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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 6/12/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application is a CON of 16/782,555 02/05/2020 PAT 12266017
16/782,555 is a CON of 15/681,814 08/21/2017 PAT 10592990
15/681,814 is a CON of 14/487,899 09/16/2014 PAT 9773281
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. See 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); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
All claims are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent 9,773,281. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to systems and methods for deterring first and second vehicle and sensor data for accident characteristics and displaying on mobile computing device inflation related to accident with potential damage information.
Regarding claim 1, the language within this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,773,281.
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.
All claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 17 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 9 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A mobile computing device, comprising: one or more processors; one or more instruction storage devices that store instructions code, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the mobile computing device to: determine, based on one or more mobile computing device sensor readings generated by one or more movement sensors of the mobile computing device, that the mobile computing device is within a first vehicle; after determining that the mobile computing device is within the first vehicle and that a current location of the mobile computing device is in area accessible to the first vehicle, determine, based on the one or more mobile computing device sensor readings indicative of a vehicle accident, that the first vehicle was involved in an accident; after determining that the first vehicle was involved in an accident, determine, based on receiving wireless communications from a second vehicle, that the first vehicle is in proximity to the second vehicle; after determining that the second vehicle is in proximity to the first vehicle, receive, from the second vehicle, sensor data generated by one or more sensors of the second vehicle;
compare the received sensor data generated by the one or more sensors of the second vehicle against the one or more mobile computing device sensor readings indicative of a vehicle accident to determine a correspondence between the sensor data of the second vehicle and the mobile computing device sensor readings, wherein the correspondence confirms that the second vehicle was involved in the same accident as the first vehicle; after determining the correspondence between the sensor data of the second vehicle corresponds to the one or more mobile computing device sensor readings indicative of a vehicle accident, determine one or more accident characteristics associated with the accident, wherein the one or more accident characteristics are determined based at least in part on the compared sensor data from both the mobile computing device and the second vehicle; determine one or more accident characteristics associated with the accident; determine, based on the one or more accident characteristics, potential damages information associated with the accident; and display a user interface on the mobile computing device that facilitates specifying information related to the accident and selection of one or more accident recovery recommendations associated with the potential damages information.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “display a user interface on the mobile computing device that facilitates specifying information related to the accident and selection of one or more accident recovery recommendations associated with the potential damages information” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “mobile computing device, comprising: one or more processors; one or more instruction storage devices that store instructions code” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breed et al., U.S. Patent Pub 2013/0267194, discloses distributed a system for notifying a remote facility of a vehicular accident includes obtaining information about the accident using a crash sensor system on the vehicle, obtaining information about position of the vehicle using a position determining system, obtaining information about occupancy of the vehicle by animate occupants using an occupant sensing system on the vehicle, generating at least one data packet derived from information obtained by the crash sensor system and information obtained by the occupant sensing system and directing the data packet(s), using a communications system on the vehicle, from the vehicle directly to the remote facility without involving an intermediary.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
