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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a road incident monitoring and reporting system, which is in the machine category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as a sensing device and an electronic processor coupled to the sensing device. Nothing in the claim precludes each of the steps performed by the device from practically being performed in the human mind. The steps may be described as mere data gathering and mental analysis that corresponds to an abstract idea.
But for the recitation of a sensing device, the step of collecting data indicative of whether an incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road amounts to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The insignificant extra-solution activity corresponds to mere data gathering which is pre-solution activity (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)). The gathering of location data can be understood as activities incidental to a mental process.
But for the recitation of a sensing device and an electronic processor, the steps of transmitting a sensor signal including the data and receiving the sensor signal also amount to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmission of data and the reception of the sensor signal corresponds to pre-solution activities which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Such extra-solution activities are incidental to the primary process or product and are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)).
The step of determining, based on the sensor signal, whether the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to a person evaluating whether a motor vehicle incident has occurred on the road.
But for the recitation of an electronic processor, the step of transmitting an incident notification to a response team only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road amounts to the recitation of notification or an alert which corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmission of data such as an incident notification corresponds to post-solution activity. Such post-solution extra-solution activities are incidental to the primary process or product and are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)).
The mere nominal recitation of a sensing device and an electronic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude these processes from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In other words, the limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 1 covers performance of at least one step in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include an evaluation, judgment, or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 1 the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as the recitation of data collection or data transmission (i.e., signal transmission) and/or data manipulation activities, correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 8-14 includes the same limitations as recited in claims 1-7, except it claims a method which performs substantially the same steps recited in claims 1-7. The same rationale as stated above for claims 1-7 apply to claims 8-14 because claims 8-14 cover the same steps recited in claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons stated for claims 1-7 above.
Claims 15-20 comprises the same system as recited in claims 1-6, except independent claim 15 additionally recites “and only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road:” and “and transmit an alert signal to emergency responders, the alert signal informing the emergency responders of a higher-than-normal probability that the emergency responders will receive instructions from the response team within the following five minutes”. Examiner notes that the step of and only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road: transmitting data such as an alert to responders with a message that instructions will be received within the following five minutes corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmission of data, such as an alert signal, corresponds to post-solution activity. Such post-solution extra-solution activities are incidental to the primary process or product and are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)). This foregoing limitation is well-understood and conventional and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, independent claim 15 claims a system which performs substantially the same steps recited in claims 1 and the additional recited step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, independent claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, claims 16-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Based on the foregoing reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverstock et al. (US 2018/0182239) in view of Cui et al. (US 2023/0298460).
Regarding claim 1, Baverstock teaches a road incident monitoring and reporting system, comprising: a sensing device configured to: collect data indicative of whether an incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road; and transmit a sensor signal including the data; (see at least Baverstock at [0004] which discloses that an urgent need exists for a Mogol Connected Traffic Management System, a central traffic management system connected on a city wide level and that the Mogol CTM allows messages to be directly delivered to vehicles and drivers via in vehicle displays and navigation instructions, and receives telemetry data from the vehicle for automatic traffic management, road usage, road condition and incident reporting. Also, see Baverstock at [0020] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts the Mogol CTM system 110, connected infrastructure 160, infrastructure sensors 150 communicatively coupled together by way of a WAN 170. See Baverstock at [0021] which discloses that the infrastructure may include roads and road segments of any kind, including but not limited to, county roads, interstates, highways, on ramps, off ramps, toll ways, bridges, tunnels, surface streets, and private roads and that additionally, infrastructure may include street lights (stop lights), metering lights, and control lights, that additionally, infrastructure may include high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), carpool lanes, bus and or other public transportation lanes, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian lanes and that additionally, infrastructure may include any sensors, static or dynamic signage, digital message signs, active traffic management systems or traffic control systems. Also, see Baverstock at [0034] which discloses that an example may include the collection of data from infrastructure sensors 150 including road loop sensors, traffic light cameras and vehicle counting systems. Examiner maps the Mogol CTM system, infrastructure sensors 150 and connected infrastructure to the recited road incident monitoring and reporting system. Examiner maps the data collected from infrastructure sensors to the sensor signal including the data. Examiner maps one or more of the infrastructure sensors to the recited sensing device.)
and an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the sensing device and configured to: receive the sensor signal; (see at least Baverstock at [0024] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which illustratively depicts a high level block diagram of the Mogol Connected Traffic Management System comprising a Mogol Big Data Engine 240 and Response Engine 270, among other things. Baverstock at [0024] discloses that data may be passed from external data streams 210, 220, 230 into the Mogol Big Data Engine 240, where it may be processed, and the processed outputs may be passed to multiple blocks within the Mogol CTM System 110.; see Baverstock at [0026] which discloses that FIG. 2 shows the data streams 210, 220, 230, as described above, as inputs to the Mogol Insight Big Data Engine 240. Examiner, for example, maps Mogol Big Data Engine 240 to the recited electronic processor. Examiner notes that the sensor data stream 220 is used to receive sensor signal inputs to the Mogol Big Data Engine 240.)
While Baverstock at [0004], for example, discloses incident reporting as well as processing, by the Mogol Big Data Engine, of the data provided by infrastructure sensors, Baverstock does not expressly disclose determine, based on the sensor signal, whether the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road; and transmit an incident notification to a response team only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road which in a related art Cui teaches (see at least Cui, at [0037], which discloses that when an anomaly is detected, a report of the possible road incident, which includes the accurate location of the vehicle 314 and at least one captured image can be sent to the smart transportation infrastructure server 308 for further analysis (e.g., block 312) and that as one example, artificial intelligence and/or more powerful image processing can be used by the smart transportation infrastructure server 308 to more thoroughly assess the situation, and possibly escalate the incident to a human reviewer of the image, summon police and so forth. Further, see Cui at [0044] for example, which discloses that if an accident is determined via operation 516, operation 518 (directly, without a query) notifies the authorities (police/sheriff) and possibly an ambulance service if appearing to be severe and that some jurisdictions require that motorists do not summon police in the event of a minor accident where there is no injury and both vehicles are drivable, however the authorities can be notified in any event, and choose to look into the matter as deemed appropriate. Examiner maps human reviewer of the image and/or police to the response team. Examiner maps escalation of the incident to the incident notification. Examiner maps accident to an incident involving a motor vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braverstock to determine, based on the sensor signal, whether the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road; and transmit an incident notification to a response team only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road, as taught by Heinrich.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to analyze (e.g., via artificial intelligence) the incident, and take appropriate action(s), as suggested by Cui at [0016].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Braverstock teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the sensing device includes a camera (see Braverstock at [0034] which discloses that an example may include the collection of data from infrastructure sensors 150 including road loop sensors, traffic light cameras and vehicle counting systems. Examiner maps one of the traffic light cameras to the recited camera.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Braverstock teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the incident comprises a collision between the motor vehicle and another thing (see Cui at [0031] for example which discloses that Fig. 2 shows another use case for the technology described herein, namely a vehicle accident involving cars 202 and 203 in this example; see Cui at [0032] which discloses that if at least one of the cars 202 or 203 is a connected car involved in a car accident, the connected car(s) automatically sends a "911" notification, including the exact location information if available. Examiner maps accident involving cars 202 and 203 to collision between the motor vehicle and another thing.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Braverstock teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the electronic processor is configured to use artificial intelligence analytics to determine whether the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road (see Cui at [0037], for example, which discloses that when an anomaly is detected, a report of the possible road incident, which includes the accurate location of the vehicle 314 and at least one captured image can be sent to the smart transportation infrastructure server 308 for further analysis (e.g., block 312) and as one example, artificial intelligence and/or more powerful image processing can be used by the smart transportation infrastructure server 308 to more thoroughly assess the situation, and possibly escalate the incident to a human reviewer of the image, summon police and so forth; also, see Cui at [0051] which discloses that operation 612 performs image processing, e.g., more sophisticated analysis using artificial intelligence or the like; also, see Cui at [0072] which discloses that the smart transportation infrastructure (server) can use artificial intelligence to predict traffic jams, summon help to a given location, request road repairs at a given location, and the like.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Braverstock teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the artificial intelligence analytics has been trained on sensor signals associated with previous motor vehicle incidents (see Braverstock at [0040] for example which discloses that ML/AI 340 may aid the Traffic Analytics block 330 in processing incoming data to the Big Data Engine 240 and that an example of the ML/AI 340 contributing its own data in the Output Data 350 may include, the ML/ AI 340 identifying the same pattern in traffic processed by the Traffic Analytics block 330 for three consecutive days at approximately the same time of the day, and predicting this behavior on the fourth day prior to the Traffic Analytics block 330 processing the data. Examiner previously showed that the sensor stream 220 provided infrastructure sensor data to the Mogol Insight Big Data Engine. Examiner notes that identifying the same pattern for three consecutive days at approximately the same time of the day corresponds to artificial intelligence analytics having been trained on sensor signals associated with previous motor vehicle incidents.)
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claims 1-2 and 4-6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-6 teach the steps recited in the method of claims 8-9 and 11-13. Therefore, claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claim claims 1-2 and 4-6.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverstock et al. (US 2018/0182239) in view of Cui et al. (US 2023/0298460) and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2019/0312817).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Braverstock does not expressly disclose the system of claim 2 wherein the sensing device includes a microphone, which in a related art, Xu teaches (see Xu at [0056] which discloses that monitoring device 110 may be configured to monitor an area or a place (e.g., a road, a supermarket, a residential area, or a bank, etc.) to acquire data (e.g., imaging data, audio data, etc.), based on which an alert event may be identified. In some embodiments, monitoring device 110 may process the acquired data to identify the alert event, that in some embodiments, monitoring device 110 may send the acquired data to data processing device 120 that may further process the acquired data to identify the alert event, detailed description of which may be found elsewhere in the present disclosure. See, e.g., FIGS. 4A and 4B and the description thereof. Xu further discloses that as used herein, an alert event may refer to any accident or event for which an alert has been designated to render, that for example, when a road is monitored, exemplary alert events may include a speeding event, a traffic accident, a traffic congestion, or the like, or any combination thereof, and that monitoring device 110 may include at least one sensor, which may monitor events relating to one or more objects (e.g., a vehicle, a passenger, etc.) that appears in the area or place monitored by monitoring device 110, to detect the alert event. Xu further discloses that exemplary sensors may include a video sensor (e.g., a camera), an audio sensor (e.g., a microphone), a speed detector, or the like, or any combination thereof.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braverstock include wherein the sensing device includes a microphone, as taught by Xu.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to monitor an area or a place (e.g., a road, etc.) and to acquire data, based on which an alert event may be identified, as suggested by Xu at [0056].
Claim 10 is directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 3. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 3 teach the steps recited in the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverstock et al. (US 2018/0182239) in view of Cui et al. (US 2023/0298460) and further in view of Sennett et al. (US 9398619).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Braverstock teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the electronic processor is configured to transmit an alert signal to emergency responders only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road, (see Cui at [0044] for example, which discloses that if an accident is determined via operation 516, operation 518 (directly, without a query) notifies the authorities (police/sheriff) and possibly an ambulance service if appearing to be severe and that some jurisdictions require that motorists do not summon police in the event of a minor accident where there is no injury and both vehicles are drivable, however the authorities can be notified in any event, and choose to look into the matter as deemed appropriate.)
The modified Braverstock does not expressly disclose that the alert signal informing the emergency responders of an increased probability that the emergency responders will receive instructions from the response team within the following three minutes, which, in a related art, Sennett teaches (see Sennett at col. 9 which discloses that at 420, the processor 106 may determine whether the second EAS (Emergency Alert System) signal was received within a predetermined period of time of the first received EAS alert signal and that for example, the processor 106 may determine whether the second EAS alert signal was received within three minutes of the first EAS alert signal. Examiner notes that the transmission of a second EAS signal after a first EAS alert signal corresponds to the informing of an increased probability. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braverstock include that the alert signal informing the emergency responders of an increased probability that the emergency responders will receive instructions from the response team within the following three minutes, as taught by Sennett.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to render an emergency or a non-emergency notification, as suggested by Sennett at col. 9.
Claim 14 is directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 7. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 7 teach the steps recited in the method of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Braverstock teaches a road incident monitoring and reporting system, comprising: a sensing device configured to: collect data indicative of whether an incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road; and transmit a sensor signal including the data; (see Baverstock at [0004] which discloses that an urgent need exists for a Mogol Connected Traffic Management System, a central traffic management system connected on a city wide level and that the Mogol CTM allows messages to be directly delivered to vehicles and drivers via in vehicle displays and navigation instructions, and receives telemetry data from the vehicle for automatic traffic management, road usage, road condition and incident reporting. Also, see Baverstock at [0020] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts the Mogol CTM system 110, connected infrastructure 160, infrastructure sensors 150 communicatively coupled together by way of a WAN 170. See Baverstock at [0021] which discloses that the infrastructure may include roads and road segments of any kind, including but not limited to, county roads, interstates, highways, on ramps, off ramps, toll ways, bridges, tunnels, surface streets, and private roads and that additionally, infrastructure may include street lights (stop lights), metering lights, and control lights, that additionally, infrastructure may include high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), carpool lanes, bus and or other public transportation lanes, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian lanes and that additionally, infrastructure may include any sensors, static or dynamic signage, digital message signs, active traffic management systems or traffic control systems. Also, see Baverstock at [0034] which discloses that an example may include the collection of data from infrastructure sensors 150 including road loop sensors, traffic light cameras and vehicle counting systems. Examiner maps the Mogol CTM system, infrastructure sensors 150 and connected infrastructure to the recited road incident monitoring and reporting system. Examiner maps the data collected from infrastructure sensors to the sensor signal including the data.)
and an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the sensing device and configured to: receive the sensor signal; (see Baverstock at [0024] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which illustratively depicts a high level block diagram of the Mogol Connected Traffic Management System comprising a Mogol Big Data Engine 240 and Response Engine 270, among other things. Baverstock at [0024] discloses that data may be passed from external data streams 210, 220, 230 into the Mogol Big Data Engine 240, where it may be processed, and the processed outputs may be passed to multiple blocks within the Mogol CTM System 110.; see Baverstock at [0026] which discloses that FIG. 2 shows the data streams 210, 220, 230, as described above, as inputs to the Mogol Insight Big Data Engine 240. Examiner, for example, maps Mogol Big Data Engine 240 to the recited electronic processor. Examiner notes that the sensor data stream 220 is used to receive sensor signal inputs to the Mogol Big Data Engine 240.)
While Baverstock at [0004], for example, discloses incident reporting as well as processing, by the Mogol Big Data Engine, of the data provided by infrastructure sensors, Baverstock does not expressly disclose determine, based on the sensor signal, whether the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road; and only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road: transmit an incident notification to a response team only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road which in a related art Cui teaches (see at least Cui, at [0037], which discloses that when an anomaly is detected, a report of the possible road incident, which includes the accurate location of the vehicle 314 and at least one captured image can be sent to the smart transportation infrastructure server 308 for further analysis (e.g., block 312) and that as one example, artificial intelligence and/or more powerful image processing can be used by the smart transportation infrastructure server 308 to more thoroughly assess the situation, and possibly escalate the incident to a human reviewer of the image, summon police and so forth. Further, see Cui at [0044] for example, which discloses that if an accident is determined via operation 516, operation 518 (directly, without a query) notifies the authorities (police/sheriff) and possibly an ambulance service if appearing to be severe and that some jurisdictions require that motorists do not summon police in the event of a minor accident where there is no injury and both vehicles are drivable, however the authorities can be notified in any event, and choose to look into the matter as deemed appropriate. Examiner maps human reviewer of the image and/or police to the response team. Examiner maps escalation of the incident to the incident notification. Examiner maps accident to an incident involving a motor vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braverstock to determine, based on the sensor signal, whether the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road; and transmit an incident notification to a response team only if it has been determined that the incident has occurred involving a motor vehicle on the road, as taught by Heinrich.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to analyze (e.g., via artificial intelligence) the incident, and take appropriate action(s), as suggested by Cui at [0016].
The modified Braverstock does not expressly teach and transmit an alert signal to emergency responders, the alert signal informing the emergency responders of a higher-than-normal probability that the emergency responders will receive instructions from the response team within the following five minutes which, in a related art, Sennett teaches (see Sennett at col. 9 which discloses that at 420, the processor 106 may determine whether the second EAS (Emergency Alert System) signal was received within a predetermined period of time of the first received EAS alert signal and that for example, the processor 106 may determine whether the second EAS alert signal was received within three minutes of the first EAS alert signal. Examiner notes that the transmission of a second EAS signal after a first EAS alert signal corresponds to the informing of a higher-than-normal probability. Examiner notes that Sennett teaches a predetermined period of time after which an emergency alert system signal, such as the second EAS signal, is received. The actual time would merely be a design choice and would confer no patentable weight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the time in which the signal or instructions is/are received would be within the following five minutes. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braverstock to include transmitting an alert signal to emergency responders, the alert signal informing the emergency responders of a higher-than-normal probability that the emergency responders will receive instructions from the response team within the following five minutes, as taught by Sennett.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to render an emergency or a non-emergency notification, as suggested by Sennett at col. 9.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Braverstock does not expressly disclose the system of claim 16 wherein the sensing device includes a microphone, which in a related art, Xu teaches (see Xu at [0056] which discloses that monitoring device 110 may be configured to monitor an area or a place (e.g., a road, a supermarket, a residential area, or a bank, etc.) to acquire data (e.g., imaging data, audio data, etc.), based on which an alert event may be identified. In some embodiments, monitoring device 110 may process the acquired data to identify the alert event, that in some embodiments, monitoring device 110 may send the acquired data to data processing device 120 that may further process the acquired data to identify the alert event, detailed description of which may be found elsewhere in the present disclosure. See, e.g., FIGS. 4A and 4B and the description thereof. Xu further discloses that as used herein, an alert event may refer to any accident or event for which an alert has been designated to render, that for example, when a road is monitored, exemplary alert events may include a speeding event, a traffic accident, a traffic congestion, or the like, or any combination thereof, and that monitoring device 110 may include at least one sensor, which may monitor events relating to one or more objects (e.g., a vehicle, a passenger, etc.) that appears in the area or place monitored by monitoring device 110, to detect the alert event. Xu further discloses that exemplary sensors may include a video sensor (e.g., a camera), an audio sensor (e.g., a microphone), a speed detector, or the like, or any combination thereof.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braverstock include wherein the sensing device includes a microphone, as taught by Xu.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to monitor an area or a place (e.g., a road, etc.) and to acquire data, based on which an alert event may be identified, as suggested by Xu at [0056].
Claims 16 and 18-20 are directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the system of claims 2 and 4-6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 2 and 4-6 teach the steps recited in the system of claims 16 and 18-20. Therefore, claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 2 and 4-6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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 on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights