DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 5/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,316 B2, as discussed in detail below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims are anticipated by patent claims.
With respect to application claim 1, patent claim 1 recites a computing device for modeling a traffic collision involving an autonomous vehicle (AV), the computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device in communication therewith, the at least one processor further in communication with the AV (see preamble of patent claim 1), the at least one processor configured to:
receive audio data relating to the traffic collision, the audio data identifying a time period and geographic location of the AV (see “receiving audio data relating to a traffic collision involving an autonomous vehicle (AV), the audio data identifying a time and geographic location of the AV” of patent claim 1);
retrieve vehicle telematics data collected by sensors of the AV (see “retrieve vehicle telematics data collected by sensors of the AV” of patent claim 1);
verify at least one of the time period of the traffic collision or the geographic location of the traffic collision provided in the audio data based upon the vehicle telematics data (see “verify a time of the traffic collision provided in the audio based upon the vehicle telematics data” of patent claim 1);
determine, based upon the retrieved vehicle telematics data, the received audio data, and the verified at least one of the time period or the geographic location, a position and an orientation of the AV during the traffic collision at each of a plurality of moments in time during the time period (see “determine, based upon the retrieved vehicle telematics data and the received audio data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of the AV during the traffic collision” of patent claim 1 - The “verified time” is inherently included in the “received audio data,” as verification does not change the contents of the “time of the traffic collision provided in the audio data.”); and
generate content data configured to cause display of the determined position and the determined orientation of the AV during the traffic collision on a display device (see “generate a simulation of the traffic collision including a representation of the AV based upon the determined position and orientation of the AV for each of the plurality of moments in time; and provide content to enable display of the simulation on a display device” of patent claim 1).
Therefore, patent claim 1 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 2, patent claim 1 recites the at least one processor is further configured to generate a simulation of the traffic collision including a representation of the AV based upon the determined position and the determined orientation of the AV for each of the plurality of moments in time, wherein the content data is further configured to cause display of the simulation on the display device (see “generate a simulation of the traffic collision including a representation of the AV based upon the determined position and orientation of the AV for each of the plurality of moments in time; and provide content to enable display of the simulation on a display device” of patent claim 1). Therefore, patent claim 1 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 2. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 3, patent claim 2 recites the at least one processor is further configured to:
retrieve map data and contextual data associated with the time and the geographic location of the traffic collision; and
generate the simulation further based upon the retrieved map data and contextual data.
Therefore, patent claim 2 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 3. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 4, patent claim 1 recites the time period starts before a collision event of the traffic collision and ends after the collision event (see “the time of the traffic collision including a time period starting before a collision event of the traffic collision and ending after the collision event” of patent claim 1). Therefore, patent claim 1 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 4. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 5, patent claim 4 recites the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive the audio data via a microphone in communication with the at least one processor; and
parse the audio data for phrases describing the traffic collision.
Therefore, patent claim 4 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 5. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 6, patent claim 5 recites the received audio data is received as an audio signal, and the at least one processor is further configured to convert the audio signal into text. Therefore, patent claim 5 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 6. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 7, patent claim 6 recites the at least one processor is further configured to cause the text to be displayed on the display device. Therefore, patent claim 6 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 7. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 8, patent claim 7 recites the at least one processor is further configured to analyze the parsed audio data to identify inconsistent phrases by comparing the inconsistent phrases to the vehicle telematics data or other phrases obtained from the parsed audio data to determine that the inconsistent phrases are not consistent with the telematics data or other phrases obtained from the parsed audio data. Therefore, patent claim 7 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 8. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 9, patent claim 8 recites the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether to use a phrase to generate the content data based upon whether the phrase is identified as an inconsistent phrase. Therefore, patent claim 8 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 9. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 10, patent claim 3 recites the at least one processor is further configured to determine the position and the orientation of the AV during the traffic collision at each of a plurality of moments in time during the time period based further upon one or more of vehicle specification data stored in the memory device, photographic data collected by one or more of the sensors or from third-party providers, or physics data (see “determine…for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of the AV during the traffic collision…and generate a simulation of the traffic collision including a representation of the AV based upon the determined position and orientation of the AV for each of the plurality of moments in time” of patent claim 1, and “the at least one processor is further configured to generate the simulation of the traffic collision based further upon one or more of vehicle specification data stored in the memory device, photographic data collected by one or more of the sensors or from third-party providers, or physics data” of patent claim 3). Therefore, patent claim 3 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 10. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Patent claims 11-17 are similarly applied to the method of application claims 11-19, and patent claim 9 is similarly applied to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable media of application claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record. However, the application is not in a condition for allowance because of the outstanding non-statutory double patenting rejections discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Octo Telematics (“The Anatomy of Octo’s Crash Dossier,” October 3, 2017, Octo Telematics, https://www.octotelematics.com/blog/the-anatomy-of-octos-crash-dossier/), hereinafter Octo, and Jeong (US 2016/0358467 A1), hereinafter Jeong, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed computer-implemented method, at least one non-transitory computer-readable media, and a computing device for modeling a traffic collision involving an autonomous vehicle (AV), the computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device in communication therewith, the at least one processor further in communication with the AV, the at least one processor configured to:
receive audio data relating to the traffic collision, the audio data identifying a time period and geographic location of the AV;
retrieve vehicle telematics data collected by sensors of the AV;
verify at least one of the time period of the traffic collision or the geographic location of the traffic collision provided in the audio data based upon the vehicle telematics data;
determine, based upon the retrieved vehicle telematics data, the received audio data, and the verified at least one of the time period or the geographic location, a position and an orientation of the AV during the traffic collision at each of a plurality of moments in time during the time period; and
generate content data configured to cause display of the determined position and the determined orientation of the AV during the traffic collision on a display device.
Specifically, Octo teaches the Octo cloud for modeling a traffic collision involving a vehicle (see page 1, “The Data” section, regarding that the Octo Cloud uses vehicle telematics data to reconstruct the accident and provide a visual recreation of the vehicle’s movement back to both the insurer and the insured, as depicted on page 2 in the “Octo Surround” application). Similar to the Applicant’s disclosure described in paragraph [0094] of the specification, Octo uses a client application (i.e. “Octo Surround” depicted on page 2) to interact with the Octo cloud, known to inherently include a server system, and thus, Octo may reasonably teach a computing device for modeling a traffic collision involving a vehicle, the computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device in communication therewith, the at least one processor further in communication with the vehicle (see page 1, “The Data” section, regarding that Octo Cloud collects and analyzes vehicle data).
Octo further teaches that the Octo cloud receives driver feedback relating to the traffic collision, the audio data identifying a time period and geographic location of the vehicle (see page 2, regarding that the smart crash app collects driver feedback after an accident, which are compiled by the Octo cloud, as described on pages 1 and 3; page 3, depicting “Submit a Crash” screens in which the driver provides “Date and Time” and “Location”), retrieves vehicle telematics data collected by sensors of the vehicle (see page 1, “The Data” section, regarding that the Octo Cloud collects telematics data from a vehicle), determine, based upon the retrieved vehicle telematics data, a position and an orientation of the vehicle during the traffic collision at each of a plurality of moments in time during the time period (see page 4, “Crash Details” section, regarding that satellite and vector-based maps show the path of the vehicle 60 seconds before and 30 seconds after the crash and location of impact based on the collected telematics data, as described on page 1 in “The Data” section; Figure on page 2, depicting a frame of the “plurality of moments in time” of the vehicle’s position and orientation), and generate content data configured to cause display of the determined position and the determined orientation of the vehicle during the traffic collision on a display device (see page 1, “The Data” section, regarding that a visual recreation of the vehicle’s movement is reconstructed using the vehicle telematics data; Figure on page 2 depicting the visual recreation of the vehicle’s movement).
However, Octo fails to teach the vehicle as an autonomous vehicle, the driver feedback as audio data, and that the at least one processor is further configured to verify at least one of the time period of the traffic collision or the geographic location of the traffic collision provided in the audio data based upon the vehicle telematics data, and determine, based upon the retrieved vehicle telematics data, the received audio data, and the verified at least one of the time period or the geographic location, a position and an orientation of the AV during the traffic collision at each of a plurality of moments in time during the time period. Specifically, Octo teaches that a human verifies at least one of the time period of the traffic collision or the geographic location of the traffic collision provided in the driver feedback based upon the vehicle telematics data (see page 4, “Crash Details” section, regarding that the crash reconstructed with telematics data is used to corroborate participant statements) and that a position and an orientation of the AV is determined during the traffic collision at each of a plurality of moments in time during the time period only based upon the retrieved vehicle telematics data. While the Octo Telematics YouTube page includes prior art that briefly mentions the potential application of autonomous vehicles, Octo does not teach the “vehicle” as an autonomous vehicle (AV).
Jeong teaches the known technique of receiv[ing] audio data relating to a traffic collision, the audio data identifying a geographic location of the vehicle (see ¶0148, regarding that a car driver inputs a voice description of the accident situation; ¶0156, with respect to the example of Figure 4(a), depicting the voice input of “Multi-car rear-end accident occurred on Young Jong Bridge”). However, Jeong does not teach including “time period” in the audio data, and Jeong is directed to updating map data for a plurality of users (see ¶0192), not for modeling a traffic collision involving an autonomous vehicle.
Additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s invention include Brandmaier et al. (US 8,799,034 B1) that teaches verifying the amount of damage claimed by an individual with the velocity information provided by a vehicle (col. 26, lines 21-28), Choi et al. (US 2010/0030540 A1) that teaches constructing a three-dimensional basic accident environment based on analyzed movement trajectories generated from position data for a certain period of time (see ¶0047-0048), Dupuy et al. (“Generating a 3D Simulation of a Car Accident from a Written Description in Natural Language: CarSim System,” 2001, In Proceedings of the ACL 2001 Workshop on Temporal and Spatial Information Processing) that teaches parsing sentences to extract objects and collisions (see section 3), e.g., “I was driving on a crossroads with a slow speed” (see section 2), and Weekes (US 2005/0278082 A1) that teaches determining discrepancies by comparing first data provided from vehicle sensors with second data provided from reports from parties involve in an accident (see ¶0054-0056).
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Similar allowable subject matter has been indicated in parent application 18/409,437.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, John Huetter (“Octo Telematics poised to deliver major changes to auto claims,” November 27, 2017, Repairer Driven News, https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2017/11/27/octo-telematics-poised-to-deliver-major-changes-to-auto-claims/) teaches installing an OBD-II plug-in for acquiring telematics information used in crash reconstruction via Octo Surround.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights