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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 19/165,115, with an effective filing date of 5/1/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 5/1/2025, claiming priority to CN202410725094.2, filed 6/5/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application contains claims 1-20.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “when no emergency call is not selected within a predetermined time” appears four times in the Applicant’s disclosure (i.e., pg. 5 ¶2 line 4) and is a double negative. Applicant should correct the phrase wherever it occurs to reflect its proper meaning (i.e., “when the emergency call is selected within a predetermined time” or “when the emergency call is not selected within a predetermined time”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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: 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; 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 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:
mobile device for transmitting and receiving a communication signal (i.e., claim 1 line 3) is described by the Applicant on pg. 13 ¶ 3 line 3 as mobile phone, a tablet PC, etc.;
communication module for transmitting and receiving a communication signal (i.e., claim 1 line 3) is described by the Applicant in claim 11 and pg. 3 ¶ 2 lines 3-4 as an ultra-wide band (UWB) wireless technology that is capable of transmitting and receiving a UWB communication signal;
on-vehicle communication device (i.e., claim 1 line 5) is described by the Applicant on claim 11 and pg. 3 ¶ 2 lines 5-6 as an ultra-wide band (UWB) wireless technology that is capable of transmitting and receiving a UWB communication signal;
vehicle speed detection device for detect(ing) a vehicle speed (i.e., claim 1 line 7) is described by the Applicant on pg. 15 ¶ 4 lines 1-2 as, for example, a wheel speed sensor, a vehicle speed sensor, etc.
main control device for determin(ing) whether an emergency situation occurs and send an alarm signal (i.e., claim 1 line 8) is described by the Applicant on pg. 16 ¶ 2 line 8 as body domain controller which is construed as a centralized automotive computing unit that manages and integrates multiple vehicle body functions such as lighting, doors, windows, seats, and climate control;
airbag detection device for detect(ing) whether an airbag is deployed (i.e., claim 3 line 2) is described by the Applicant on pg. 17 ¶ 2 line 4 as including a collision sensor, a control module, an inflator, the airbag, etc.;
positioning device for detect(ing) position information of the vehicle (i.e., claim 4 line 2) is described by the Applicant on pg. 19 ¶ 1 line 1 as global positioning system (GPS);
vehicle external temperature and humidity detection device for detect(ing) vehicle external temperature information and vehicle external humidity information (i.e., claim 4 line 3) is described by the Applicant on pg. 19 ¶ 2 as one or more devices capable of sensing external temperature and/or external humidity;
seat boarding detection device (i.e., claim 4 line 8) is described by the Applicant on pg. 20 ¶ 3 lines 2-3 as a pressure sensor, a weight sensor, or an image recognition technology;
on-board display device for display(ing) prompt information about whether to make an emergency call to a driver when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred (i.e., claim 5 line 2) is described by the Applicant on pg. 22 ¶ 3 lines 1-3 as an instrument panel, or may be provided as a flat panel display device such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), and a plasma display panel (PDP); and
audio device for play(ing) audio (i.e., claim 6 line 2) is not described by the Applicant in detail and is construed as any audio system that is connected to the vehicle (i.e., a radio, etc.).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 16, and 19 is/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.
Regarding claim 5 (e.g., line 5) and claim 16 (e.g., line 5), the claims recite the limitation when no emergency call is not selected within a predetermined time and it is unclear due to the double negative whether this is meant to be interpreted as “when the emergency call is selected within a predetermined time” or “when the emergency call is not selected within a predetermined time”. For purposes of prosecution, this will be interpreted as the latter based on the context of the claim.
Regarding claim 7 (e.g., line 5) which recites the limitation warning light, it is unclear whether this is the same warning lamp as stated in claim 7 line 2 or a different warning light altogether.
The term “close” in claim 8 (e.g., line 4) and claim 19 (e.g., line 6) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of the position of the respective on-board communication module that is located on the roof, is rendered indefinite due to the use of the relative term because it would be difficult to ascertain how close to the front of the vehicle that the communication module would need to be. Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending the respective claims and eliminating any relative terminology. MPEP §2173.05(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system of making emergency calls (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An emergency call system based on wireless technology, the emergency call system comprising:
a mobile device including a communication module and capable of transmitting and receiving a communication signal;
a vehicle including an on-vehicle communication device including a processing module and a plurality of on-board communication modules;
a vehicle speed detection device configured to detect a vehicle speed; and
a main control device communicatively connected to the on-vehicle communication device and the vehicle speed detection device,
wherein the main control device is configured to determine whether an emergency situation occurs based on position change information of the mobile device and a change of the vehicle speed [mental process/step], and send an alarm signal from the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data/information collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
Claim 1:
An emergency call system based on wireless technology [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the emergency call system comprising:
a mobile device including a communication module and capable of transmitting and receiving a communication signal [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module];
a vehicle including an on-vehicle communication device including a processing module and a plurality of on-board communication modules [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module];
a vehicle speed detection device configured to detect a vehicle speed [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering)] ; and
a main control device communicatively connected to the on-vehicle communication device and the vehicle speed detection device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module],
wherein the main control device is configured to determine whether an emergency situation occurs based on position change information of the mobile device and a change of the vehicle speed, and send an alarm signal from the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred [insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting results of the mental process)].
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detect…,” and “send…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (main control device) to perform the process. In particular, the detect step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle speed data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sending an alarm step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the emergency result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution transmission of a result, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “main control device,” the “mobile device,” and the “on-vehicle communication device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions of receiving information, performing a programmed computation, and transmitting the result of if an emergency is determined) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determination … amounts to nothing 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detect…,” and “send…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
______________________________________________
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method of making emergency calls (i.e., process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Claim 13 recites:
An emergency call method based on wireless technology , the emergency call method comprising:
transmitting and receiving, by a mobile device, a communication signal;
detecting, based on the received communication signal of the mobile device by an on-vehicle communication device provided in a vehicle, position information of the mobile device;
determining, by the on-vehicle communication device, position change information of the mobile device according to the detected position information of the mobile device [mental process/step];
detecting, by a vehicle speed detection device, a vehicle speed;
determining, by a main control device, whether an emergency situation occurs based on the position change information of the mobile device and a change of the vehicle speed [mental process/step]; and
sending, by the main control device, an alarm signal from the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data/information collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Claim 13:
An emergency call method based on wireless technology [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the emergency call method comprising:
transmitting and receiving, by a mobile device, a communication signal [insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting of data and data gathering)];
detecting, based on the received communication signal of the mobile device by an on-vehicle communication device provided in a vehicle, position information of the mobile device [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering)];
determining, by the on-vehicle communication device, position change information of the mobile device according to the detected position information of the mobile device;
detecting, by a vehicle speed detection device, a vehicle speed [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering)];
determining, by a main control device, whether an emergency situation occurs based on the position change information of the mobile device and a change of the vehicle speed; and
sending, by the main control device, an alarm signal from the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred [insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting results of the mental process)].
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmitting and receiving…,” “detecting…,” and “sending…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (main control device) to perform the process. In particular, the detecting and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle speed data and position data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting and sending an alarm steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data and transmitting the emergency result from the determining step), and amounts to a mere extra-solution transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “main control device,” the “mobile device,” and the “on-vehicle communication device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions of receiving information, performing a programmed computation, and transmitting the result of if an emergency is determined) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determination … amounts to nothing 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “transmitting and receiving…,” “detecting…,” and “sending…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determining and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as detecting, sending, receiving, and displaying. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Thompson et al. article “Using Smartphones to Detect Car Accidents and Provide Situational Awareness to Emergency Responders”, hereinafter referred to as Thompson, in view of Granier (DE Pat. Pub. No. 69829397 T2).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses:
An emergency call system based on wireless technology (pg.29 Introduction ¶2 sentence (s.) 6 – pg.30 ¶1 s.1, The pervasiveness of smartphones also means that the infrastructure required to establish such a wireless mobile), the emergency call system comprising:
a mobile device including a communication module and capable of transmitting and receiving a communication signal (pg.33 Fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
453
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
position change information of the mobile device (pg. 30 ¶1 s.2 HTC Dream (also an Android-based device), possesses a compass, accelerometer, and GPS receiver allowing application developers to determine the geographic position, heading, and movement of the user).
Although Thompson discloses wherein the main control device is configured to determine whether an emergency situation occurs based on position change information of the mobile device and a change of the vehicle speed, and send an alarm signal from the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred in pg.30 ¶3 s.1-2 where the use of onboard sensors and physical context information in order to detect car accidents. It continues how smartphones in a wireless mobile sensor network can capture the streams of data provided by their accelerometers, compasses, and GPS sensors to provide a portable “black box” that detects traffic accidents and records data related to accident events, such as the G-forces (accelerations) experienced by the driver. Furthermore, in pg. 31 ¶3 where conventional in-vehicle accident detection systems rely on sensor networks throughout the car and direct interaction with the vehicle’s electronic control units (ECUs). These sensors detect acceleration/deceleration, airbag deployment, and vehicular rollover. Metrics from these sensors aid in generating a detailed accident profile, such as locating where the vehicle was struck, number of times it was hit, severity of the collision, and airbag deployment.
However, Thompson does not explicitly disclose:
a vehicle including an on-vehicle communication device including a processing module and a plurality of on-board communication modules;
a vehicle speed detection device configured to detect a vehicle speed; and
a main control device communicatively connected to the on-vehicle communication device and the vehicle speed detection device.
However, Granier teaches on pg. 3 ¶ 2 on-board systems include a central unit consisting of a micro-processor and a memory, a module for mobile communication consisting of a radiotelephone adapted to the mobile network with an external antenna and a connection between the central unit and various sensors and elements of the vehicle, formed for example by an electronic communication bus. Furthermore, the on-board system comprises a connection to a speed sensor of the vehicle and a localization module 8th consisting in particular of a GPS receiver and its GPS antenna, and which may be completed by other means, such as a gyrometer.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, by incorporating the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety and emergency data in order to identify and suppress false positives (i.e., dropping or tossing the phone).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson, as modified by Granier, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 2, wherein:
a communicable connection includes a connection in a wired communication
manner (see claim 1 regarding the connection between the central unit and various sensors and elements of the vehicle, formed for example by an electronic communication bus), and
the wired communication manner includes a controller area network (CAN) (see claim 1 regarding the connection between the central unit and various sensors and elements of the vehicle, formed for example by an electronic communication bus), a universal serial bus (USB), and a digital visual interface (DVI).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson, as modified by Granier, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle speed detection device and the main control device are provided in the vehicle (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson, as modified by Granier, discloses:
An emergency call method based on wireless technology, the emergency call method comprising:
transmitting and receiving, by a mobile device, a communication signal (see claim 1);
detecting, based on the received communication signal of the mobile device by an on-vehicle communication device provided in a vehicle, position information of the mobile device (see claim 1);
determining, by the on-vehicle communication device, position change information of the mobile device according to the detected position information of the mobile device (see claim 1);
detecting, by a vehicle speed detection device, a vehicle speed (see claim 1);
determining, by a main control device, whether an emergency situation occurs based on the position change information of the mobile device and a change of the vehicle speed (see claim 1); and
sending, by the main control device, an alarm signal from the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred (see claim 1).
______________________________________________
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 10-11, 14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Thompson et al. article “Using Smartphones to Detect Car Accidents and Provide Situational Awareness to Emergency Responders”, hereinafter referred to as Thompson, in view of Granier (DE Pat. Pub. No. 69829397 T2) and Kusumoto et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 112567258 A), hereinafter referred to as Kusumoto.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson, as modified by Granier, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 1, wherein:
the processing module is configured to be communicatively connected to the on-board communication modules (see claim 1 regarding on-board communication module being communicably connected to a processor), the on-board communication modules being configured to perform wireless communication with the mobile device (see claim 1 regarding wireless communication with a mobile device), and sends the received communication signal of the mobile device to the processing module (see claim 1 regarding wireless communication with a mobile device), the processing module being configured to detect position information of the mobile device based on the received communication signal of the mobile device (see claim 1 regarding position of mobile device), and
determine the position change information of the mobile device according to the detected position information of the mobile device (see claim 1 regarding detecting a change of position of a mobile device).
However, Thompson, as modified by Granier, does not explicitly disclose:
plurality of on-board communication modules.
However, Kusumoto teaches on pg. 1 ¶ 6-7 a portable device position estimation system that estimates the position of the portable device, carried by a user of the vehicle, based on the propagation time of the wireless signal from the portable device to the in-vehicle system. This system, is directed toward a communication module configured to transmit and receive wireless signals with a portable device and a plurality of observers, which are configured to receive wireless signals from the portable device. The transceiver and the plurality of observers are construed as a plurality of on-board communication modules that are capable of sending the received signal from the mobile device (e.g., portable device) to the processor in order to determine a position change in the mobile device. See Fig. 10 below where it displays said wireless connection between the mobile device and transceivers/observers 12 A-C and 12X and the processor 11. Furthermore, see Fig. 8 which displays a possible arrangement of the observers and transceivers on the body of the vehicle where they are affixed in positions around the cabin of the vehicle and may necessarily comprise more observers (i.e., using more than one observer in the rear) in order to improve accuracy. The system is configured to be able to implement wireless communication in the Ultra-Wideband-Impulse Radio (UWBIR), which is a form of ultra-wideband wireless communication.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 10
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
609
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, as already modified by the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier, by incorporating the plurality of on-board communication modules teachings of Kusumoto, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Kusumoto on pg.13 ¶5 s.2, improving the reliability as a portable device position estimation system.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 2, further comprising:
an airbag detection device communicatively connected to the main control device and configured to detect whether an airbag is deployed (pg.31 ¶ 3 s. 3, conventional in-vehicle car accident detection systems rely on internal sensors (e.g., airbag deployment sensors) and can assume that any instance of high acceleration/- deceleration is caused by a collision),
wherein the main control device is further configured to:
when the airbag is deployed, determine that the emergency situation has occurred (pg.31 ¶ 3 s. 3 as discussed above);
and when the airbag is not deployed (pg.37 ¶ 6 s. 2, required acceleration to trigger airbag deployment is 60G’s), determine that the emergency situation has occurred when the position change information of the mobile device is greater than or equal to a first predetermined threshold value and the change of the vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a second predetermined threshold value (pg.36 ¶ 5 s. 1-2, to aid in the elimination of false positives movements of the phone for acceleration events below 4G’s is ignored, which is construed as a first threshold of mobile device position change and a second threshold of a change in vehicle speed based on the laws of physics, where speed is the change in position over time and acceleration is the change in speed over time, so detecting a change of speed of the mobile device (of 4G’s or more) inherently detects the change in position of the mobile device and, within the reference frame of the vehicle where the mobile device is necessarily travelling at the same speed as the vehicle, necessarily detects a change of speed of the vehicle).
Claim 14 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 2, wherein:
the number of the plurality of on-board communication modules is five, and the five on-board communication modules are provided at a left front portion, a right front portion, a left rear portion, a right rear portion, and a position of a roof close to a front of the vehicle, respectively (see claim 2 regarding the plurality of observers and Fig. 8 above regarding the placement of the observers on the vehicle including that of 12C which may necessarily be separated in to two different observers to better cover the rear of the cabin).
Claim 19 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 8 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 1, wherein the wireless technology is ultra- wideband (UWB) (see claim 2 regarding the use of UWB).
Claim 20 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 10 above, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 10, wherein the communication module is a UWB communication module, and the on-vehicle communication device is an on-vehicle UWB communication device (see claim 2 regarding the use of UWB).
______________________________________________
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Thompson et al. article “Using Smartphones to Detect Car Accidents and Provide Situational Awareness to Emergency Responders”, hereinafter referred to as Thompson, in view of Granier (DE Pat. Pub. No. 69829397 T2), Kusumoto et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 112567258 A), hereinafter referred to as Kusumoto, Austria et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 116458179 A), hereinafter referred to as Austria, and Li et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 115188157 A), hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 4, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 2, further comprising:
a positioning device configured to detect position information of the vehicle (see claim 1 regarding localization module 8th consisting in particular of a GPS receiver and its GPS antenna);
wherein the main control device is communicatively connected to the positioning device, the vehicle external temperature and humidity detection device, and the on-board camera, and electrically connected to the seat boarding detection device (see claim 1 where wired connections are taught by use of a communication bus), and
wherein the main control device is further configured to obtain at least one of the position information of the vehicle when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred (see claim 1 regarding localization module 8th consisting in particular of a GPS receiver and its GPS antenna and emergency data collection),
and send at least one of the obtained position information of the vehicle to the mobile device by the on- vehicle communication device (see claim 1 regarding communication of information to processing system).
Although, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, disclose sending information to and from the mobile device and the on-vehicle communication device, the references do not explicitly disclose:
a vehicle external temperature and humidity detection device configured to detect vehicle external temperature information and vehicle external humidity information, respectively;
the vehicle external temperature information, the vehicle external humidity information, the environment information around the vehicle, and
an on-board camera configured to detect environment information around the vehicle.
However, Austria teaches on pg.11 ¶ 5 s.1 that the sensor system includes environmental sensors (e.g., temperature sensor, humidity sensor) that detect external temperature and humidity information, includes image sensors (e.g., camera). Furthermore, on pg. 2 ¶ 4 s.3 , a digital representation of the environment in which the vehicle is operating to be presented based at least in part on data received from one or more sensors of the vehicle (e.g., lidar sensors, radar sensors, cameras, etc.), which is construed as collecting environmental information from an on-board camera.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, as already modified by the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier and the plurality of on-board communication modules teachings of Kusumoto, by incorporating the sensor system teachings of Austria, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving the understanding of a vehicle’s surroundings after an accident.
However, Thompson, as modified by Granier, Kusumoto, and Austria, disclose the information above and sending information to and from the mobile device and the on-vehicle communication device, the references do not explicitly disclose:
a seat boarding detection device configured to detect information of the number of passengers,
and obtaining the information of the number of passengers,
However, Li on pg.6 ¶ 8 s.2 teaches vehicle basic information should include vehicle direction of travel and track and passenger number which may include passenger speech information in the car which may further include in-vehicle occupant vital sign information, past medical history, and whether there are dangerous items in the vehicle
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, as already modified by the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier, the plurality of on-board communication modules teachings of Kusumoto, and the sensor system teachings of Austria, by incorporating the passenger information teachings of Li, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of reducing the time of a rescue mechanism reaching an accident site and improved understanding of the extent of damage, including that of serious injuries or death.
Regarding claim 15, Thompson, as modified by Granier, Kusumoto, Austria, and Li, discloses:
The emergency call method of claim 13, further comprising:
detecting, by a positioning device, position information of the vehicle (see claim 4);
detecting, by a vehicle external temperature and humidity detection device, vehicle external temperature information and vehicle external humidity information (see claim 4);
detecting, by an on-board camera, environment information around the vehicle (see claim 4);
detecting, by a seat boarding detection device, information of the number of
passengers (see claim 4);
obtaining, by the main control device, at least one of the position information of the vehicle, the vehicle external temperature information, the vehicle external humidity information, the environment information around the vehicle, or the information of the number of passengers when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred (see claim 4);
and sending, by the on-vehicle communication device, at least one of the obtained position information of the vehicle, the obtained vehicle external temperature information, the obtained vehicle external humidity information, the obtained environment information around the vehicle, or the obtained information of the number of passengers to the mobile device (see claim 4).
______________________________________________
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Thompson et al. article “Using Smartphones to Detect Car Accidents and Provide Situational Awareness to Emergency Responders”, hereinafter referred to as Thompson, in view of Granier (DE Pat. Pub. No. 69829397 T2), Kusumoto et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 112567258 A), hereinafter referred to as Kusumoto, Austria et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 116458179 A), hereinafter referred to as Austria, Li et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 115188157 A), hereinafter referred to as Li, and Lauritzen (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2024/054479 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson, as modified by Granier, Kusumoto, Austria, and Li, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 4, further comprising:
the main control device is further configured to allow the mobile device to send the emergency call to a rescue center (see claim 1) and send at least one of the obtained vehicle position information, the obtained vehicle external temperature information, the obtained vehicle external humidity information, the obtained environment information around the vehicle, or the obtained information of the number of passengers together to the rescue center (see claim 4).
Although Thompson, as already modified Granier, Kusumoto, Austria, and Li, discloses a standardized interface (pg.31 ¶ 5 s.3), the combination of references do not explicitly disclose:
an on-board display device communicatively connected to the main control device and configured to display prompt information about whether to make an emergency call to a driver when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred,
wherein, when no emergency call is not selected within a predetermined time, the main control device is further configured to allow the mobile device to send the emergency call to a rescue center.
However, Lauritzen teaches in Fig. 6b and 6c illustrate exemplary user interfaces displayed by computer system which are construed as in-vehicle displays prompting whether to make a call to emergency services and a countdown to an automatic call within a predetermined time period. Lauritzen further teaches in [0159] that the system displays a communication alert, a countdown, a cancel option and/or outputs a non-visual indication that a call to emergency services will be initiated in accordance with a determination that a threshold amount of time has passed. This is visualized further in the mobile device of Fig. 6N below where an emergency call is made after a predetermined time.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, as already modified by the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier, the plurality of on-board communication modules teachings of Kusumoto, the sensor system teachings of Austria, and the passenger information teachings of Li, by incorporating the emergency messaging teachings of Lauritzen, such that the combination would provide for Improving safety, as acknowledged by Lauritzen in [0159] s.2, aiding in an emergency situation such as a crash in which a user may be distracted and/or unable to view the display.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
802
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Thompson, as modified by Granier, Kusumoto, Austria, Li, and Lauritzen, discloses:
The emergency call method of claim 15, further comprising:
displaying, an on-board display device, prompt information about whether to make an emergency call to a driver when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred (see claim 5); and
when no emergency call is not selected within a predetermined time, allowing, by the main control device, the mobile device to send the emergency call to a rescue center together with at least one of the obtained vehicle position information, the obtained vehicle external temperature information, the obtained vehicle external humidity information, the obtained environment information around the vehicle, or the obtained information of the number of passengers (see claim 5).
______________________________________________
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Thompson et al. article “Using Smartphones to Detect Car Accidents and Provide Situational Awareness to Emergency Responders”, hereinafter referred to as Thompson, in view of Granier (DE Pat. Pub. No. 69829397 T2), Kusumoto et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 112567258 A), hereinafter referred to as Kusumoto, and Austria et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 116458179 A), hereinafter referred to as Austria
Regarding claim 6, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 2, further comprising:
an audio device communicatively connected to the main control device and configured to play audio,
wherein, when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred, the main control device is further configured to detect whether the audio device is operating, and when it is detected that the audio device is operating, turn off the audio device.
However, Austria further teaches in pg.2 ¶7 that user interface may include a vehicle control interface configured to provide a remote user with control of one or more components of the vehicle. The one or more components that may be remotely controlled by a remote user may include adjusting the vehicle's stereo system (e.g., adjusting volume, audio content, etc.) source, song selection, etc.). This is construed as a system that may turn off the audio device.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, as already modified by the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier and the plurality of on-board communication modules teachings of Kusumoto, by further incorporating the audio system teachings of Austria, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of allowing for improved call quality.
Claim 17 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
______________________________________________
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Thompson et al. article “Using Smartphones to Detect Car Accidents and Provide Situational Awareness to Emergency Responders”, hereinafter referred to as Thompson, in view of Granier (DE Pat. Pub. No. 69829397 T2), Kusumoto et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 112567258 A), hereinafter referred to as Kusumoto, and Seike et al. (JP Pat. Pub. No. 2005/165971 A), hereinafter referred to as Seike.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, discloses:
The emergency call system of claim 2, further comprising:
at least one of a buzzer, a warning lamp, or a horn electrically connected to the main control device (the automatic control of alarm/horns and hazard lights are ubiquitous in the art of vehicle controls),
but Thompson, as modified by Granier and Kusumoto, does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the main control device is further configured to operate at least one of the buzzer, the warning light, or the horn when it is determined that the emergency situation has occurred.
However, Seike teaches in [0005] a redundant system where a horn that generates a warning sound and an emergency call buzzer The emergency state is notified to the surroundings, and the emergency is notified to the surroundings by light using the hazard lamp and the flash lamp as the light emitting means.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of emergency vehicle and mobile communications and telematics before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the emergency call system/method of Thompson, as already modified by the on-board vehicle system teachings of Granier and the plurality of on-board communication modules teachings of Kusumoto, by further incorporating the emergency hazard signal teachings of Seike, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of providing a redundant system of notifying emergency personnel.
Claim 18 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Martin et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0396625 A1) is directed towards satellite initiated alerts pushing emergency messages to mobile device; and
White et al. article “Wreckwatch: Automatic traffic accident detection and notification with smartphones” is directed towards how smartphones, such as the iPhone and Google Android platforms, can automatically detect traffic accidents using accelerometers and acoustic data, immediately notify a central emergency dispatch server after an accident, and provide situational awareness through photographs, GPS coordinates, VOIP communication channels, and accident data recording.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights