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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 repeats “positioned toward” in lines 13-14. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-10, and 12-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “information” in lines 10 and 7, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is indefinite if this is new information or intended to refer back to the information generated with the sensors above.
Claim(s) 3-9 and 12-18 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and 10 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
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, 3-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is taken as the representative claim. Claim 1 is directed to obtaining information and selecting subsets of cameras. The steps of obtaining information and selecting subsets can be performed within the human mind and are, thus, directed to a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, cameras, and sensors are merely a generic components recited at a high level and operated in a conventional manner and transmitting data is old and well-known (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not provide a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor is merely a generic computer component recited at a high level upon which the abstract idea is intended to be implemented and transmitting data is old and well-known (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. The dependent claims further define the mental process (e.g., define how vehicle events are determined or what the events are) or add generic components recited at a high level that perform well-known functions (e.g., sensors or cameras onboard the vehicle). Therefore, these claims do not change that the scope is directed to a mental process or provide additional elements that amount to significantly more and provide a practical application.
Similar to claims 1 and 3-9, claims 10 and 12-18 are directed to a method of the mental process. These claims do not provide any additional elements beyond those in claims 1-9 and are, thus, also directed to a mental process without significantly more or a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0188376 to Chatow et al. in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication JP2009280109 to Koji.
As per claim 1, Chatow discloses a system configured to capture information based on detected vehicle events, the system configured to couple with a vehicle having a front, a rear, and a side (Chatow; At least the abstract and paragraph(s) 13), the system comprising:
a set of cameras carried by the vehicle, the set of cameras being configured to capture image data (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 16 and 17);
a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, the set of sensors being configured to generate output signals conveying information related to current operating conditions of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors are separate from the set of cameras (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 16 and figure 2, steps S220 and S230);
one or more processors (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 18) configured to:
obtain information regarding detected vehicle events, wherein the detected vehicle events include a first vehicle event and a second vehicle event related to the side of the vehicle, wherein the first vehicle event is determined to have a first event type, and wherein the second vehicle event is determined to have a second event type that is different from the first event type (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 20 and 21);
select a first subset of cameras from the set of cameras based on the first vehicle event having the first event type, wherein the first subset of cameras includes a first camera and excludes at least an individual camera from the set of cameras (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 20, 21, 23, and 28);
select a second subset of cameras from the set of cameras based on the second vehicle event having the second event type that is different from the first event type, wherein the second subset of cameras is different from the first subset of cameras, and wherein the second subset of cameras includes a sideways-facing camera (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 20, 21, 23, and 32);
transmit a first event record associated with the first vehicle event to a remote server that is external to the vehicle, wherein the first event record includes information based on image data captured by the first subset of cameras (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 15 and 29); and
transmit a second event record associated with the second vehicle event to the remote server, wherein the second event record includes information based on image data captured by the second subset of cameras (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 15 and 29).
Chatow discloses determining event type based on the sensory inputs and operating the appropriate camera(s) based on the event type (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 20 and 39), but does not explicitly disclose the sensor input includes sensing an external vehicle, i.e., a first vehicle event involving a first external vehicle positioned toward the front of the vehicle; a second vehicle event involving a second external vehicle positioned toward the side of the vehicle; select a first subset of cameras for the set of cameras based on the position of the first external vehicle during the first vehicle event; select a second subset of cameras from the set of cameras based on the position of the second external vehicle during the second vehicle event.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Koji (Koji; At least paragraph(s) 16 and 22). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Koji into the invention of Chatow with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Operating cameras near the detected object allows video evidence incase of an incident while saving energy and cost, similar to that discussed in at least paragraph(s) 8 and 15.
As per claim 3, Chatow discloses wherein the set of cameras is carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of cameras includes a first camera configured to capture first image data, and a second camera configured to capture second image data, wherein the second camera is a sideways-facing camera (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 32).
As per claim 4, Chatow discloses wherein detection of the vehicle events is based on the generated output signals (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 22 and 23).
As per claim 5, Chatow discloses sensors, used to determine the depth of an object with respect to the vehicle (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 32), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of sensors includes a depth sensor configured to generate output signals conveying depth information, the depth information including ranges of surfaces and/or objects within an environment in and/or around the vehicle, the environment around the vehicle including an area within a first field-of-view of the first camera and/or a second field-of-view of the second camera, wherein the first vehicle event is related to a distance between two vehicles, wherein detection of the first vehicle event is based on the depth information.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Koji (Koji; At least paragraph(s) 16). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Koji into the invention of Chatow with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Sensing the distance between the vehicle and another object alerts the system to record in the case of theft or low speed impacts, thus providing evidence to recover costs.
As per claim 6, Chatow discloses wherein detection of the first vehicle event is based on a comparison of a vehicle speed of the vehicle with a threshold value (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 22).
As per claim 7, Chatow discloses wherein a current operating condition of the vehicle includes one or more of an engine load, a throttle level, a particular change in vehicle direction, or multiple changes in vehicle direction (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 18 and 35).
As per claim 9, Chatow discloses wherein the vehicle events include one or more of swerving, a U-turn, freewheeling, over-revving, lane-departure, short following distance, imminent collision, unsafe turning that approaches rollover, acceleration breaching a maximum acceleration threshold, idling, driving outside a geo-fence boundary, crossing double-yellow lines, passing on single-lane roads, a certain number of lane changes within a certain amount of time or distance, lane change within a minimum duration threshold for changing lanes, cutting off other vehicles during lane-change, speeding, running a red light, and/or running a stop sign (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 18 and 22).
As per claims 10, 12-16, and 18, Chatow discloses the method (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 8) performed by the system of claims 1, 3-7, and 9. Therefore, claims 10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1, 3-7, and 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 12, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that the claims provide a concrete improvement and practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “obtain information”, which can be any information from any source, which can be performed within the human mind. The claims also recite, “select a first [second] subset of cameras”, which can be a choice or thought. This “selection” does not need to be concrete step of turning on or recording certain cameras. Lastly, the claims recite “transmit a first [second] even record…includes information based on the image data”, which can be any information, such as which camera was “selected” or whether it is day or night. Therefore, the claims are directed to obtaining information and making a selection with additional elements of sensors and cameras and transmitting information loosely tied in. The claims lack definitive structure to provide a concrete improvement or practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights