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 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,109, claims 1-4, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,587,374, and claims 1-4, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,096. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader than those in the issued patents and cover the same scope. The claims in the issued patents anticipate the current 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 1-18 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 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 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) 2-9 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 1-9, claims 10-18 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 § 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 3, 8, 12 and 17 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 3 and 12 recite the limitations "a set of cameras", “a first camera”, and “a sideways-facing camera”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if these are new limitations or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claims 8 and 17 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0188376 to Chatow et al.
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:
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 related to the front of the vehicle 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 a 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).
As per claim 2, Chatow discloses further comprising a set of sensors configured to generate output signals conveying information related to current operating conditions of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is carried by the vehicle (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 18 and 21).
As per claim 3, Chatow discloses further comprising a set of cameras configured to capture image data, 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 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 10-13, 15, 16, and 18, Chatow discloses the method (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 8) performed by the system of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9. Therefore, claims 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9.
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) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatow.
As per claims 8 and 19, Chatow discloses various sensors, such as acceleraometers (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 18), and cameras (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 31 and 32), and recording applicable camera data according to the sensed scenario (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 32 and 35), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vehicle event is an imminent collision, wherein the second vehicle event is a swerve, wherein the first camera is a forward-facing camera, and wherein the first subset of cameras excludes the sideways-facing camera.
However, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the exact scenarios and corresponding cameras during routine testing and design of the system. Determining the risks and important events of a vehicle and “determining the recording that best suits the event” (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 20) would be well-understood by one in the art under normal design and testing with no significantly inventiveness. Chatow further states “additional scenarios and corresponding schemas may be developed without departing from the scope of the invention” (Chatow; At least paragraph(s) 41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatow in view of JPH 08235484 to Nakamura.
As per claim 5 and 14, 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 Nakamura (Nakamura; At least the abstract). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Nakamura into the invention of Chatow with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Depth sensors, such as radar, are known sensors used to collect data about the operating environment surrounding a vehicle and would be a simple substitution for one of skill in the art to add to or replace the sensors in Chatow to detect information about the vehicle and its operations with respect to the environment.
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.
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