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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Giovanardi (US 2022/0324421) in view of Sofman (US 2021/0293573), Nagarajan (US 2020/0356100)
As to claim 1 Giovanardi discloses a method performed by a server, the method comprising:
identifying a first vehicle and a second vehicle traveling on a roadway (Paragraph 134 “A measured road profile may be transmitted to a server each time a vehicle traverses the road segment, such that a plurality of vehicles may transmit a plurality of measured road profiles to the server.”).
identifying an effect of the condition on the first vehicle before the first vehicle enters the second segment(Paragraph 151 “The cloud computing system 106 is configured to determine (120), using the road profile 108, and vehicle information 110, a recommended vehicle operating parameter for traversing at least a portion of an upcoming road segment, an upcoming road event, etc. The recommended vehicle operating parameter may be calculated (120) in the cloud computing system 106 using previous road data (e.g., road condition information, road event information, etc.) from other vehicles that previously drove on the upcoming road segment (or from the present vehicle's previous traversals of the upcoming road segment), which may be contained in the database information 114.”); and
modifying a functionality of the first vehicle based on the effect(Paragraph 151 “The cloud computing system 106 is configured to determine (120), using the road profile 108, and vehicle information 110, a recommended vehicle operating parameter for traversing at least a portion of an upcoming road segment, an upcoming road event, etc. The recommended vehicle operating parameter may be calculated (120) in the cloud computing system 106 using previous road data (e.g., road condition information, road event information, etc.) from other vehicles that previously drove on the upcoming road segment (or from the present vehicle's previous traversals of the upcoming road segment), which may be contained in the database information 114.”).
Giovanardi does not explicitly disclose in response to identifying a first segment of the roadway that corresponds to a current location of the first vehicle, receiving sensor information form the second vehicle, which is currently traveling on a second segment of the roadway that is located further down the roadway in a direction of travel of the first vehicle than the first segment
Sofman teaches in response to identifying a first segment of the roadway that corresponds to a current location of the first vehicle, receiving sensor information form the second vehicle, which is currently traveling on a second segment of the roadway that is located further down the roadway in a direction of travel of the first vehicle than the first segment (Paragraph 99-100 “In another example embodiment, the predicted weather data could be received from a second vehicle (e.g., a lead/preceding vehicle). Specifically, the computing system 112 can identify that the second vehicle has travelled, or is travelling, in one or more potential route segments ahead of, and within a predetermined distance from, a current location of the vehicle 100…..In an additional example embodiment, the weather station server could gather weather data from the second vehicle. For example, while travelling, the second vehicle could have gathered data regarding its environment, such as weather data that it is travelling through. The weather station server could query the second vehicle for gathered weather data, or a second vehicle computing system could automatically send gathered weather data to the weather station server. The weather station server can use the gathered weather data from the second vehicle as well as weather forecasts to make weather predictions for the computing system 112 to receive.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Giovanardi to include the teachings of using sensor information form a second vehicle that is currently traveling down the road form the first vehicle for the purpose of getting accurate information of the potential hazards along the route for the vehicle.
Giovanardi does not explicitly disclose increasing a length of one or more of the first segment or the second segment in response to one or more of the first segment or the second segment being visible to multiple other segments in the direction of travel
Nagarajan teaches increasing a length of one or more of the first segment or the second segment in response to one or more of the first segment or the second segment being visible to multiple other segments in the direction of travel (Paragraph 52 “In such a scenario, the map server 102 may downgrade the autonomy level of the second route segment from 5 to 3. In another example, the current autonomy levels set for a first route segment, a second route segment, and a third route segment are 3, 3, and 3, and the autonomous vehicle 110 is currently traversing along the first route segment. The map server 102 receives the real-time weather information and determines that the second route segment and the third route segment have pleasant weather conditions with a light intensity greater than a minimum threshold value with no fog. Also, route visibility is more than what is required for driving along the second route segment and the third route segment. In such a scenario, the map server 102 may upgrade the autonomy level of the second route segment and the third route segment from 3 and 3 to 5 and 4, respectively.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Giovanardi to include the teachings of increasing the lengths of the road segments to multiple segments in the direction of travel based on the visibility for the purpose of providing safe driving to the vehicle.
As to claim 2 Giovanardi in view of Sofman and Nagarajan teaches a method comprising,
determining the segment length for the first segment and the second segment based on a posted speed limit in the first segment and the second segment (Paragraph 120);
increasing the segment length for segments with visibility to multiple other segments in the direction of travel(Paragraph 120); and
decreasing the length of one or more of the first segment or the second segment in response to the one or more of the first segment or the second segment being visible to less than all of a next other segment in the direction of travel (Nagarajan Paragraph 52).
As to claim 4 Giovanardi discloses a method wherein the modifying of the functionality of the first vehicle comprises:
determining one or more mitigation options for the first vehicle based on the effect(Paragraph 151);
selecting one of the one or more mitigation options(Paragraph 151); and
modifying the functionality of the first vehicle based on the one or more mitigation options selected (Paragraph 151).
As to claim 6 Giovanardi discloses a method comprising:
receiving an indication that the first vehicle has transitioned form the first segment to the second segment (Paragraph 8);
identifying a change in an intended action of the first vehicle, based on the first vehicle having transitioned (Paragraph 8); and
modifying an operation of the first vehicle on the change in the intended action (Paragraph 8).
As to claim 7 Giovanardi discloses a method comprising:
determining that safety mitigation is not currently available in the second segment (Paragraph 70);
obtaining data from the second vehicle in the second segment (Paragraph 151); and
determining an alternate safety mitigation based on the data that was obtained (Paragraph 151).
As to claim 8 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 9 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovanardi (US 2022/0324421) in view of Sofman (US 2021/0293573), Nagarajan (US 2020/0356100) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Stenneth (US 2023/0017376)
As to claim 5 Stenneth teaches a method comprising:
identifying that the second vehicle has directly observed an incident in the second segment (Paragraph 33);
requesting data related to the incident form the second vehicle(Paragraph 33); and
identifying an effect on the first vehicle based on the data related to the incident(Paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to obtain data of the incident form a second vehicle for the purpose of improving safety and efficiency by having knowledge of the upcoming vehicle hazard event.
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2,4-9,11-16,18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or 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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights