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 .
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, 2, 5-10, 13, 14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 10719966 B1) in view of Slavin (US 10997430).
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses A virtual reality (VR) computer system for interaction with a plurality of users in a virtual environment (col.1, lines 54-62, “(6) Aspects of the disclosure relate to accident re-creation systems with an augmented reality system (and/or virtual reality system) that facilitate visualization of an accident and re-creation of an accident. The accident re-creation system provides the capability to re-create the accident site on a mobile device before or soon after leaving the scene utilizing augmented reality. Multiple users, such as other witnesses, other drivers, police officers, etc., may also provide input.”), the VR computer system comprising at least one memory and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory and one or more user devices (fig.1, col.7, lines 41-47, “(20) The augmented reality visualization device 101 (e.g., a user device, a server computer, an insurance provider computer hardware memory and processor system, an insurance clearinghouse computer memory and processor device, etc.) may operate in a networked environment (e.g., the computing system 100) supporting connections to one or more remote computers, such as terminals 141 and 151”), the at least one processor configured to:
communicate with the one or more user devices to cause the one or more user devices to present the virtual environment (col.1, lines 54-62, “(6) Aspects of the disclosure relate to accident re-creation systems with an augmented reality system (and/or virtual reality system) that facilitate visualization of an accident and re-creation of an accident. The accident re-creation system provides the capability to re-create the accident site on a mobile device before or soon after leaving the scene utilizing augmented reality. Multiple users, such as other witnesses, other drivers, police officers, etc., may also provide input”);
receive sensor data from a first user device of the one or more user devices (col.2, line 65-col.3, line 5 “recording, by a camera in communication with an augmented reality visualization device, one or more videos of an accident site and a real world location of the accident site, wherein the camera is located on a mobile device of a user; receiving, by the augmented reality visualization device, accident information corresponding to the accident site, wherein the accident information comprises the one or more videos from the camera”);
generate an accident profile including the information collected by the first user using the first user device (col.2, lines 19-22, “generate the augmented reality accident scene corresponding to the accident site based at least in part on the accident information and the location information”. Col.10, line54 – col.11, line 2, “(31) The accident information database 230 may store information about the real world accident site/scene. Other features and attributes of the real world accident may also be recorded by the user in the accident information database 230, such as the cars and/or motorcycles involved in the accident or located in the area at the time of the accident, speed of different objects with any known values or generic values, such as “slow,” “very fast.” Lastly, the user will be able to add any pertinent information from the scene, such as the weather or time of day (i.e. raining, hailing, ice storm, sunny, very dark, etc.) in the accident information database 230. Additionally, the accident information database 230 may include one or more videos from the user filming and videoing the accident site with the camera on the user's mobile device. The user may film with the camera through the application on the user's mobile device”).
However, Davis fails to explicitly disclose determine, based upon the received sensor data, that an accident has occurred; in response to determining the accident has occurred, present, within the virtual environment to a first user using the first user device, one or more prompts for collecting information relating to the accident using the first user device; and generate an accident profile including the information collected by the first user using the first user device in response to the one or more prompts.
On the other hand, Slavin discloses determine, based upon the received sensor data, that an event has occurred (col.2, lines 52-56, “(14) the computing device is configured to identify an event that is occurring in the vicinity of the monitoring device by determining that a vehicle with a dangerous driver is in the vicinity of the monitoring system”, col.7, lines 55-58, col.8, lines 7-11, “(30) In stage (C) of FIG. 1, the DDDR system 102 receives event data 113 descriptive of the event from the onboard event recorder 112 (120). The DDDR system 102 can receive event data 113 for a duration of an active event. (31) The DDDR system 102 determines, from the uploaded event data 113, an event response (122). An event response can include accessing additional information associated with the event, e.g., determining an identity of the dangerous driver 104 of the vehicle 106”);
in response to determining the event has occurred, present, within the virtual environment to a first user using the first user device, one or more prompts for collecting information relating to the event using the first user device (col.18, lines 4-7, 14-18, “(89) In some implementations, alerts 538 can be provided to a set of monitoring devices 514b, 514c, 514d as the dangerous driver 504 is moving past the respective locations of the monitoring devices. (90) In some implementations, each additional monitoring device 514b, 514c, 514d that receives an alert 538 to collect event data can initiate a sub-event of the event and collect the relevant event data to provide to the DDDR system 102.”); and
generate an incident profile including the information collected by the first user using the first user device in response to the one or more prompts (col.18, lines 18-25, “The DDDR system 102 can combine the event data received from each of the sub-events initiated monitoring devices 514b, 514c, and 514d with the event data received from the monitoring devices 514a into a single event to generate alerts (e.g., alert 138) to provide to emergency services dispatch (e.g., emergency services dispatch 136). Periodic updates including real-time event data can be provided to one or more of the monitoring devices 514a, 514b, 514c, and 514d.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Slavin and Davis, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applying the steps of Slavin to the accident of Davis. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a system for drivers to report dangerous drivers and/or other hazards that can affect driving conditions and where the system provides alerts to the relevant (e.g., local) emergency service providers (Slavin, col.1, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim(s) 13, 20, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Particularly, claim 20 further recites “At least one non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by a computer system including at least one memory device and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory and one or more user devices, the computer- executable instructions cause the at least one processor to …”.
Davis further discloses “Furthermore, such aspects may take the form of a computer program product stored by one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-readable program code, or instructions, embodied in or on the storage media. Any suitable computer readable storage media may be utilized, including hard disks, CD-ROMs, optical storage devices, magnetic storage devices, and/or any combination thereof”(col.10, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 2, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
On the other hand, Davis fails to explicitly disclose but Slavin discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect one or more voice commands input by the first user to the first user device (col.17, lines 57-63, “(87) In some implementations, alert 538 can be provided through an application on a user's mobile phone, where the user can additionally use a graphical user interface (GUI) of the application to collect the event data. For example, the GUI can include “point-and-shoot” guidance for capturing event data, options for providing audio/text-based details related to the dangerous driver event, and the like”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 5, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
Davis further discloses wherein the sensor data includes one or more of motion data, image data, or audio data (col.2, line 65-col.3, line 5 “recording, by a camera in communication with an augmented reality visualization device, one or more videos of an accident site and a real world location of the accident site, wherein the camera is located on a mobile device of a user; receiving, by the augmented reality visualization device, accident information corresponding to the accident site, wherein the accident information comprises the one or more videos from the camera”).
Regarding claim 6, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
Davis further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to record one or more of a date, time, location, or weather associated with the accident within the accident profile (col.10, lines 54-57, “(31) The accident information database 230 may store information about the real world accident site/scene. Other features and attributes of the real world accident may also be recorded by the user in the accident information database 230”, claim 7, “wherein the accident information includes a weather description of the accident site and a time of day of the accident site”).
Regarding claim 7, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
On the other hand, Davis fails to explicitly disclose but Slavin discloses wherein the one or more prompts include one or more prompts provided within the virtual environment including prompts to capture images of a scene of the accident and/or prompts to record audio at the scene of the accident, wherein the first user device or another first user device is used to interact with the virtual environment and to capture the images and audio (col.16, lines 28-30, “(80) In some implementations, the event data 113 is collected continuously. The event data 113 can instead be collected periodically (e.g., every 30 seconds, acquire an image)”, col.17, lines 57-63, “(87) In some implementations, alert 538 can be provided through an application on a user's mobile phone, where the user can additionally use a graphical user interface (GUI) of the application to collect the event data. For example, the GUI can include “point-and-shoot” guidance for capturing event data, options for providing audio/text-based details related to the dangerous driver event, and the like”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 14, 17, 18, 19, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 7, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
On the other hand, Davis fails to explicitly disclose but Slavin discloses wherein the first user device is configured to detect one or more devices proximate to the first user device at a location where the accident occurred, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform a lookup to identify individuals present at the location where the accident occurred based upon the detected one or more devices (col.1, lines 52-58, “In some implementations, the computing device is configured to identify a different monitoring device that is geographically proximate to a location of the event and that includes a camera, provide instructions to the different monitoring device to initiate collection of video data using the camera, and receive, from the different monitoring device, the collected video data”, col.2, lines 19-27, “(10) In some implementations, the computing device is configured to identify the additional, different user by determining a current location of the event and determine that a mobile device of an additional, different user is geographically proximate to the current location of the event, and provide, based on determining that the mobile device of the additional, different user is geographically proximate to the current location of the event, for output to the mobile device of the additional, different user, the alert”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
Davis further discloses wherein the accident profile includes at least one digital twin representing a person, vehicle, or other object involved in the accident (col.6, lines 1-11, “(14) Augmented reality may allow the system to provide a user with further flexibility in visualizing a real world location and accident scene, such as by dynamically representing objects in the real world location and accident scene (both existing and real objects) and allowing users to move the virtual objects within the real world location and accident scene. By transforming existing/real objects into virtual representations, in some embodiments, the system may allow a user to visualize how the real world location and accident scene may have occurred to accommodate accident re-creation”).
Regarding claim 10, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
Davis further discloses generate a visual representation of the accident based upon the accident profile; and present the visual representation to the one or more user devices within the virtual environment (fig.6, fig.7, col.16, lines 1-7, “(59) At step 630, the system may generate and display (or cause to be displayed) a user interface comprising a replay and video of the updated and final augmented reality accident scene. The system generates a re-creation of the accident scene from the user's inputs. The user interface may be displayed on a display interface such as display interface 227 of FIG. 2”, col.17, lines 10-13, “(66) At step 730, the system generates areas of conflict based on the user augmented reality accident scene, participant information, vehicle sensor information, dash camera video, and street camera video”).
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 10719966 B1) in view of Slavin (US 10997430), and further in view of Hamre et al. (US 20200329358).
Regarding claim 3, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 2.
On the other hand, Davis in in view of Slavin fails to explicitly disclose but Hamre discloses wherein at least one of the one or more voice commands confirms the accident has occurred, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to present the one or more prompts within the virtual environment as either text prompts, audio prompts, or video prompts or as a combination thereof in response to receiving the one or more voice commands (“[0026] If the emergency detection module 155 determines that an emergency event has occurred (e.g., based on audio input or lack of user response to the voice prompt or based on caregiver input), the emergency detecting module 155 instructs the response module 160 to initiate the emergency response flow. In one embodiment, the emergency response center automatically calls 911 or other emergency or medical services and requests assistance on behalf of the user in response to determining that an emergency event has occurred. [0031] In embodiments where the emergency detection module 155 determines that the emergency event has likely occurred (e.g., based on voice or non-voice audio data), the response module 160 sends 208 an instruction to the one or more wireless devices (such as the wearable device, base station, and/or the wireless device) to output a voice prompt asking the user to confirm the occurrence of the emergency. In some embodiments, the response system 150 triggers the emergency response flow responsive to receiving audio data from the one or more wireless devices confirming the emergency (e.g., user speech input such as “Help,” “I′ve fallen,” “Yes” in response to a voice prompt asking the user if she fell, or “No” in response to a voice prompt asking the user if she is okay)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Hamre into the combination of Slavin and Davis, to include all limitations of claim 3. That is, applying the emergency response flow of Hamre to the accident of Davis and Slavin. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a detection of emergency events, and in particular to detecting and responding to an emergency event impacting a user, and to initiating a response flow to provide assistance to the user. (Hamre, [0002]).
Regarding claim(s) 15, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 3.
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 10719966 B1) in view of Slavin (US 10997430), and further in view of Curtis et al. (US 20170277412).
Regarding claim 4, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 2.
On the other hand, Davis in in view of Slavin fails to explicitly disclose but Curtis discloses wherein at least one of the one or more voice commands requests contact with an agent, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to prompt an agent to access the virtual environment using an agent device of the one or more user devices, and wherein the agent accesses the virtual environment using the agent device is able to communicate in real-time with the first user within the virtual environment (“[0017] In operation 120, the customer connects to a contact center. For example, the customer has placed an interaction through the menu. In an embodiment, the customer has elected to connect with an agent in the contact center by selecting the option which initiates an interaction. The selection of an option in the menu may be made using a reticle or through another means, such as voice command or controls which are handheld or located on the headset, for example. Control is passed to operation 125 and the process 100 continues. [0018] In operation 125, the customer interacts with a contact center agent and the process ends. An incoming communication from the customer may be routed as a session through an ACD as a new media type (e.g., a virtual reality session) to an agent in a unified communications collaboration system, such as Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc.'s, PureCloud platform. The interaction between the customer and the agent is performed in real-time. In an embodiment, the agent may have the capability to interact with the customer and have access to what the customer is viewing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Curtis into the combination of Slavin and Davis, to include all limitations of claim 4. That is, applying the customer-agent interaction via virtual reality session of Curtis to the VR system of Davis and Slavin. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a detection of emergency events, and in particular to detecting and responding to an emergency event impacting a user, and to initiating a response flow to provide assistance to the user. (Hamre, [0002]).
Regarding claim(s) 16, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 10719966 B1) in view of Slavin (US 10997430), and further in view of LAMBERT et al. (US 20240157900).
Regarding claim 11, Davis in in view of Slavin discloses The VR computer system of Claim 1.
On the other hand, Davis in in view of Slavin fails to explicitly disclose but LAMBERT discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the accident has occurred using an artificial intelligence model trained based upon historical sensor data (“[0067] As indicated at 320, the server has access to various datasets, which may include training datasets comprising historical monitoring data leading to accidents, as well as datasets with user-specific data, and also has stored thereon algorithms and AI models for performing accident prediction, including to identify/detect movements (i.e. determine user actions), determine a probability of an accident occurring, and detecting accidents.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LAMBERT into the combination of Slavin and Davis, to include all limitations of claim 11. That is, applying the detecting accidents based on the AI model of LAMBERT to determine the occurrence of the accident of Slavin and Davis. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the AI system is a machine-learning system that improves the completeness of the datasets and the accuracy of the algorithms through regular use (LAMBERT, [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Davis in in view of Slavin and discloses The VR computer system of Claim 11.
On the other hand, Davis in in view of Slavin fails to explicitly disclose but LAMBERT discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to train the artificial intelligence model using the historical sensor data (“[0067] As indicated at 320, the server has access to various datasets, which may include training datasets comprising historical monitoring data leading to accidents, as well as datasets with user-specific data, and also has stored thereon algorithms and AI models for performing accident prediction, including to identify/detect movements (i.e. determine user actions), determine a probability of an accident occurring, and detecting accidents”). The same motivation of claim 11 applies here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights