Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on November 08, 2024. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine and a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining that a particular type of vehicle event is occurring; identifying a type of sensor data to be collected for the particular type of vehicle event; selecting a portion of the sensor data that corresponds to the identified type of sensor data; and generating event information as recited in independent claims 1 and 19.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “obtaining the video data” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a set of wheels; a motor; a set of cameras; a set of sensor devices; and a vehicle monitoring apparatus do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-18, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a vehicle monitoring apparatus configured to perform operations” in claim 1-3, 5-6 and 19.
A review of the specification yields no corresponding structure to a vehicle monitoring apparatus. The specification does disclose ¶ [0011] “A vehicle activity information system is disclosed. In an embodiment, the system includes a processor; a data bus coupled to the processor; and a non-transitory computer-usable tangible storage device storing computer program code, the compute program code comprising program instructions executable by the processor.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A review of the specification yields no corresponding structure to a vehicle monitoring apparatus.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification is silent as to a priority level of the event information in claims 2 and 4. In addition, the specification is also silent as to second video data in claim 3. Therefore, the specification has not described the invention in sufficient detail to support the claim.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification is silent as to determining a battery charge state in claims 5 and 6. Therefore, the specification has not described the invention in sufficient detail to support the claim.
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 1-19 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.
Claim limitation “a vehicle monitoring apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 13-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tamari et al, US 2013/0096731 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tamari teaches a vehicle comprising:
a set of wheels; (Tamari, see at least Fig. 1)
a motor configured to drive the set of wheels to cause movement of the vehicle along a ground surface; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0017] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system for assessing performance of a driver. In the example shown, vehicle 102 is equipped with an onboard drive event detector 104 for detecting vehicle drive events” and Fig. 1. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vehicle shown would have a motor to drive a set of wheels.)
a set of cameras mounted to the vehicle and configured to generate video data showing an interior of the vehicle and an exterior of the vehicle; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0018] “ In various embodiments, onboard sensors comprise one or more of the following: an image capturing device (e.g., video camera and still camera), GPS receiver 108 for receiving geolocation data from satellites 110, a cellular tracking location receiver to receive geolocation data, or any other appropriate sensors. It is possible that one or more onboard sensors of onboard sensors 106 (e.g., GPS receiver, accelerometer, camera, etc.) are physically incorporated into drive event detector 104.”)
a set of sensor devices comprising at least one of an accelerometer, a global positioning system receiver, or a magnetometer, the set of sensor devices configured to generate sensor data representing characteristics of the movement of the vehicle; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0018] “ In various embodiments, onboard sensors comprise one or more of the following: an image capturing device (e.g., video camera and still camera), GPS receiver 108 for receiving geolocation data from satellites 110, a cellular tracking location receiver to receive geolocation data, or any other appropriate sensors. It is possible that one or more onboard sensors of onboard sensors 106 (e.g., GPS receiver, accelerometer, camera, etc.) are physically incorporated into drive event detector 104.”) and
a vehicle monitoring apparatus (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0017] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system for assessing performance of a driver. In the example shown, vehicle 102 is equipped with an onboard drive event detector 104 for detecting vehicle drive events.”) configured to perform operations comprising:
obtaining the video data from the set of cameras; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0018] “Drive event detector 104 includes one or more computer processors that are capable of executing computer instructions for carrying out various functions of drive event detector 104. It additionally includes one or more data stores for storing computer instructions, raw sensor data, derived sensor data (metadata), and/or other drive event related data. Drive event detector 104 further includes one or more communication interfaces for communicating with one or more onboard sensors 106 via various communication links 111, GPS (the global positioning system receiver) 108 and with remote server 112 via network 114. Drive event detector 104 is communicatively linked to one or more onboard sensors 106.”)
determining, based on a portion of the video data, that a particular type of vehicle event is occurring; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0023] “When a potential drive event or actual drive event is detected, drive event detector 104 is configured to cause the drive event data to be captured by, for example, instructing one or more onboard sensors 106 to store or to upload drive event data to drive event detector 104.”)
identifying a type of sensor data to be collected for the particular type of vehicle event; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0023] “When a potential drive event or actual drive event is detected, drive event detector 104 is configured to cause the drive event data to be captured by, for example, instructing one or more onboard sensors 106 to store or to upload drive event data to drive event detector 104. This may involve storing or uploading certain amount of pre-event data, during-event data, and certain amount of post-event data to local or remote data storage. Capturing of pre-event data is enabled by the use of flash memory that records sensor data in a continuous loop. In various embodiments, a captured drive event is organized in a single file, folder or directory or in any other appropriate manner for easy access and demarcation so that the data relating to a particular drive event are easily recognized as such and can be accessed together and compared with ease. In some embodiments, the data from different sensors may be time-synchronized so that data from different sensors and/or sources for a single drive event data are correlated according to a time scale.”)
selecting a portion of the sensor data that corresponds to the identified type of sensor data; (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0023] “When a potential drive event or actual drive event is detected, drive event detector 104 is configured to cause the drive event data to be captured by, for example, instructing one or more onboard sensors 106 to store or to upload drive event data to drive event detector 104. This may involve storing or uploading certain amount of pre-event data, during-event data, and certain amount of post-event data to local or remote data storage. Capturing of pre-event data is enabled by the use of flash memory that records sensor data in a continuous loop. In various embodiments, a captured drive event is organized in a single file, folder or directory or in any other appropriate manner for easy access and demarcation so that the data relating to a particular drive event are easily recognized as such and can be accessed together and compared with ease. In some embodiments, the data from different sensors may be time-synchronized so that data from different sensors and/or sources for a single drive event data are correlated according to a time scale.”) and
generating event information, the event information comprising: data indicating the particular type of vehicle event; the portion of the video data; and the selected portion of the sensor data. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0023] “When a potential drive event or actual drive event is detected, drive event detector 104 is configured to cause the drive event data to be captured by, for example, instructing one or more onboard sensors 106 to store or to upload drive event data to drive event detector 104. This may involve storing or uploading certain amount of pre-event data, during-event data, and certain amount of post-event data to local or remote data storage. Capturing of pre-event data is enabled by the use of flash memory that records sensor data in a continuous loop. In various embodiments, a captured drive event is organized in a single file, folder or directory or in any other appropriate manner for easy access and demarcation so that the data relating to a particular drive event are easily recognized as such and can be accessed together and compared with ease. In some embodiments, the data from different sensors may be time-synchronized so that data from different sensors and/or sources for a single drive event data are correlated according to a time scale.”)
Regarding claim 7, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein generating the event information comprises encoding the portion of the video data. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0038] “Audio/video module 402 is configured to manage the audio and video input from one or more image capturing devices (onboard sensors that capture images such as video or still cameras) and storage of the audio and video input. Sensor module 404 is configured to manage one or more sensors (other than image capturing devices) that are integral to event detector 400 or external from the event detector 400. For example, an accelerometer is managed by sensor module 404, which is either integral to event detector 400 or located elsewhere in the vehicle. In various embodiments, sensor module 404 manages any, some, or all of onboard sensors onboard, directly connected, or connected via the OBD bus, or any other appropriate sensors.”)
Regarding claim 8, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein at least one camera of the set of cameras is configured to generate audio data, the operations comprising: obtaining the audio data from the at least one camera; and determining that the particular type of vehicle event is occurring based on the portion of the video data and a portion of the audio data, wherein the event information comprises the portion of the audio data. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0038] “Audio/video module 402 is configured to manage the audio and video input from one or more image capturing devices (onboard sensors that capture images such as video or still cameras) and storage of the audio and video input. Sensor module 404 is configured to manage one or more sensors (other than image capturing devices) that are integral to event detector 400 or external from the event detector 400. For example, an accelerometer is managed by sensor module 404, which is either integral to event detector 400 or located elsewhere in the vehicle. In various embodiments, sensor module 404 manages any, some, or all of onboard sensors onboard, directly connected, or connected via the OBD bus, or any other appropriate sensors.”)
Regarding claim 9, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein generating the event information comprises encoding the portion of the audio data. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0038] “Audio/video module 402 is configured to manage the audio and video input from one or more image capturing devices (onboard sensors that capture images such as video or still cameras) and storage of the audio and video input. Sensor module 404 is configured to manage one or more sensors (other than image capturing devices) that are integral to event detector 400 or external from the event detector 400. For example, an accelerometer is managed by sensor module 404, which is either integral to event detector 400 or located elsewhere in the vehicle. In various embodiments, sensor module 404 manages any, some, or all of onboard sensors onboard, directly connected, or connected via the OBD bus, or any other appropriate sensors.”)
Regarding claim 13, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein selecting the portion of the sensor data comprises selecting sensor data generated during a period of time that comprises at least one of a first period of time before the vehicle event and a second period of time after the vehicle event. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0023] “When a potential drive event or actual drive event is detected, drive event detector 104 is configured to cause the drive event data to be captured by, for example, instructing one or more onboard sensors 106 to store or to upload drive event data to drive event detector 104. This may involve storing or uploading certain amount of pre-event data, during-event data, and certain amount of post-event data to local or remote data storage. Capturing of pre-event data is enabled by the use of flash memory that records sensor data in a continuous loop. In various embodiments, a captured drive event is organized in a single file, folder or directory or in any other appropriate manner for easy access and demarcation so that the data relating to a particular drive event are easily recognized as such and can be accessed together and compared with ease. In some embodiments, the data from different sensors may be time-synchronized so that data from different sensors and/or sources for a single drive event data are correlated according to a time scale.”)
Regarding claim 14, Tamari teaches a vehicle, the operations comprising: generating display data that, when rendered by a display device, presents a user interface showing the event information. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0043] “One advantage for calculating the local event score is to enable event detector 400 to optimize the use of the data transfer bandwidth by only selectively uploading the full event data to the remote server for review/display/analysis. Through extensive observation, the values produced by the various sensors (either alone or in combination) can be analyzed mathematically to produce a product that accurately predicts whether or not a serious accident or other driving event has occurred. Combinations of acceleration, velocity, video, and event sound can reliably detect that an accident has happened.”)
Regarding claim 15, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein the set of cameras comprises one or more of: at least one interior camera positioned to capture a view of a cabin of the vehicle; and at least one exterior camera positioned to capture a view of the exterior of the vehicle. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0029] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of onboard sensors that are communicatively linked to a drive event detector. In some embodiments, an onboard sensor of FIG. 3 comprises one sensor of onboard sensors 106 of FIG. 1. In the example shown, an onboard sensor comprises one or more video cameras 302 and/or still cameras 304 (e.g., image capturing devices), which are mounted at various positions on the vehicle to capture inside cabin view and outside cabin front view, rear view, left side view, and/or right side view video images and/or still images. In some embodiments, video cameras 302 and/or still cameras 304 are equipped with infrared emitters for improved night vision and/or for imaging driver facial features through dark sun glasses. In various embodiments, video cameras 302 and/or still cameras 304 are stereo video cameras and/or still cameras that are capable of capturing 3-D images. In various embodiments, the captured images by video cameras 302 or still cameras 304 are used to identify the driver, record driver behavior and circumstances leading up to, during, and immediately after a drive event, or any other appropriate function(s). In various embodiments, the captured images are used to recognize road signs such as posted speed limit signs, number of lanes, stop signals, traffic signals, and intersections.”)
Regarding claim 16, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein the vehicle event comprises one or more of: running a red light; tailgating another vehicle; being tailgated by another vehicle; exceeding a speed limit at a location of the vehicle; or an acceleration exceeding a threshold. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0047] “In various embodiments, events comprise accidents, near-accidents, traffic law violations, company rule violations, driving occurrences or behaviors that increase the risk of accidents or otherwise poses risk or financial difficulty to the owner of the vehicle or the driver's employer, driving occurrences or behaviors that reflect the attitude (e.g., recklessness), driving skill, or otherwise have a bearing on evaluating the driving performance of the driver, or any other appropriate events.”)
Regarding claim 17, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein the type of sensor data comprises one or more of: accelerometer data; global positioning system receiver data; or magnetometer data. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0018] “ It is possible that one or more onboard sensors of onboard sensors 106 (e.g., GPS receiver, accelerometer, camera, etc.) are physically incorporated into drive event detector 104. Drive event detector 104 is communicatively linked to remote server 112 via data network 114 and configured to receive and/or transmit data from remote server 112. In various embodiments, network 114 comprises one or more of the following: a cellular network, a wifi network, a wimax™ network, or any other appropriate network.”)
Regarding claim 18, Tamari teaches a vehicle, wherein the characteristics of the movement of the vehicle comprise one or more of: speed; acceleration; G-force; or proximity to other vehicles. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0030] “In some embodiments, the onboard sensors comprise one or more of the following: a global positioning system receiver, a vehicle operation state sensor, a speedometer, an accelerometer, and a gyroscope.”)
Claim 19 is rejected utilizing substantially the same rationale as claim 1 above. (Tamari, see at least ¶ [0023] “
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamari et al, US 2013/0096731 A1 in view of Mc Cormick et al., US 2010/0219944 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Tamari teaches a vehicle. Tamari does not specifically teach the following. However, Mc Cormick teaches wherein the operations comprising: determining a priority level of the event information based on the particular type of event; (Mc Cormick, see at least ¶ [0039] “The call center 24 is also configured to i) receive a video recording from the telematics unit 14 in response to an event, and ii) upload at least a portion of the video recording to the remotely accessible page 94. The call center 24, via the live or automated advisor 62, 62′, is further configured to notify emergency personnel of the uploaded video recording so that the emergency personnel can estimate an emergency level of the vehicular accident.”) and
in response to determining that the priority level is below a threshold priority level, storing the event information in a memory of the vehicle monitoring apparatus. (Mc Cormick, see at least ¶ [0039] “The call center 24 is also configured to i) receive a video recording from the telematics unit 14 in response to an event, and ii) upload at least a portion of the video recording to the remotely accessible page 94. The call center 24, via the live or automated advisor 62, 62′, is further configured to notify emergency personnel of the uploaded video recording so that the emergency personnel can estimate an emergency level of the vehicular accident.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamari with those or McCormick as both relate to at the time of vehicle events. In addition, this would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Tamari teaches a vehicle. Tamari does not specifically teach the following. However, Mc Cormick teaches wherein the operations comprising: determining a priority level of the event information based on the type of event; and in response to determining that the priority level is above a threshold priority level, transmitting the event information to a computing device remote from the vehicle. (Mc Cormick, see at least ¶ [0039] “The call center 24 is also configured to i) receive a video recording from the telematics unit 14 in response to an event, and ii) upload at least a portion of the video recording to the remotely accessible page 94. The call center 24, via the live or automated advisor 62, 62′, is further configured to notify emergency personnel of the uploaded video recording so that the emergency personnel can estimate an emergency level of the vehicular accident.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamari with those or McCormick as both relate to at the time of vehicle events. In addition, this would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and being dependent on a rejected base claim set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights