtained by at least one camera, and a recording module configured to store the camera videos obtained by the camera video processing module according to an event signal generated by the event sensing module” are unclear as to if they are being claimed with the claimed system. Therefore the scope of this claim is unknown.
Claims 11-17 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
All dependent claims of this/these claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20130302758) in view of Brandin (US 20170349174).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches:
A method of recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the method comprising:
determining whether a non-impact event/driving incident has occurred based on one or more signals from a 3-axis accelerometer
storing the non-impact event/driving incident based on a determination that the non-impact event has occurred;
driving incident includes non-impact event;
(at least figs. 1-4b [0043]-[0044] [0080]-[0161] discussed telecommunications device 17/image capture module 21/accelerometer 23/GPS receiver 25 within automobile 3, discussed camera/video and recording in particular [0043]-[0044] [0090]-[0094], at least figs 4a-4b [0109]-[0130] discussed using sensors to detect driving incident then store sensor data and driving information; driving incident can be impact or non-impact; in particular [0124]-[0129] discussed accelerometer, non-impact events such as fishtailing, skidding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration);
Embodiment of [0124]-[0129] does not explicitly teach:
determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from steering detection, and a vehicle speed sensor;
However, embodiment of [0158]-[0161] teaches:
determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from steering detection, and a vehicle speed sensor ([0158]-[0161]) to provide driver indicator ([0158]-[0161]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Embodiment of [0124]-[0129] with determining whether a non-impact event has occurred based on one or more signals from steering detection, and a vehicle speed sensor as taught by embodiment of [0158]-[0161] to provide driver indicator.
Further, Wright does not explicitly teach:
steering detection includes steering angle sensor;
However, Brandin teaches:
steering detection includes steering angle sensor ([0031]-[0047]) to identify jerk ([0031]-[0047]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Wright with steering detection includes steering angle sensor as taught by Brandin to identify jerk
Regarding claim 2, Wright teaches:
wherein determining whether a non-impact event has occurred includes determining that the non-impact event has occurred based on an amount of increase in a speed of the vehicle sensed by the vehicle speed sensor being equal to or greater than a preset first threshold, the speed of the vehicle being sensed according to a preset unit time;
(at least figs. 1-4b [0043]-[0044] [0080]-[0161] discussed telecommunications device 17/image capture module 21/accelerometer 23/GPS receiver 25 within automobile 3, discussed camera/video and recording in particular [0043]-[0044] [0090]-[0094], at least figs 4a-4b [0109]-[0130] discussed using sensors to detect driving incident then store sensor data and driving information; driving incident can be impact or non-impact; in particular [0124]-[0129] discussed accelerometer, non-impact events such as fishtailing, skidding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration);
Regarding claim 3, Wright teaches:
wherein determining whether a non-impact event has occurred includes determining that the non-impact event has occurred based on an amount of reduction in a speed of the vehicle sensed by the vehicle speed sensor being equal to or greater than a preset second threshold, the speed of the vehicle being sensed according to a preset unit time;
(at least figs. 1-4b [0043]-[0044] [0080]-[0161] discussed telecommunications device 17/image capture module 21/accelerometer 23/GPS receiver 25 within automobile 3, discussed camera/video and recording in particular [0043]-[0044] [0090]-[0094], at least figs 4a-4b [0109]-[0130] discussed using sensors to detect driving incident then store sensor data and driving information; driving incident can be impact or non-impact; in particular [0124]-[0129] discussed accelerometer, non-impact events such as fishtailing, skidding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration);
Regarding claim 9, Wright teaches:
stopping the determination of occurrence of a non-impact event based on input received from a driver;
(at least figs. 1-4b [0043]-[0044] [0080]-[0161] discussed telecommunications device 17/image capture module 21/accelerometer 23/GPS receiver 25 within automobile 3, discussed camera/video and recording in particular [0043]-[0044] [0090]-[0094], at least figs 4a-4b [0109]-[0130] discussed using sensors to detect driving incident then store sensor data and driving information; driving incident can be impact or non-impact; in particular [0124]-[0129] discussed accelerometer, non-impact events such as fishtailing, skidding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration; [0035] claim 10 discussed receive a user interaction to confirm or deny whether the detected event has actually occurred);
Regarding claim 10, Wright teaches:
A system for recording non-impact events while a vehicle is in motion, the vehicle comprising
a steering detector disposed at the vehicle;
a vehicle speed sensor disposed at the vehicle;
a 3-axis accelerometer disposed at the vehicle; and a non-impact event determination unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to:
receive one or more signals from the steering detector, the 3-axis accelerometer, and the vehicle speed sensor,
determine whether a driving incident/non-impact event has occurred, and
operate the event sensing module based on a determination that the driving incident/non-impact event has occurred;
driving incident includes non-impact event;
(at least figs. 1-4b [0043]-[0044] [0080]-[0161] discussed telecommunications device 17/image capture module 21/accelerometer 23/GPS receiver 25 within automobile 3, discussed camera/video and recording in particular [0043]-[0044] [0090]-[0094], at least figs 4a-4b [0109]-[0130] discussed using sensors to detect driving incident then store sensor data and driving information; driving incident can be impact or non-impact; in particular [0124]-[0129] discussed accelerometer, non-impact events such as fishtailing, skidding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration) ([0158]-[0161]);
As for claim limitations:
the vehicle comprising a camera video processing module configured to store and manage camera videos obtained by at least one camera, and a recording module configured to store the camera videos obtained by the camera video processing module according to an event signal generated by the event sensing module;
these limitations are not within the scope of the claimed system, therefore have no limiting effect. See MPEP 2111.04. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Wright teaches:
the vehicle comprising a camera video processing module configured to store and manage camera videos obtained by at least one camera, and a recording module configured to store the camera videos obtained by the camera video processing module according to an event signal generated by the event sensing module (at least figs. 1-4b [0043]-[0044] [0080]-[0161] discussed telecommunications device 17/image capture module 21/accelerometer 23/GPS receiver 25 within automobile 3, discussed camera/video and recording in particular [0043]-[0044] [0090]-[0094], at least figs 4a-4b [0109]-[0130] discussed using sensors to detect driving incident then store sensor data and driving information; driving incident can be impact or non-impact; in particular [0124]-[0129] discussed accelerometer, non-impact events such as fishtailing, skidding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration) ([0158]-[0161]);
Further, Wright does not explicitly teach:
steering detector includes steering angle sensor;
However, Brandin teaches:
steering detector includes steering angle sensor ([0031]-[0047]) to identify jerk ([0031]-[0047]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Wright with steering detection includes steering angle sensor as taught by Brandin to identify jerk
Regarding claim 11, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 2 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 12, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 3 read on this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656