DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
3. Claims 1-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Alan Lesesky (hereinafter Lesesky) (US 11,216,819) in view of Connor Walsh et al., (hereinafter Walsh) (US 11,741,763).
Re Claim 1. Lesesky discloses, an image recording system comprising (Abstract):
a drive recorder mounted on a vehicle (a drive on-board recorder 200 of a vehicle, Col.11 Lin.6-51); and
a server (a reporting server 157 in Fig.4 Col.3 Lin.15-21), wherein the server includes an event condition transmission unit that transmits a predetermined event condition to the drive recorder, wherein the drive recorder includes (transmitting the vehicle data to a drive recorder 130 in Fig.3, Col.14 Lin.12-14 or Fig.4 Col.14 Lin.30-39):
an event recording unit that acquires, when it is detected that a situation related to the vehicle or a driver fulfills the event condition (an event setting data, Col.2 Lin.27-40, or recording certain detected situations related to vehicle or driver, to a mobile device and an on-board recorder, Col.7 Lin.18-67 or Col.8 Lin.1-14, etc.),
an image of a recorded event capturing the situation related to the vehicle or the driver (an image captured by the camera 249 of the on-board recorder 200, a recorder 200, Col.11 Lin.47-48, of the electronic on-board recorder (EOBR) and data communication Col.21 Lin.46-62 used to visually analyze the driver Col.16 Lin.40-53);
a continuous recording unit (a recorder 200, Col.11 Lin.47 of the electronic on-board recorder (EOBR) and data communication Col.21 Lin.46-62) that acquires a continuously recorded image capturing (an image capturing device i.e., a camera 249, Col.11 Lin.45) the situation related to the vehicle or the driver continuously regardless of whether the situation related to the vehicle or the driver fulfills the event condition (at the on-board recorder processor 205 and memory 210, Col.12 Lin.36-39, by continuously recording the vehicle operating data Col.14 Lin.61-67, where camera 249 positioned in front of recorder 200, performs visual analysis of the driver, Col.16 Lin.40-53 or Claims 1, 13-14); and
an image transmission unit that transmits at least the continuously recorded image to the server (the recorded event condition generated is automatically and continuously transmitted to a second external receiver e.g., a host server, Col.14 Lin.4-16, where the continuously recording the vehicle operating data Col.14 Lin.61-67, where camera 249 positioned in front of recorder 200, performs visual analysis of the driver, Col.16 Lin.40-53 or Claims 1, 13-14, which is transmitted to a “remote terminal”, to a i.e., network server Col.3 Lin.1-27, or e.g., a corporate office Col.22 Lin.14-24),
wherein the server further includes an event condition generation unit that analyzes the continuously recorded image transmitted from the drive recorder and data indicating a driving situation at a point of time when the image is recorded (the continuously recorder data of the driver is transmitted to a remote device, e.g., to a server to be analyzed in respect to specific events in real-time Col.14-37) and
generates a new event condition different from the predetermined event condition based on a result of analysis and meta information related to a dangerous driving situation or a safe driving situation (generating a new event condition e.g., of an accident conditions based on the history of the vehicle, Col.22 Lin.23-41, and generating an alert of compliance per Fig.7 Col.11 Lin.45-51, or Fig.8 based on a particular event indicated by color red, yellow, or green lights for safe driving, Col.7 Lin.18-36), and
wherein the event condition transmission unit of the server transmits the new event condition to the drive recorder (alternatively, based on the uploading and downloading of data from the vehicle recorder 200, Col.11 Lin.52-62, the data received from vehicle is e.g., a calibration is sent back to the vehicle Col.12 Lin. 48-60, as the recorder 200 automatically and continuously records the vehicle operating data, detects specific events and transmits to a server for analysis and return of information, Col.12 Lin.61-67 e.g., analyzing the compliance of the vehicle and driver obtained data with HOS regulations, Col.13 Lin.1-24).
In an analogous art Walsh, teaches the details of the method process and system generating vehicular event based analysis (Abstract) based on a computing platform (comprising a processor 317, and memory, at a vehicle 310, and sensors 311, and a server 204 in Fig.2, recording external and internal conditions, Col.10 Lin.26-29, a vehicle drive recording, in Fig.3, Col.9 Lin.54-67 at a system 200 in Fig.2) comprising:
a drive recorder mounted on a vehicle (Col.9 Lin.60-67); and
a server, wherein the server includes an event condition transmission unit that transmits a predetermined event condition to the drive recorder, wherein the drive recorder includes (server 351 in Fig.3):
an event recording unit that acquires, when it is detected that a situation related to the vehicle or a driver fulfills the event condition, an image of a recorded event capturing the situation related to the vehicle or the driver (including sensors and camera recording conditions inside and outside vehicle 310, Col.10 Lin.26-42);
a continuous recording unit that acquires a continuously recorded image capturing the situation related to the vehicle or the driver continuously regardless of whether the situation related to the vehicle or the driver fulfills the event condition (recording images of the driver’s condition, Col.10 Lin.43-51); and
an image transmission unit that transmits at least the continuously recorded image to the server (transmission unit of data to server 350, in Fig.3 for event interpretation, Col.9 Lin.36-40),
wherein the server further includes an event condition generation unit that analyzes the continuously recorded image transmitted from the drive recorder and data indicating a driving situation at a point of time when the image is recorded and generates a new event condition different from the predetermined event condition based on a result of analysis and meta information related to a dangerous driving situation or a safe driving situation (analyzing the collected data of vehicle 310, Col.9 Lin.54-67), and
wherein the event condition transmission unit of the server transmits the new event condition to the drive recorder (the event analysis in a predicted event of vehicle damage, Col.9 Lin.26-28).
The one of ordinary skill would have found obvious before the effective filing date of invention to associate the anticipative teachings identified in Lesesky with the well-known vehicle monitoring and operational methods, having included local and remote event detection, data generation and recording, along with event consideration and activation to prevent future dangerous road accidents based on the driver’s action or on external conditions which may be compared with previous historical events in estimation of possible vehicular danger and be evaluated at server or locally and to combine with the similar art to Walsh, detailing specific aspects of the vehicular recording system, in order to improve the efficiency and computing resources (Walsh: Col.7 Lin.49-56) as disclosed by the method and apparatus herein claimed, hence considering the combination predictable.
Re Claim 2. Lesesky discloses, the image recording system according to claim 1,
Lesesky teaches, wherein the event condition generation unit generates the new event condition based on a feature of an image showing a dangerous driving situation having a high similarity to a feature of the continuously recorded image transmitted from the drive recorder (controlling the level of driving danger, based on previous history i.e., of similar events of the vehicle detected over-speeding being calculated, stored and recorded as driver’s reaction, a report may be sent to the remote terminal, Col.22 Lin.23-41).
Re Claim 3. Lesesky discloses, the image recording system according to claim 1,
Lesesky teaches, wherein the event condition generation unit generates the new event condition that includes a threshold value determined by a similarity between a feature of an image showing a dangerous driving situation and a feature of the continuously recorded image transmitted from the drive recorder (the event condition generated is automatically and continuously transmitted to a second external receiver e.g., a host server, Col.14 Lin.4-16, and further citing; “an inherent degree of uncertainty may be attributed to any quantitative comparison value, measurement, or other representation. These terms are also utilized herein to represent the degree by which a quantitative representation may vary from a stated reference….”, where the “stated reference” defines the threshold of acceptance for unsafe driving, per Col.22 Lin.35-41, as part of the on-board logging and reporting driver activity and operation data to a remote server, at Abstract).
Re Claim 4. Lesesky discloses, the image recording system according to claim 1,
Lesesky teaches, wherein the event condition generation unit generates the new event condition based on a feature of an image showing a safe driving situation greatly different from a feature of the continuously recorded video transmitted from the drive recorder (the event condition generated relies on images continuously captured by the camera 249 of the on-board recorder 200, a recorder 200, Col.11 Lin.47-48, of the electronic on-board recorder (EOBR) and data communication Col.21 Lin.46-62 used to visually analyze the driver based on facial recognition, retinal or IRIS mapping and driver behavior features, Col.16 Lin.40-53 and ) .
Re Claim 5. Lesesky discloses, the image recording system according to claim 1,
Lesesky teaches, wherein the event condition generation unit generates the new event condition that includes a threshold value determined by a difference between a feature of an image showing a safe driving situation and a feature of the continuously recorded image transmitted from the drive recorder (the referred difference, is derived from the history data being compared with the history data of vehicle obtained from the EOBR, to an external device or to a server, generated is automatically and continuously transmitted to a second external receiver e.g., a host server, Col.14 Lin.4-16, being defined in terms of the determined uncertainty of computation where the event condition is computed as a “degree of uncertainty” i.e., of a difference citing; “an inherent degree of uncertainty may be attributed to any quantitative comparison value, measurement, or other representation. These terms are also utilized herein to represent the degree by which a quantitative representation may vary from a stated reference….”, where the “stated reference” defines the threshold of acceptance for unsafe driving, per Col.22 Lin.35-41, based on the image data collected from the driver condition, Col.22 Lin.14-24).
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210295064; US-20190228228; US-12118045; or US-10997430.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights