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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 contains, under descriptions of instructions executed by a processor, the phrase: “…capturing, by the vehicle, first sensor data from a first sensor based on the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle and second sensor data from a second sensor based on changes in distance between the vehicle and at least one of the objects, and a future event…” This is ambiguous. Where does the term “and a future event” fall? Is this a future event captured by the vehicle? Or is this linked to the second sensor data? For purpose of examination, it is assumed that this describes the situation described in the specification on page 12: “In one example, based on data from the one or more sensors (e.g., speedometer data), system 100 can determine the speed of the vehicle, and, based on additional sensor data (e.g., LIDAR data, radar data, GPS data, etc.), system 100 can also determine the distance to and speed of another vehicle or object in relation to the vehicle. Further, system 100 can monitor these characteristics of the vehicle relative to the other vehicle or object, and, based on a change in any of these characteristics, system 100 can then determine that an event may occur (e.g., sudden change in speed, sudden change in distance between vehicles, tree falling, etc.). In such instances, based on the rate of these changes, system 100 can determine a time when the event might occur (e.g., when a collision may occur, when a telephone poll may fall, etc.)” For the purpose of this examination it is assumed that the second sensor is whatever is used (LIDAR, radar, GPS, etc. ) in order to determine that a future event will occur, based on comparison of vehicle characteristics relative to characteristics of another vehicle or object, and the second sensor data is whatever data has been measured by the second sensor(s).
(Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.)
Claims 8-14 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.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. The similar assumption as in claim 1 is made: It is assumed that the second sensor is whatever is used (LIDAR, radar, GPS, etc. ) in order to determine that a future event will occur, based on comparison of vehicle characteristics relative to characteristics of another vehicle or object, and the second sensor data is whatever data has been measured by the second sensor(s). For the purpose of this examination it is assumed that the second sensor is whatever is used (LIDAR, radar, GPS, etc. ) in order to determine that a future event will occur, based on comparison of vehicle characteristics relative to characteristics of another vehicle or object, and the second sensor data is whatever data has been measured by the second sensor(s).
(Claims 9-14 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 8).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. The similar assumption as in claim 1 is made: It is assumed that the second sensor is whatever is used (LIDAR, radar, GPS, etc. ) in order to determine that a future event will occur, based on comparison of vehicle characteristics relative to characteristics of another vehicle or object, and the second sensor data is whatever data has been measured by the second sensor(s). For the purpose of this examination it is assumed that the second sensor is whatever is used (LIDAR, radar, GPS, etc. ) in order to determine that a future event will occur, based on comparison of vehicle characteristics relative to characteristics of another vehicle or object, and the second sensor data is whatever data has been measured by the second sensor(s).
(Claims 16-20 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 15).
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:
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0113916 (Guo et al., hence Guo) in light of US 2021/0197720 (Houston et al., hence Houston).
As for claim 1, Guo teaches a method, comprising: dynamically determining a size of a radius of an area proximate a vehicle to be used to search for objects based on at least one of geospatial positioning system (GPS) data of the vehicle and road condition data of a road of the vehicle (Guo: “a size of a radius of an area proximate a vehicle” is interpreted under BRI as being a determined boundary. "The path boundary indicating where vehicle 100 is expected to be within a particular timeframe. Additionally, a safe zone boundary is provided, such as defining an envelope----outside of which-vehicle 100 should never go. Both the path boundary and the safe zone boundary are dynamic envelopes determined from sensor and/or stored data for vehicle 100 at a given time and operational attribute (e.g., speed, visibility, road surface condition, predictability of other relevant vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.)." (underlining added) [0112]; the use of GPS in localization of the vehicle [0072]-[0073]);
capturing, by the vehicle, first sensor data from a first sensor based on the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle (Guo: detection of objects: "In one embodiment, a safe zone boundary is defined for monitoring vehicle's path planner by using the verified object list with the coordinates of a vehicle's domain, data from vehicle state sensors, and/or a pre-defined fault tolerance safety margin to define safe zone boundary around vehicle."[0116]).
Guo does not specifically teach capturing, by the vehicle, [second] sensor data from a second sensor based on changes in distance between the vehicle and at least one of the objects, and a future event. However, this is taught by Houston: (Houston: Fig. 1F determine a predicted collision probability; "The contextual data may also include metrics associated with an environment of the vehicle, such as a distance from the vehicle to another vehicle, speed to another vehicle, distance from the vehicle to a pedestrian, vehicle speed relative to a pedestrian, traffic signal status, distance to a traffic signal, distance to an intersection, road sign, distance to a road sign, distance to a curb, relative position to a road line, object in a field of view of the vehicle, traffic status, trajectory of another vehicle, motion of another traffic agent, speed of another traffic agent, moving direction of another traffic agent, signal status of another vehicle, position of another traffic agent, aggressiveness metrics of other vehicles, or the like."[0051].)
Guo does not specifically teach sending, by the vehicle, the [sensor data] to a server, but this is known in the art, as is mentioned by Houston in the Background section: (Houston: "The vehicle may use one or more computing systems (e.g., an on-board computer) to collect and process data from the sensors. The computing systems may store the collected data in on-board storage space or upload the data to a cloud using a wireless connection." [0001] (Background). Note that this would apply both to the first sensor data from the area proximate to the vehicle, and the second sensor data gathered while determining a “future event”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the collision-prediction-and-warning system of Houston in with the dynamic envelope system of Guo. The motivation would be to add a further warning system that could handle other emergencies.
As for claim 4, Guo, as modified by Houston, teaches wherein the future event relates to one or more of a condition of the vehicle or an external circumstance in or near the area proximate the vehicle. (A collision would be a "condition of the vehicle" as well as "an external circumstance in or near the area proximate the vehicle" since the collision is with something in the vicinity. Houston: Paragraph 0037 & Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the collision-prediction-and-warning system of Houston in with the dynamic envelope system of Guo. The motivation would be to add a further warning system that could handle other emergencies.
As for claim 6, Guo, as modified by Houston, teaches continuously adjusting the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle based on at least one of updated GPS data of the vehicle and updated road conditions of the road of the vehicle. (Guo: Fig. 8, which has a continuous updating cycle, also see [0112]-[0114]; updated GPS and map position, mentioned in [0073].)
As for claim 8, Guo teaches a system (Guo: Fig. 3A), comprising:
a memory to store a set of instructions (Guo: "The memory/storage/cache 516 may also be used in connection with the execution of application programming or instructions by the controller/microprocessor 520, and for temporary or long-term storage of program instructions and/or data."[0088]) and a processor to execute the set of instructions to cause the system to: (Guo: "In one embodiment, at least a portion of process 800 is executed by a processor within a vehicle, such as CPU(s) 708 of the vehicle control subsystem 348 of the vehicle 100 with results stored in working memory 736, storage device(s) 720, and/or output to an external storage, such as database 618." [0128]) dynamically determine a size of a radius of an area proximate a vehicle to be used to search for objects based on at least one of geospatial positioning system (GPS) data of the vehicle and road condition data of a road of the vehicle; (Guo: [0128] (mentioned above); “a size of a radius of an area proximate a vehicle” is interpreted under BRI as being a determined boundary. "The path boundary indicating where vehicle 100 is expected to be within a particular timeframe. Additionally, a safe zone boundary is provided, such as defining an envelope----outside of which-vehicle 100 should never go. Both the path boundary and the safe zone boundary are dynamic envelopes determined from sensor and/or stored data for vehicle 100 at a given time and operational attribute (e.g., speed, visibility, road surface condition, predictability of other relevant vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.)." (underlining added) [0112]; the use of GPS in localization of the vehicle [0072]-[0073]);
capture, by the vehicle, first sensor data from a first sensor based on the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle (Guo: detection of objects: "In one embodiment, a safe zone boundary is defined for monitoring vehicle's path planner by using the verified object list with the coordinates of a vehicle's domain, data from vehicle state sensors, and/or a pre-defined fault tolerance safety margin to define safe zone boundary around vehicle."[0116]).
Guo does not specifically teach [to] capture, by the vehicle, second sensor data from a second sensor based on changes in distance between the vehicle and at least one of the objects, and a future event. However, this is taught by Houston: (Houston: Fig. 1F determine a predicted collision probability; "The contextual data may also include metrics associated with an environment of the vehicle, such as a distance from the vehicle to another vehicle, speed to another vehicle, distance from the vehicle to a pedestrian, vehicle speed relative to a pedestrian, traffic signal status, distance to a traffic signal, distance to an intersection, road sign, distance to a road sign, distance to a curb, relative position to a road line, object in a field of view of the vehicle, traffic status, trajectory of another vehicle, motion of another traffic agent, speed of another traffic agent, moving direction of another traffic agent, signal status of another vehicle, position of another traffic agent, aggressiveness metrics of other vehicles, or the like."[0051].)
Guo does not specifically teach [to] send, by the vehicle, the [sensor data] to a server, but this is known in the art, as is mentioned by Houston in the Background section: (Houston: "The vehicle may use one or more computing systems (e.g., an on-board computer) to collect and process data from the sensors. The computing systems may store the collected data in on-board storage space or upload the data to a cloud using a wireless connection." [0001] (Background). Note that this would apply both to the first sensor data from the area proximate to the vehicle, and the second sensor data gathered while determining a “future event”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the collision-prediction-and-warning system of Houston in with the dynamic envelope system of Guo. The motivation would be to add a further warning system that could handle other emergencies.
As for claim 11, Guo, as modified by Houston, teaches wherein the future event relates to one or more of a condition of the vehicle or an external circumstance in or near the area proximate the vehicle. (A collision would be a "condition of the vehicle" as well as "an external circumstance in or near the area proximate the vehicle" since the collision is with something in the vicinity. Houston: Paragraph 0037 & Fig. 1B).
As for claim 13, Guo, as modified by Houston, teaches continuously adjusting the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle based on at least one of updated GPS data of the vehicle and updated road conditions of the road of the vehicle. (Guo: Fig. 8, which has a continuous updating cycle, also see [0112]-[0114]; updated GPS and map position, mentioned in [0073].)
As for claim 15, Guo teaches a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform: (Guo: [0205]-[0207]) dynamically determining a size of a radius of an area proximate a vehicle to be used to search for objects based on at least one of geospatial positioning system (GPS) data of the vehicle and road condition data of a road of the vehicle; (Guo: “a size of a radius of an area proximate a vehicle” is interpreted under BRI as being a determined boundary. "The path boundary indicating where vehicle 100 is expected to be within a particular timeframe. Additionally, a safe zone boundary is provided, such as defining an envelope----outside of which-vehicle 100 should never go. Both the path boundary and the safe zone boundary are dynamic envelopes determined from sensor and/or stored data for vehicle 100 at a given time and operational attribute (e.g., speed, visibility, road surface condition, predictability of other relevant vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.)." (underlining added) [0112]; the use of GPS in localization of the vehicle [0072]-[0073]);
capturing, by the vehicle, first sensor data from a first sensor based on the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle (Guo: detection of objects: "In one embodiment, a safe zone boundary is defined for monitoring vehicle's path planner by using the verified object list with the coordinates of a vehicle's domain, data from vehicle state sensors, and/or a pre-defined fault tolerance safety margin to define safe zone boundary around vehicle."[0116]).
Guo does not specifically teach capturing, by the vehicle, second sensor data from a second sensor based on changes in distance between the vehicle and at least one of the objects, and a future event. However, this is taught by Houston: (Houston: Fig. 1F determine a predicted collision probability; "The contextual data may also include metrics associated with an environment of the vehicle, such as a distance from the vehicle to another vehicle, speed to another vehicle, distance from the vehicle to a pedestrian, vehicle speed relative to a pedestrian, traffic signal status, distance to a traffic signal, distance to an intersection, road sign, distance to a road sign, distance to a curb, relative position to a road line, object in a field of view of the vehicle, traffic status, trajectory of another vehicle, motion of another traffic agent, speed of another traffic agent, moving direction of another traffic agent, signal status of another vehicle, position of another traffic agent, aggressiveness metrics of other vehicles, or the like."[0051].)
Guo does not specifically teach sending, by the vehicle, the [sensor data] to a server, but this is known in the art, as is mentioned by Houston in the Background section: (Houston: "The vehicle may use one or more computing systems (e.g., an on-board computer) to collect and process data from the sensors. The computing systems may store the collected data in on-board storage space or upload the data to a cloud using a wireless connection." [0001] (Background). Note that this would apply both to the first sensor data from the area proximate to the vehicle, and the second sensor data gathered while determining a “future event”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the collision-prediction-and-warning system of Houston in with the dynamic envelope system of Guo. The motivation would be to add a further warning system that could handle other emergencies.
As for claim 18, Guo, as modified by Houston, teaches wherein the future event relates to one or more of a condition of the vehicle or an external circumstance in or near the area proximate the vehicle. (A collision would be a "condition of the vehicle" as well as "an external circumstance in or near the area proximate the vehicle" since the collision is with something in the vicinity. Houston: Fig. 1B)
As for claim 19, Guo, as modified by Houston, teaches continuously adjusting the size of the radius of the area proximate the vehicle based on at least one of updated GPS data of the vehicle and updated road conditions of the road of the vehicle. (Guo: Fig. 8, which has a continuous updating cycle, also see [0112]-[0114]; updated GPS and map position, mentioned in [0073].)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0217761 (Chen et al., hence Chen.)
As for claim 2, either Guo nor Houston specifically teach wherein the second sensor data comprises video data collected by the second sensor of the vehicle and the video data is non-continuous. However, discrete video recording which is only triggered upon the occurrence of an event is known in the art, as is shown in Chen: (Chen: Figs. 2-3; "In one embodiment of the present invention, video and audio data is recorded in one or more buffers when a triggering event is activated, while a digital video recording device accounts for specified pre-event time, a time period before a first triggering event has been activated, and a post-event time, a time period after a second triggering event has been activated. The system will tag the actual start and stop points of events in one or more buffers based on a first and a second triggering event and will then include the pre-event and post-event data along with specified data." (Abstract))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the intermittent video taping system of Chen together in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to save on long-term memory needed by the system by saving only the material surrounding a triggering event, which would be considered the information most relevant to the event.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0214535 (Penilla et al., hence Penilla).
As for claim 3, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teach wherein the [sensor] data comprises video data collected by the [sensor] of the vehicle and the video data is continuous. However, this is taught by Penilla: (Penilla: "The data can be viewed via any computer or mobile device having access to the internet. In one embodiment, the vehicle can be continuously recording A/V data in a buffer, e.g., circular or non-circular buffer ( e.g., storage that is local on the vehicle or storage that is part of a cloud based data center or centers). The data may be discarded after a buffer period of time. If a trigger condition occurs, the trigger condition can capture a buffer period of time before the trigger and a period of time after the trigger. These updates can be programmed to be auto-sent to recipient, and can be provided as notifications to smartphone devices."(underlining added) [0071].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the continuous video taping system of Penilla together in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to capture all possibly relevant data, which might fail to be captured between snapshots if discrete snapshots were used instead.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0221366 (An et al., hence An.)
As for claim 5, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teaches requesting, by the vehicle, external data related to the future event from one or more external sensors located in or near the area proximate the vehicle. However, receiving information from the surrounding information is known in the art; see An: (An: "As another method, traffic lights may be recognized by sending signal information to ambient vehicles through vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication devices installed in the traffic lights." [0007]. An mentions sending information between vehicles using V2X and determining possible collisions between different vehicles. [0026].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the V2X system and collision avoidance system of An in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to a) gather independent data from a separate location outside the vehicle, which is from a totally different viewpoint, and b) in cases where a triggering event is directly due to changes in state of the separate location (such as a traffic signal turning red), the received data about the changes in state may be more accurate and/or complete.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210043061 (Potter et al., hence Potter).
As for claim 7, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teach performing a comparison between vehicle diagnostics performed before the future event to vehicle diagnostics performed after the future event, and updating a claim related to the future event based on the comparison. However, Potter teaches performing a comparison between vehicle diagnostics performed before the future event to vehicle diagnostics performed after the future event, and updating a claim related to the future event based on the comparison. (Potter: "In one aspect, a computer-implemented method of generating an insurance claim for an insured may be provided….the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident...the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident;...the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident; [0106] [106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a claim generation method as outlined in Potter to the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to add a method of reusing the collected data to generate a practical result, namely updating the information for a possible insurance claim when an emergency has occurred.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen.
As for claim 9, either Guo nor Houston specifically teach wherein the second sensor data comprises video data collected by the second sensor of the vehicle and the video data is non-continuous. However, discrete video recording which is only triggered upon the occurrence of an event is known in the art, as is shown in Chen: (Chen: Figs. 2-3; "In one embodiment of the present invention, video and audio data is recorded in one or more buffers when a triggering event is activated, while a digital video recording device accounts for specified pre-event time, a time period before a first triggering event has been activated, and a post-event time, a time period after a second triggering event has been activated. The system will tag the actual start and stop points of events in one or more buffers based on a first and a second triggering event and will then include the pre-event and post-event data along with specified data." (Abstract))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the intermittent video taping system of Chen together in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to save on long-term memory needed by the system by saving only the material surrounding a triggering event, which would be considered the information most relevant to the event.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Penilla.
As for claim 10, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teach wherein the [sensor] data comprises video data collected by the [sensor] of the vehicle and the video data is continuous. However, this is taught by Penilla: (Penilla: "The data can be viewed via any computer or mobile device having access to the internet. In one embodiment, the vehicle can be continuously recording A/V data in a buffer, e.g., circular or non-circular buffer ( e.g., storage that is local on the vehicle or storage that is part of a cloud based data center or centers). The data may be discarded after a buffer period of time. If a trigger condition occurs, the trigger condition can capture a buffer period of time before the trigger and a period of time after the trigger. These updates can be programmed to be auto-sent to recipient, and can be provided as notifications to smartphone devices."(underlining added) [0071].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the continuous video taping system of Penilla together in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to capture all possibly relevant data, which might fail to be captured between snapshots if discrete snapshots were used instead.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of An.
As for claim 12, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teaches requesting, by the vehicle, external data related to the future event from one or more external sensors located in or near the area proximate the vehicle. However, receiving information from the surrounding information is known in the art; see An: (An: "As another method, traffic lights may be recognized by sending signal information to ambient vehicles through vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication devices installed in the traffic lights." [0007]. An mentions sending information between vehicles using V2X and determining possible collisions between different vehicles. [0026].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the V2X system and collision avoidance system of An in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to a) gather independent data from a separate location outside the vehicle, which is from a totally different viewpoint, and b) in cases where a triggering event is directly due to changes in state of the separate location (such as a traffic signal turning red), the received data about the changes in state may be more accurate and/or complete.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Potter.
As for claim 14, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teach performing a comparison between vehicle diagnostics performed before the future event to vehicle diagnostics performed after the future event, and updating a claim related to the future event based on the comparison. However, Potter teaches performing a comparison between vehicle diagnostics performed before the future event to vehicle diagnostics performed after the future event, and updating a claim related to the future event based on the comparison. (Potter: "In one aspect, a computer-implemented method of generating an insurance claim for an insured may be provided….the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident...the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident;...the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident”; [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a claim generation method as outlined in Potter to the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to add a method of reusing the collected data to generate a practical result, namely updating the information for a possible insurance claim when an emergency has occurred.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2007/0217761 (Chen et al., hence Chen.)
As for claim 16, either Guo nor Houston specifically teach wherein the second sensor data comprises video data collected by the second sensor of the vehicle and the video data is non-continuous. However, discrete video recording which is only triggered upon the occurrence of an event is known in the art, as is shown in Chen: (Chen: Figs. 2-3; "In one embodiment of the present invention, video and audio data is recorded in one or more buffers when a triggering event is activated, while a digital video recording device accounts for specified pre-event time, a time period before a first triggering event has been activated, and a post-event time, a time period after a second triggering event has been activated. The system will tag the actual start and stop points of events in one or more buffers based on a first and a second triggering event and will then include the pre-event and post-event data along with specified data." (Abstract))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the intermittent video taping system of Chen together in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to save on long-term memory needed by the system by saving only the material surrounding a triggering event, which would be considered the information most relevant to the event.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Penilla.
As for claim 17, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teach wherein the [sensor] data comprises video data collected by the [sensor] of the vehicle and the video data is continuous. However, this is taught by Penilla: (Penilla: "The data can be viewed via any computer or mobile device having access to the internet. In one embodiment, the vehicle can be continuously recording A/V data in a buffer, e.g., circular or non-circular buffer ( e.g., storage that is local on the vehicle or storage that is part of a cloud based data center or centers). The data may be discarded after a buffer period of time. If a trigger condition occurs, the trigger condition can capture a buffer period of time before the trigger and a period of time after the trigger. These updates can be programmed to be auto-sent to recipient, and can be provided as notifications to smartphone devices."(underlining added) [0071].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the continuous video taping system of Penilla together in the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to capture all possibly relevant data, which might fail to be captured between snapshots if discrete snapshots were used instead.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in light of Houston as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Potter.
As for claim 20, neither Guo nor Houston specifically teach performing a comparison between vehicle diagnostics performed before the future event to vehicle diagnostics performed after the future event, and updating a claim related to the future event based on the comparison. However, Potter teaches performing a comparison between vehicle diagnostics performed before the future event to vehicle diagnostics performed after the future event, and updating a claim related to the future event based on the comparison. (Potter: "In one aspect, a computer-implemented method of generating an insurance claim for an insured may be provided….the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident...the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident;...the telematics and/or other data being associated with a vehicle accident involving a specific driver and/or an insured, the insured owning an insurance policy issued by the insurance provider and the telematics and/or other data being gathered before, during, and/or after the vehicle accident; [0106] [106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a claim generation method as outlined in Potter to the system of Guo, as modified by Houston. The motivation would be to add a method of reusing the collected data to generate a practical result, namely, updating the information for a possible insurance claim when an emergency has occurred.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights