DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are as previously presented.
This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 11/26/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/26/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 8 under the heading “III. Applicant’s Reply to the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art WO2021/199319A1 (Koga), US2019/0389487A1 (Gowda et al.), and US2017/0372431A1 (Perl et al.), as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2023/0373512A1 (Li et al.) and US2021/0293573A1 (Sofman et al.).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 9-10 under the heading “IV. Applicant’s Reply to the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments state that the system as claimed is a specific improvement over prior systems resulting in an improved user interface, and cites the Core Wireless case. However, the office submits that the claims of the instant invention are not analogous to those of the Core Wireless case. Particularly, the presenting of an incident alert is recited broadly, whereas the claims of the Core Wireless case were determined to improver a user interface based on a specific improvement of efficiency of navigation of applications. The office submits that the improvement to the present invention as argued is the abstract idea itself (i.e. improved decision-making which a human could perform) as opposed to a technological improvement of user interfaces. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 12-20 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. The claim(s) 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.
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, the claims recite “determining that the vehicle is tailgating when the distance is less than a threshold.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to recite such a limitation. The threshold distance recited in specification ¶0043 pertains to a blind spot warnings and a vehicle in another lane compared to the own vehicle, as opposed to a tailgating vehicle. The recitations of the tailgating vehicle in ¶0005, 0042, 0045, 0060, and 0068 do not appear to be characterized by any particular distance. Therefore, the subject matter 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.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 20, the plural uses of the term “vehicle” render the claims indefinite. The claims appear to describe operations of a first vehicle that detects and responds to a second vehicle / tailgating vehicle. However, terms in the claims such as “a vehicle route” do not distinguish which vehicle is being referred to. It is not clear whether the vehicle route is of the first vehicle or the tailgating vehicle or could be either of these, or some other vehicle. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. It is suggested to give the vehicles distinct names for additional clarity. For the purposes of examination, the “vehicle route” is interpreted as the route of the vehicle that has the sensors and is the leading vehicle (as opposed to the tailgating vehicle which is sensed).
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 (for Claims 2-11), or Claim 12 (for Claims 13-19) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Independent Claims 1, 12, and 20, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites: a system, comprising:
a display;
a plurality of vehicle sensors configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle;
input circuitry configured to receive:
risk factor information that indicates a risk factor condition, wherein the risk factor condition comprises a tailgating vehicle detected via the plurality of vehicle sensors; and
road hazard information that indicates a road hazard that is different than the risk factor condition; and
processing circuitry configured to:
determine whether the road hazard information indicates that the road hazard is present on a vehicle route;
in response to determining the road hazard is present, determine whether to present an incident alert based on the risk factor information; and
in response to determining to present the incident alert:
determining a time when to present the incident alert based on the risk factor information; and
present the incident alert on the display based on the determined time.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a human can mentally or manually receive risk factor information that indicates a risk factor condition, wherein the risk factor condition comprises a tailgating vehicle detected via the plurality of vehicle sensors (e.g. the person receiving printed risk information, including e.g. sensor data of distances which indicates a tailgating vehicle behind); and
road hazard information that indicates a road hazard that is different than the risk factor condition (the person receiving a list or map with locations of road hazards such as construction sites or a stranded/disabled vehicle); and
determine whether the road hazard information indicates that the road hazard is present on a vehicle route (e.g. evaluating a planned or memorized route and comparing to the road hazard data/map to make the determination);
in response to determining the road hazard is present, determine whether to present an incident alert based on the risk factor information (e.g. the person making a decision about whether it would be appropriate to present an alert based on an assessed amount of risk); and
in response to determining to present the incident alert:
determining a time when to present the incident alert based on the risk factor information (the person deciding to present an alert at a certain predicted time before encountering the hazards, or present it earlier based on how close the tailgating vehicle is).
Independent Claims 12 and 20 recite substantially the same functional limitations, and further recite determining that the vehicle is tailgating when the distance is less than a threshold distance, which is an abstract idea of a mental process as a person can perform such a comparison to make a determination/evaluation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Regarding Claim 1, the limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the system, comprising: a display; a plurality of vehicle sensors configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle; input circuitry, processing circuitry, and present the incident alert on the display based on the determined time.
For the display and the presenting of the incident alert on the display, this is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is a nominal addition to the claim which corresponds to mere data output. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g), activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity include: iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).).
For the plurality of vehicle sensors configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle, this is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because it corresponds to mere data gathering which is necessary to perform the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For the system comprising input circuitry and processing circuitry, these elements are recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 1, as above, the additional elements in the claim are the system, comprising: a display; a plurality of vehicle sensors configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle; input circuitry, processing circuitry, and present the incident alert on the display based on the determined time.
For the display and the presenting of the incident alert on the display which was determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, this is re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US-20080167804-A1, [0005] it is well known to display map information and routes and icons indicating delay incidents and additional alert information, in the art of vehicle navigation) which does not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
For the plurality of vehicle sensors configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle, which was determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, this is re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US-20050253693-A1, [0006]).
For the system comprising input circuitry and processing circuitry, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US-20080167804-A1, [0005-0006] and also MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination merely recites input and output of data from computer components at a high level of generality and is additionally well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US-20050253693-A1, [0005-0006]).
Independent Claim 12 recites only the additional element of the processing circuitry, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Independent Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having non-transitory computer-readable instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry perform the functions. However, this additional element is also a recitation of generic computer components and their use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-19 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2 and 13 recite determining a risk level and comparing the risk level to a threshold to determine whether to display the incident alert. This is a further function of the mental process, as a human can mentally decide a level of risk and compare it to a threshold to make the decision of whether an alert should be displayed. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 3 and 14 recite determining to present the incident alert at a first time or second earlier time based on the risk factor information indicating different risk levels. This is a further function of the mental process, as a human can mentally decide the time an alert should be given based on the risk factor indicating risk level. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 4-8 and 16-18 further narrow the road hazard or risk factor to a specific type of information. These claims only further detail the abstract idea of the mental process, as a human can mentally or manually receive (such as by being given written information) any of the recited information types. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claim 9 recites the risk factor being plural risk factors, and determining a total risk score using a weighted sum, and determining whether to present the incident alert or when to present the incident alert based on the total risk score. These function are all further function of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a human can receive plural pieces of data and perform a weighted sum to output a final total risk factor, used in decision-making. Alternatively, the weighted summation itself also can be categorized as the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claims 10 and 15 recites the total risk score corresponding to one of three thresholds wherein an icon or icon and alert or icon, alert, and alternative route are presented. The comparing of the total risk score to thresholds to decide what to output is a further function of the abstract idea of the mental process, capable of being performed by a person. The display of the recited information and the alerts represent additional elements in the claim, however, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is mere data output of the selected information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This is re-evaluated in step 2B, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea as it is determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US-20080167804-A1, at [0005] and US-20030046021-A1 at [0011]).
Claims 11 and 19 further recites a navigation interface configured to display a navigation map and the incident alert on the navigation map as an incident alert icon that indicates a type of incident alert. This represents an additional element in the claim, but is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 8-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2021/199319A1 (Koga)(English translation relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2019/0389487A1 (Gowda et al.), further in view of Published Application US2023/0373512A1 (Li et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Koga discloses a system, comprising:
a display (see [0016, 0022]);
a plurality of vehicle sensors configured to detect surroundings (see [0015]);
input circuitry (see [0014]) configured to receive:
risk factor information that indicates a risk factor condition (see [0020] acquire information about road ahead),
road hazard information that indicates a road hazard that is different than the risk factor condition (see [0018] speed of preceding vehicle indicative of traffic congestion ahead); and
processing circuitry (see [0014]) configured to:
determine whether the road hazard information indicates that the road hazard is present on a vehicle route (see [0018] whether traffic jam occurs on road ahead based on the speed information);
determining a time when to present the incident alert (see [0021] control of notification timing) based on the risk factor information (see [0021] based on the road information from S303); and
present the incident alert on the display based on the determined time (see [0022]).
Koga does not explicitly recite the plurality of vehicle sensors:
configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle;
and does not explicitly recite:
wherein the risk factor condition comprises a tailgating vehicle detected via the plurality of vehicle sensors.
However, Gowda et al. teaches a technique to evaluate risk factors in driving (see [0003, 0013] tailgating vehicle as danger factor in case the vehicle needs to stop), using a plurality of vehicle sensors (see [0026]):
configured to detect a presence and a distance of a vehicle (see [0026]);
wherein the risk factor condition comprises a tailgating vehicle detected via the plurality of vehicle sensors (see [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the risk factors of Koga to further include a tailgating vehicle as a risk condition as taught by Gowda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further improving safety and expanding the flexibility of the system to respond to additional conditions (see Gowda et al., [0003-0004]).
Koga does not explicitly recite the processing circuitry to:
in response to determining the road hazard is present, determine whether to present an incident alert based on the risk factor information; and
in response to determining to present the incident alert:
determining a time when to present the incident alert.
However, Li et al. teaches a technique to present incident alerts (see [0062, 0066] advance warning related to road hazard alerts such as congestion, on narrow road), wherein processing circuitry is configured to (see [0006-0009, 0020, 0322-0323, 0346]):
in response to determining the road hazard is present (see [0227-0228] intention to drive the road hazard), determine whether to present an incident alert (see [0237-0238]) based on the risk factor information (see [0229-0236] based on risk indicators); and
in response to determining to present the incident alert:
determining a time when to present the incident alert (see [0238] advance warning performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the alert system of Koga to include a decision about whether an alert is necessary or not, as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to accommodate further road hazards and risk factors and improving driving safety and convenience (see Li et al., [0035]).
Regarding Claim 2, Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to present the incident alert by:
determining a risk level based on one or both of the risk factor information and the road hazard information; and
comparing the risk level to a threshold that is used to determine whether to present the incident alert.
However, Li et al. teaches the technique as above, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to present the incident alert by:
determining a risk level based on one or both of the risk factor information and the road hazard information; and
comparing the risk level to a threshold that is used to determine whether to present the incident alert.
The motivation to combine Koga and Li et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Koga discloses the system of claim 1, wherein when the risk factor information indicates a first risk level, the processing circuitry is configured to determine the time when to present the incident alert as a first time (see [0021] notification timing controlled, e.g. [0027] for the case when there is no curve as the risk level indicated by the risk factor) and wherein when the risk factor information indicates a second higher risk level (see [0027] when there is a curve), the processing circuitry is configured to determine the time when to present the incident alert as a second time that is earlier than the first time (see [0027] notification timing is controlled to be earlier).
Regarding Claim 4, Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 1, wherein the road hazard comprises one or more of a road closure, construction, lane restriction, disabled vehicle, or car crash.
However, Li et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the road hazard comprises one or more of a road closure, construction, lane restriction (see [0226-0228] narrow road, i.e. restriction of the lane width), disabled vehicle, or car crash.
The motivation to combine Koga and Li et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Koga discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the risk factor condition further comprises environmental conditions comprising road geometry (see [0020] curvature information of the road) and traffic obstructions (see [0043] frozen road. Note: the plain and ordinary definition of obstruct including “to hinder from passage, action, or operation”).
Regarding Claim 8, Koga discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the risk factor condition further comprises driver behavior information comprising average braking reaction time, steering wheel adjustments, or driver distraction (see [0032]), or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 9, Koga discloses wherein the risk factor information comprises a plurality of risk factors (see [0045]).
Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine a total risk score as a weighted summation of each of the plurality of risk factors and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to present the incident alert or when to present the incident alert based on the total risk score.
However, Li et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine a total risk score as a weighted summation of each of the plurality of risk factors (see [0230, 0236] risk index as weighted sum) and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to present the incident alert (see [0237-0240], using the risk index to determine whether the warning is required) or when to present the incident alert based on the total risk score (see [0237-0240], using risk index to determine advance warning required, i.e. timeframe for presenting being early).
The motivation to combine Koga and Li et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 9, wherein the incident alert comprises a risk level that corresponds to the total risk score, wherein the risk level comprises one of:
a first risk level, wherein an incident alert icon is presented on the display;
a second risk level, wherein the incident alert icon is presented on the display and an alert is presented; or a third risk level, wherein the incident alert icon, the alert, and an alternate route is presented on the display.
However, Li et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the incident alert comprises a risk level that corresponds to the total risk score (see [0236-0240] risk index above or below a threshold being a risk level that corresponds to the total score/weighted sum), wherein the risk level comprises one of:
a first risk level (see [0238] for the risk level where risk index is greater than the threshold), wherein an incident alert icon is presented on the display (see [0250], Figure 8B, display with darkened region which (see Figure 15) is an icon representing the dangerous point);
a second risk level, wherein the incident alert icon is presented on the display and an alert is presented; or
a third risk level, wherein the incident alert icon, the alert, and an alternate route is presented on the display.
The motivation to combine Koga and Li et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 1, wherein the display is configured to display a navigation map and the incident alert on the navigation map as an incident alert icon that indicates a type of incident alert.
However, Li et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the display is configured to display a navigation map and the incident alert on the navigation map as an incident alert icon that indicates a type of incident alert (see Figure 8B, navigation map displayed with darkened region and see Figure 15, being an icon which represents narrow road type point as opposed to congestion).
The motivation to combine Koga and Li et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Koga discloses a method for detecting road hazards (see Figure 3), comprising:
detecting using a plurality of sensors of a vehicle surroundings (see [0015]);
receiving (a) risk factor information that indicates a risk factor condition (see [0020] acquire information about road ahead) and (b) road hazard information that indicates a road hazard that is different than the risk factor condition (see [0018] speed of preceding vehicle indicative of traffic congestion ahead),
determining, using processing circuitry (see [0014]), whether the road hazard information indicates that the road hazard is present on a vehicle route (see [0018] whether traffic jam occurs on road ahead based on the speed information);
determining a time when to present the incident alert (see [0021] control of notification timing) based on the risk factor information (see [0021] based on the road information from S303);
and presenting the incident alert on a display at the determined time (see [0022]).
Koga does not explicitly recite the method comprising:
detecting using a plurality of sensors of a vehicle a presence and distance of a vehicle
determining that the vehicle is tailgating when the distance is less than a threshold distance;
wherein the risk factor condition comprises the tailgating vehicle.
However, Gowda et al. teaches a technique to evaluate risk factors in driving (see [0003, 0013] tailgating vehicle as danger factor in case the vehicle needs to stop), comprising:
detecting using a plurality of sensors of a vehicle a presence and distance of a vehicle (see [0026]);
determining that the vehicle is tailgating when the distance is less than a threshold distance (see [0026]);
wherein the risk factor condition comprises the tailgating vehicle (see [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the risk factors of Koga to further include a tailgating vehicle as a risk condition as taught by Gowda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further improving safety and expanding the flexibility of the system to respond to additional conditions (see Gowda et al., [0003-0004]).
Koga does not explicitly recite:
in response to determining the road hazard is present, determining, using the processing circuitry, whether to present an incident alert based on the risk factor information; and
in response to determining to present the incident alert:
determining a time when to present the incident alert.
However, Li et al. teaches a technique to present incident alerts (see [0062, 0066] advance warning related to road hazard alerts such as congestion, on narrow road), comprising:
in response to determining the road hazard is present (see [0227-0228] intention to drive the road hazard), determining, using the processing circuitry (see [0006-0009, 0020, 0322-0323, 0346]) whether to present an incident alert (see [0237-0238]) based on the risk factor information (see [0229-0236] based on risk indicators); and
in response to determining to present the incident alert:
determining a time when to present the incident alert (see [0238] advance warning performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the alert system of Koga to include a decision about whether an alert is necessary or not, as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to accommodate further road hazards and risk factors and improving driving safety and convenience (see Li et al., [0035]).
Regarding Claims 13-16 and 20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 2, 3, 10, 4, and 12 respectively. Claims 13-16 pertain to a method corresponding to the apparatus of Claims 2, 3, 10, and 4 respectively. Claim 20 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 12. Claims 13-16 and 20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 2, 3, 10, 4, and 12, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2021/199319A1 (Koga)(English translation relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2019/0389487A1 (Gowda et al.), further in view of Published Application US2023/0373512A1 (Li et al.), further in view of Publication US2021/0293573A1 (Sofman et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Koga discloses wherein the risk factor condition further comprises weather conditions, comprising fire, rainstorm, dust storm, hail, snowstorm, ice storm, icy road (see [0043]), heavy wind, or fog, or a combination thereof, based on a current position of the vehicle (see [0043] captured by vehicle camera).
Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 1, wherein the risk factor condition further comprises hyperlocal weather conditions, comprising fire, rainstorm, dust storm, hail, snowstorm, ice storm, icy road, heavy wind, or fog, or a combination thereof, based on a current position of the vehicle.
However, Sofman et al. teaches a technique for risk calculation for driving (see [0022]),
wherein the risk factor condition (see [0159] adverse weather risk factor based on weather conditions) further comprises hyperlocal weather conditions (see [0158] weather conditions being hyperlocal), comprising fire, rainstorm (see [0090, 0094]), dust storm, hail (see [0117]), snowstorm (see [0090, 0094, 0095]), ice storm, icy road, heavy wind, or fog (see [0094]), or a combination thereof, based on a current position of the vehicle (see [0090] can be for exact GPS location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the risk factor information of Koga to further include a weather condition risk factor as taught by Sofman et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to predict risk for additional conditions, and improve performance of any autonomy systems in the vehicle (see Sofman et al., [0003]).
Regarding Claim 18, Koga does not explicitly recite the method of claim 12, wherein the risk factor condition further comprises hyperlocal weather conditions determined based on a current position of the vehicle.
However, Sofman et al. teaches a technique for risk calculation for driving (see [0022]),
wherein the risk factor condition (see [0159] adverse weather risk factor based on weather conditions) further comprises hyperlocal weather conditions (see [0158] weather conditions being hyperlocal) determined based on a current position of the vehicle (see [0090] can be for exact GPS location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the risk factor information of Koga to further include a hyperlocal weather condition risk factor as taught by Sofman et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to predict risk for additional conditions, and improve performance of any autonomy systems in the vehicle (see Sofman et al., [0003]).
Regarding Claim 19, Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 18, wherein presenting the incident alert on the display comprises displaying, on the display, a navigation map and the incident alert on the navigation map as an incident alert icon that indicates a type of incident alert.
However, Li et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein presenting the incident alert on the display comprises displaying, on the display, a navigation map and the incident alert on the navigation map as an incident alert icon that indicates a type of incident alert (see Figure 8B, navigation map displayed with darkened region and see Figure 15, being an icon which represents narrow road type point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of the alert of Koga to include the map display as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driver awareness.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2021/199319A1 (Koga)(English translation relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2019/0389487A1 (Gowda et al.), further in view of Published Application US2023/0373512A1 (Li et al.), further in view of Publication US2017/0372431A1 (Perl et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Koga discloses wherein the risk factor condition further comprises visibility (see [0028]).
Koga does not explicitly recite the system of claim 1, wherein the risk factor condition further comprises vehicle state information comprising at least one of tire wear, brake wear, accelerator pedal position, or windshield clarity.
However, Perl et al. teaches a way visibility can be known, based on:
vehicle state information comprising at least one of tire wear, brake wear, accelerator pedal position, or windshield clarity (see [0039] visibility through windscreens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the risk factors (which can be for visibility) of Koga to include windscreen data as taught by Perl et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to determine risk factors in additional ways.
Regarding Claim 17, Koga discloses wherein the risk factor condition further comprises environmental conditions (see [0043]).
Koga further discloses wherein the risk factor condition further comprises visibility (see [0028]).
Koga does not explicitly recite the method of claim 12, wherein the risk factor condition further comprises vehicle state information.
However, Perl et al. teaches a way visibility can be known, based on:
vehicle state information (see [0039] visibility through windscreens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the risk factors (which can be for visibility) of Koga to include windscreen data as taught by Perl et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to determine risk factors in additional ways.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669