DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim recites “The processing system of claim 15, wherein the processors is further configured…”, wherein underlined word “processors” should be in a singular form “processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. In the instant case, claims 1 and 11 are directed to a “method and system for vehicular collision reconstruction”.
7. Claim 1 recites “creating a probabilistic collision reconstruction”. Specifically, claim recites “receiving … inputs comprising … data associated with …; classifying a set of one or more features associated with … based on the … inputs; determining a probabilistic outcome indicating that … is associated with a collision, wherein the probabilistic outcome is based on the classified set of one or more features exceeding a probability threshold associated with the probabilistic outcome; in response to determining the probabilistic outcome indicating that … is associated with a collision, generating a reconstruction of the collision comprising a set of one or more collision features based on the … inputs and the classified set of one or more features; and creating an output based on the reconstruction of the collision.”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
8. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “sensor inputs”, “sensor data”, and “a vehicle” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving sensor inputs comprising sensor data associated with a vehicle”, is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
9. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of creating a probabilistic collision reconstruction using computer technology. Therefore, as the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, they cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
10. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
11. Claim 11 also recites “creating a probabilistic collision reconstruction”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
12. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 11 such as “a processing system”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “sensor inputs”, “sensor data”, and “a vehicle” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “receive sensor inputs comprising sensor data associated with a vehicle”, is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
13. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describes the concept of creating a probabilistic collision reconstruction using computer technology. Therefore, as the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, they cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
14. Hence, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
15. The following dependent claims recent additional elements not addressed above:
claims 2 and 12 recite “a collision reconstruction dashboard” and “a visualization of the collision”;
claims 8 and 18 recite “mobile device sensor data”;
claims 9 and 19 recite “one or more sensors of the vehicle”;
claims 10 and 20 recite “additional sensor inputs”.
When considered individually, and as a whole, each of these additional elements amount to merely "apply it", as they are merely applying the abstract idea to the technical environment of the collision reconstruction dashboard, the visualization of the collision, the mobile device sensor data, the one or more sensors of the vehicle, and the additional sensor inputs.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claims, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
16. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
17. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210407015A1 to Potter et al. in view of US9392431B2 to Barfield, Jr. et al.
22. As per claim 1:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
A method comprising (Fig.3, item 100; [0090] “…method 100 for facilitating fault determination…”)
receiving sensor inputs comprising sensor data associated with a vehicle ([0058], [0091] discloses collecting telematics/sensor data associated with the vehicle)
classifying a set of one or more features associated with the vehicle based on the sensor inputs ([0084], [0108], [0121] discloses classifying the accident type and analyzing features derived from the telematics data (virtual reconstruction))
in response to determining the probabilistic outcome indicating that the vehicle is associated with a collision, generating a reconstruction of the collision comprising a set of one or more collision features based on the sensor inputs and the classified set of one or more features (Fig.4, item 208; [0107]-[0108], [0117] discloses generating a virtual reconstruction of the collision comprising collision features (vehicle movements, sequence of events) based on the telematics features, after the accident has been determined)
creating an output based on the reconstruction of the collision ([0095], [0100] discloses creating outputs (transmitted insurance information, adjusted/handled claims) based on the reconstruction derived fault determination)
Potter et al. does not disclose, however, Barfield, Jr. et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations:
determining a probabilistic outcome indicating that the vehicle is associated with a collision, wherein the probabilistic outcome is based on the classified set of one or more features exceeding a probability threshold associated with the probabilistic outcome (Col.11, lines 63-66; col.12, lines 46-48; col.16, lines 43-48; discloses a probabilistic classification model whose output, conditioned on a feature value threshold being satisfied, indicates whether the vehicle is involved in a collision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method for the automatic detection and reporting of vehicle collisions wherein the collisions may be automatically detected based on a collision detection model that receives sensor data, or other data, as input, and outputs an indication of whether there is a collision of Barfield, Jr. et al. (‘431, col/line 1/66-2/3) with teaching of Potter et al. for collecting accident data associated with a vehicle accident involving a driver, wherein the accident data include vehicle telematics data, and/or the driver may be associated with an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider (‘015, [0006]) for classifying by the trained collision detection model 100% of the confirmed vehicle collisions, evaluating, when the comparison indicates that the acceleration magnitude value satisfies the threshold, the evaluation of the collision detection model indicating whether the device is involved in a vehicle collision based on the determined at least one feature (‘431, col.11, lines 63-65; col.16, lines 43-48).
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 11 Potter et al. additionally discloses the following limitations:
A processing system, comprising ([claim 31] “A system comprising:”)
a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions causing the processing system to ([0007], [claim 31] discloses a memory storing instructions executed by a processor that cause the system to perform operations)
23. As per claim 2:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the output comprises a collision reconstruction dashboard comprising a visualization of the collision (Fig.4, item 208; [0072], [0107], [0117] discloses an animated graphical reconstruction (collision dashboard with visualization) presented on a display)
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
24. As per claim 3:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a risk score for a driver based on the reconstruction of the collision ([0108], [0115] discloses computing a fault percentage from the reconstruction and adjusting insurance items)
wherein the output comprises a report for an insurance firm, the report comprising the risk score for the driver ([0115] discloses transmitting insurance items, that related to the driver’s risk score and insurance report)
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
25. As per claim 4:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 2, further comprising sending the collision reconstruction dashboard to an insurance entity associated with the vehicle ([0050], [0097], [0099] discloses transmitting telematics and reconstruction data to/from the insurance provider remote server (insurance entity))
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
26. As per claim 5:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating an additional output comprising an insurance claim ([0095], [0124], [0126] discloses generating, modifying, and handling an insurance claim associated with the vehicle accident as an output of the system)
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
27. As per claim 6:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a notification ([0008] discloses collecting a vehicle accident data involving a driver)
sending the notification to an insurer indicating that a driver of the vehicle was involved in the collision ([0053], [0097] discloses the method that runs at a remote server associated with an insurance provider and pushes accident-related communications upon detection of an accident involving the driver)
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
28. As per claim 7:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein: creating the output further comprises generating an insight report comprising a set of contributing factors associated with the collision ([0070], [0117] discloses generating accident forensic data identifying contributing factors)
the set of contributing factors is based on one or more of the set of one or more features and the sensor inputs ([0070], [0107] discloses identifying contributing factors to accident, such as driver actions, weather, traffic, construction, derived from telematics features)
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
29. As per claim 8:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data associated with the vehicle comprises mobile device sensor data of one of a driver or a passenger of the vehicle ([0021], [0081] discloses sensor data collected at mobile devices of the driver and references passenger data)
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
30. As per claim 9:
Potter et al. does not disclose, however, Barfield, Jr. et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data associated with the vehicle comprises sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Col.2, lines 14-15, 60-63; col/line 2/66-3/2; col.14, lines 11-13; discloses receiving sensor data from sensors of the vehicle (via OBD port and OBD system))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method for the automatic detection and reporting of vehicle collisions wherein the collisions may be automatically detected based on a collision detection model that receives sensor data, or other data, as input, and outputs an indication of whether there is a collision of Barfield, Jr. et al. (‘431, col/line 1/66-2/3) with teaching of Potter et al. for collecting accident data associated with a vehicle accident involving a driver, wherein the accident data include vehicle telematics data, and/or the driver may be associated with an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider (‘015, [0006]) for receiving telematics data such as features derived from engine rotations per minute (RPM) history or other information from an On-Board Diagnostics port of the vehicle wherein telematics device installed via an On Board Diagnostics (OBD) port or a telematics device that is installed during manufacture of vehicle (‘431, col.2, lines 14-15, 60-63; col.14, lines 11-13).
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
31. As per claim 10:
Potter et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 5, further comprising: receiving additional information comprising additional sensor inputs, wherein the additional information corresponds to one or more movements of the vehicle after the insurance claim has been generated ([0107], [0124]-[0125] discloses receiving additional telematics data corresponding to vehicle movements before, during, and after the accident)
generating an updated insurance claim based on the additional information ([0084], [0130] discloses modifying, adjusting, and updating the insurance claim based on that additional information and transmitting the updated insurance claim)
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US10137889B2 – Pal et al. – Discloses a method and system for detecting an accident of a vehicle, the method including: receiving a movement dataset collected at least at one of a location sensor and a motion sensor arranged within the vehicle, during a time period of movement of the vehicle, extracting a set of movement features associated with at least one of a position.
US20170210323A1 – Cordova et al. – Discloses methods and systems of vehicle data collection by a user having a mobile device, wherein vehicle data is collected, analyzed and transformed, and combinations of collected data and transformed data are used in different ways, including, but not limited to, predicting, detecting, and reconstructing vehicle accidents.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM 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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/MAMON OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights