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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments received 05-11-2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 15 were previously cancelled.
Claims 23-24 are new.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20, and 23-24 are currently pending.
The official correspondence below is an after non-final on an RCE.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-23-2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 17 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle; in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle” of the independent claims
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (US 20130261949 A1) in view of Le (US 20130181860 A1), in further view of Konstantinovich (US 20210129866 A1), and in further view of Bushnell (US 20120209457 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Eriksson discloses, obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected (Eriksson: [0060]; [ABS]; [FIG. 1]; [FIG. 2]); wherein the analytics data comprises: vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018] involve using on-board sensors of active or passive); vehicle speed; vehicle acceleration; vehicle specifications; vehicle maneuver capabilities; a non-vehicle object shape; non-vehicle object dimensions; a non-vehicle object image data; a non-vehicle object type; a non-vehicle object velocity; a non-vehicle object acceleration; and a non-vehicle object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0010]; [0017-0018]; [0037]); detecting, based on the analytics data by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0060-0061]) a collision event within a vehicle-object pair (Eriksson: [0060-0061]); determining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, trajectory adjustment information for a vehicle in the vehicle-object pair involved in the collision event (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0062]), over a communications network (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0062]) and in real-time (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0062]).
Eriksson does not explicitly disclose, determining a field of view of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle; providing vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated based on the field of view that is determined; and the vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Le discloses, determining a field of view of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (Le: [0024] FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional blind spot detection system (BSD) 100a employed in a host vehicle 150 with a left side blind spot 102a, and a right side blind spot 104a. Such spots include areas that do not fall directly in the driver's line of sight, and in many cases are not visible through the rear view mirrors as well. Blind spot detection systems currently employed in vehicles detect the presence of objects in the specified spots through radar waves transmitted through sensors 106a. The radar waves are configured to cover a field of view at a predefined angle and within a predefined distance from the host vehicle 150. Such detection systems function to alert the driver and/or in-vehicle systems to respond according to the detected presence of an object, in either of the blind spots) in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle (Le: [0025] Some blind spot detection systems with longer rearward object detection ranges provide lane change assist system (LCA) for the host vehicle 150); providing vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated based on the field of view that is determined (Le: [0038] Based on the approach vector 508a, the detected positions 502a and 504a, and through a timer (not shown) configured within the RCM 312, certain requisite aspects of the target object impact may be established, such as a likelihood of impact, relative direction of impact, expected impact location; [0043] It is possible for a target object to approach the host vehicle 150 on a collision-course from the right-rear quadrant, and therefore be detected by the remote sensor 304 covering the blind-spot detection zone in that quadrant. Similar tracking and vector calculations); and the vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated (Le: [0038] Based on the approach vector 508a, the detected positions 502a and 504a, and through a timer (not shown) configured within the RCM 312, certain requisite aspects of the target object impact may be established, such as a likelihood of impact, relative direction of impact, expected impact location; [0043] It is possible for a target object to approach the host vehicle 150 on a collision-course from the right-rear quadrant, and therefore be detected by the remote sensor 304 covering the blind-spot detection zone in that quadrant. Similar tracking and vector calculations), for the benefit of deploying safety maneuvering and in-vehicle safety systems upon the object crossing a calculated threshold of distance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include determining FOV, LOS, and location of threat vehicles taught by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to deploying safety maneuvering and in-vehicle safety systems upon the object crossing a calculated threshold of distance.
Eriksson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption; and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konstantinovich discloses, minimizing trajectory direction change (Konstantinovich: [0018] a speed profile (a set of velocity and acceleration values within predetermined time intervals) minimizing the in-lane jerks associated therewith, and then, selecting the most jerk-efficient option for planning the SDV trajectory portion associated with an in-lane movement; [0147]) and fuel consumption (Konstantinovich: [0165] the processor 110 causes the vehicle 220 to perform the most jerk-efficient in-lane transition from the initial state to the first candidate target state, by the target moment in time t.sub.T, based on the determined energy efficiency scores 714 and 724 ... the processor 110 causes the vehicle 220 to perform the lane change such that the vehicle 220, during the in-lane movement, would drive along the most fuel-efficient transition from the initial state; and during the transverse movement, would finish the lane change safely avoiding a collision with the obstacle 302; [0168]; [0206]); and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value (Konstantinovich: [0018] a speed profile (a set of velocity and acceleration values within predetermined time intervals) minimizing the in-lane jerks associated therewith, and then, selecting the most jerk-efficient option for planning the SDV trajectory portion associated with an in-lane movement; [0147]), wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle (Konstantinovich: [0018] a speed profile (a set of velocity and acceleration values within predetermined time intervals) minimizing the in-lane jerks associated therewith, and then, selecting the most jerk-efficient option for planning the SDV trajectory portion associated with an in-lane movement; [0147]), for the benefit of executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include efficiency scores and fuel efficient transitions to avoid a collision taught by Konstantinovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
Eriksson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value, wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bushnell discloses, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value (Bushnell: [0045]; [0053-0058]; [0063]; [0100-0101]; Also see at least [0107-0110], [FIG. 3 and 4], and [FIG. 18(1800-1806)]), wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity (Bushnell: [0277-0281]; [0318]), for the benefit of substantially maintaining the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include closest point of approach (CPA) and zero miss taught by Bushnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to substantially maintain the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bushnell also discloses, determining that the zero-effort miss value or the time value do not satisfy a safety threshold (Bushnell: [FIG. 18(1808)]; see paragraphs cited above (claim 1)).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bushnell also discloses, the determining the trajectory adjustments are based on the selected trajectory adjustment approach (Bushnell: [0067]; [0070]).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the vehicles in the vehicle-object pair are traveling in a same direction (Eriksson: [0060]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, generating a data structure identifying a plurality of vehicle-object pairs for vehicles and objects connected to or detected by the centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0016-0019]; [0062]); and detecting collision events within each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs identified in the data structure (Eriksson: [0060-0062]); determining respective trajectory adjustments for respective vehicles in each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting the respective trajectory adjustments causing the respective vehicles to modify trajectories (Eriksson: [0016]; [0019]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the trajectory adjustment information comprises at least one of: a change in vehicle speed; a change in vehicle travel direction; guidance vectors; navigation data; and vehicle propulsion control instructions (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Eriksson discloses, obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected (Eriksson: [0060]; [ABS]; [FIG. 1]; [FIG. 2]), wherein the analytics data comprises vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018]); vehicle speed; vehicle acceleration; vehicle specifications; vehicle maneuver capabilities; object shape; object dimensions; object image data; object type; object velocity; object acceleration; and object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0010]; [0037]); detecting, based on the analytics data by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]) a collision event within a vehicle-object pair (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]), determining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, trajectory adjustment information for a vehicle in the vehicle-object pair involved in the collision event (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); outputting, over a communications network (Eriksson: [0062]) and in real-time by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0062]), the trajectory adjustment information to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
Eriksson does not explicitly disclose, determining a field of view of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle; providing vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated based on the field of view that is determined; and the vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Le discloses, determining a field of view of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (Le: [0024]) in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle (Le: [0025]); providing vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated based on the field of view that is determined (Le: [0038]; [0043]); and the vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated (Le: [0038]; [0043]), for the benefit of deploying in-vehicle safety systems upon the object crossing a calculated threshold of distance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include determining FOV, LOS, and location of threat vehicles taught by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to deploying safety maneuvering and in-vehicle safety systems upon the object crossing a calculated threshold of distance.
Eriksson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption; and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konstantinovich discloses, minimizing trajectory direction change (Konstantinovich: [0018]; [0147]) and fuel consumption (Konstantinovich: [0165]; [0168]; [0206]); and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value (Konstantinovich: [0018]; [0147]), wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle (Konstantinovich: [0018]; [0147]), for the benefit of executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include efficiency scores and fuel efficient transitions to avoid a collision taught by Konstantinovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
Eriksson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value, wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bushnell discloses, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value (Bushnell: [0045]; [0053-0058]; [0063]; [0100-0101]; Also see at least [0107-0110], [FIG. 3 and 4], and [FIG. 18(1800-1806)]), wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity (Bushnell: [0277-0281]; [0318]), for the benefit of substantially maintaining the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include closest point of approach (CPA) and zero miss taught by Bushnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to substantially maintain the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Bushnell also discloses, determining that the zero-effort miss value or the time value do not satisfy a safety threshold (Bushnell: [FIG. 18(1808)]; see paragraphs cited above (claim 1)).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Bushnell also discloses, the operations further comprise selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the determining the trajectory adjustments are based on the selected trajectory adjustment approach (Bushnell: [0067]; [0070]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the vehicles in the vehicle-object pair are traveling in a same direction (Eriksson: [0060]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Eriksson also discloses, generating a data structure identifying a plurality of vehicle-object pairs for vehicles and objects connected to or detected by the centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0016-0019]; [0062]); and detecting collision events within each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs identified in the data structure (Eriksson: [0060-0062]); determining respective trajectory adjustments for respective vehicles in each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting the respective trajectory adjustments cause the respective vehicles to modify trajectories (Eriksson: [0016]; [0019]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the trajectory adjustment information comprises at least one of a change in vehicle speed; a change in vehicle travel direction; guidance vectors; navigation data; and vehicle propulsion control instructions (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Eriksson discloses, a processor, a computer readable memory, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Eriksson: [0057-0058]) associated with a computing device of a ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, and program instructions executable by the computing device (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061) to cause the computing device to perform operations comprising: obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected (Eriksson: [0060]; [ABS]; [FIG. 1]; [FIG. 2]), wherein the analytics data comprises vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018]); vehicle speed; vehicle acceleration; vehicle specifications; vehicle maneuver capabilities; object shape; object dimensions; object image data; object type; object velocity; object acceleration; and object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0010]; [0037]); detecting, based on the analytics data by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]) a collision event within a vehicle-object pair (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]), determining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, trajectory adjustment information for a vehicle in the vehicle-object pair involved in the collision event (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); outputting, over a communications network (Eriksson: [0062]) and in real-time by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0062]), the trajectory adjustment information to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
Eriksson does not explicitly disclose, determining a field of view of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle; providing vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated based on the field of view that is determined; and the vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Le discloses, determining a field of view of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (Le: [0024]) in relation to a propulsion system of each vehicle (Le: [0025]); providing vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated based on the field of view that is determined (Le: [0038]; [0043]); and the vectors indicative of a direction and a position in which sensor readings are associated (Le: [0038]; [0043]), for the benefit of deploying in-vehicle safety systems upon the object crossing a calculated threshold of distance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include determining FOV, LOS, and location of threat vehicles taught by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to deploying safety maneuvering and in-vehicle safety systems upon the object crossing a calculated threshold of distance.
Eriksson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption; and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konstantinovich discloses, minimizing trajectory direction change (Konstantinovich: [0018]; [0147]) and fuel consumption (Konstantinovich: [0165]; [0168]; [0206]); and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value (Konstantinovich: [0018]; [0147]), wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle (Konstantinovich: [0018]; [0147]), for the benefit of executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include efficiency scores and fuel efficient transitions to avoid a collision taught by Konstantinovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
Eriksson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value, wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bushnell discloses, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value (Bushnell: [0045]; [0053-0058]; [0063]; [0100-0101]; Also see at least [0107-0110], [FIG. 3 and 4], and [FIG. 18(1800-1806)]), wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity (Bushnell: [0277-0281]; [0318]), for the benefit of substantially maintaining the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include closest point of approach (CPA) and zero miss taught by Bushnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to substantially maintain the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Bushnell also discloses, determining the collision event comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value; and determining that the zero-effort miss value or the time value do not satisfy a safety threshold (Bushnell: [FIG. 18(1808)]; see paragraphs cited above (claim 1)).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Bushnell also discloses, selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the determining the trajectory adjustments are based on the selected trajectory adjustment approach (Bushnell: [0067]; [0070]).
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the vehicles in the vehicle-object pair are traveling in a same direction (Eriksson: [0060]).
REGARDING CLAIM 23, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Bushnell also discloses, forecasted trajectories of each of the plurality of vehicles, velocities of each of the plurality of vehicles, and accelerations of each of the plurality of vehicles (Bushnell: [ABS] A method and apparatus for managing separation between vehicles. A closest point of approach between a first vehicle traveling along a first path and a second vehicle traveling along a second path is predicted; [0046] As depicted, separation management module 112 identifies first path 116 for first aircraft 104 and second path 118 for second aircraft 105. First path 116 may be a first flight path for first aircraft 104. Second path 118 may be a second flight path for second aircraft 105. In these illustrative examples, the information used in identifying a path for a vehicle may include at least one of a velocity, a speed, a heading, a direction of travel, a position, an orientation, an attitude, a route, a course, a turn rate, a climb rate, and other suitable information for the vehicle. A velocity is a measurement of a rate and direction of change of a position for a vehicle. In this manner, velocity includes both magnitude and direction for the change in the position of the vehicle. The magnitude of the velocity is the speed of the vehicle; [0092]; [0097]).
REGARDING CLAIM 24, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Bushnell also discloses, forecasted trajectories of each of the plurality of vehicles, velocities of each of the plurality of vehicles, and accelerations of each of the plurality of vehicles (Bushnell: [ABS] A method and apparatus for managing separation between vehicles. A closest point of approach between a first vehicle traveling along a first path and a second vehicle traveling along a second path is predicted; [0046] As depicted, separation management module 112 identifies first path 116 for first aircraft 104 and second path 118 for second aircraft 105. First path 116 may be a first flight path for first aircraft 104. Second path 118 may be a second flight path for second aircraft 105. In these illustrative examples, the information used in identifying a path for a vehicle may include at least one of a velocity, a speed, a heading, a direction of travel, a position, an orientation, an attitude, a route, a course, a turn rate, a climb rate, and other suitable information for the vehicle. A velocity is a measurement of a rate and direction of change of a position for a vehicle. In this manner, velocity includes both magnitude and direction for the change in the position of the vehicle. The magnitude of the velocity is the speed of the vehicle; [0092]; [0097]).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (US 20130261949 A1) in view of Le (US 20130181860 A1), and in further view of Konstantinovich (US 20210129866 A1) and Bushnell (US 20120209457 A1) as applied above to claims 5 and 13, and further in view of Bogovich (US 8606512 B1).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Eriksson as modified remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Eriksson as modified do not explicitly disclose, storing information regarding the detected collision events in a collision event report, wherein the detecting the collision events is based on the collision event report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bogovich discloses, “(Col. 7, Ln. 47-49); (Col. 8, Ln. 19-37)”, for the benefit of creating analytical and predictive models.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method, system, and computer program disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include storing collision reports taught by Bogovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to creating analytical and predictive models.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 13, and further, Eriksson as modified do not explicitly disclose the operations further comprise storing information regarding the detected collision events in a collision event report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bogovich discloses, “(Col. 7, Ln. 47-49); (Col. 8, Ln. 19-37)”, for the benefit of creating analytical and predictive models.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method, system, and computer program disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include storing collision reports taught by Bogovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to creating analytical and predictive models.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, received 05-11-2026, beginning on page 9, with respect to rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights