DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2023 and 03/31/2023 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 claim 1, the limitation of “determining the first navigation signals have a signal quality below a threshold of acceptable operation” is unclear to the examiner, specifically the term “acceptable operation”. It is unclear to the examiner what comprises a signal quality of “acceptable operation” since the claim references an object (i.e. “acceptable”) that is variable and renders the claim indefinite. Does a signal quality of acceptable operation include signal qualities that can barely control a vehicle but in an unsafe manner? As currently presented, the claim fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. The examiner will interpret “acceptable operation” as a vehicle using the signals so that it can operate autonomously. The same rational applies to independent claims 11 and 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claims 1, 11, and 17 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited 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
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A system, located on a first vehicle operating in at least a partially autonomous manner, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a signal detection component configured to determine a signal quality of first navigation signals received at the first vehicle, wherein the first navigation signals are received from a first external system; and in response to determining the first navigation signals have a signal quality below a threshold of acceptable operation, generate an instruction for the first vehicle to operate utilizing second navigation signals generated by at least one onboard sensor
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation “determine a signal quality of first navigation signals received at the first vehicle” in the context of the claim encompasses the user analyzing data, and looking at the quality of the received signal (e.g. how many signal bars does the GPS have?), which recites a mental process, since analyzing data can be done in the mind. Furthermore, the limitation “and in response to determining the first navigation signals have a signal quality below a threshold of acceptable operation, generate an instruction for the first vehicle to operate utilizing second navigation signals generated by at least one onboard sensor” in the context of the claim encompasses the user generating an instruction (i.e. verbal, written, etc..) based on the signals being low quality. Generating an instruction can be done verbally or by writing on a piece of paper and therefore recites a mental process. Since this limitation can be done in the mind, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claims 11 and 17, wherein further switching navigation of the vehicle based on the signals can be done as an instruction from the user, which recites a mental process as recited above.
Claim 2:
wherein the signal quality of the first navigation signals being below the threshold of acceptable operation is a function of occlusion of the first navigation signals due to the first vehicle driving in a tunnel.
Regarding claim 2, the signal quality being below a threshold due to a vehicle driving in a tunnel does not further limit the abstract idea, and therefore claim 2 further recites a mental process, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 12 and 18.
Claim 3:
further comprising an incident component configured to detect the first vehicle stopping.
Regarding claim 3, detecting a first vehicle stopping in the context of the claim can be done via a user’s mind, since a user can detect that a vehicle is decelerating. Therefore, claim 3 further recites a mental process, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
wherein the first vehicle has stopped as a result of the first vehicle being involved in a collision, while the first vehicle was being driven in a self-navigating mode.
Regarding claim 4, the result of how the first vehicle stopped (i.e. involved in a collision) does not further limit the abstract idea, and therefore claim 4 further recites a mental process, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
wherein the incident component is further configured to generate a status report, the status report includes information regarding at least one of model type of the first vehicle, license plate number of the first vehicle, a situation report of the first vehicle, a location of the first vehicle, a contact, a contact telephone number, or information regarding an occupant of the first vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, the specifics of the status report that is generated (i.e. in the context of the claim, encompasses the user writing the status report) does not further limit the abstract idea, and therefore claim 5 further recites a mental process, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
further comprising a communication component configured to establish communication with an external communication system, wherein the external communication system is located on a second vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, establishing communication with an external communication system can be done in the mind (i.e. communicating with somebody or an entity can be done by a user via written or dialogue), and therefore claim 6 further recites a mental process, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 8:
wherein the communication component is further configured to instruct the external communication system on the second vehicle to forward the status report to a second external system.
Regarding claim 8, making an instruction in the context of the claim encompasses a user writing down an instruction, which is a step that can be done mentally, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 13:
determining, by a second onboard sensor, that the vehicle has stopped; in response to determining that the vehicle has stopped, generating a status report detailing a current situation of the vehicle, wherein the current situation is one of: the vehicle is unable to drive with an acceptable level of safety while navigating with the second signals; or the vehicle is involved in a collision.
Regarding claim 13, the determination that the vehicle has stopped can be done via a user’s mind and therefore recites a mental process. Generating a report can be done via a user writing down a report detailing the current situation of the vehicle. Since a report can be generated via a user, this step is a mental process and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 14:
wherein the status report is configured to be transmitted, via an external communication service, to at least one entity, wherein the entity is one of an insurance company, a medical service, a highway patrol, an emergency contact, a global navigation satellite system, or a global positioning system, wherein the status report includes an identifier identifying the entity to receive the status report
Regarding claim 14, transmitting a status report to an entity can be done via a user’s voice, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 15:
identifying a second vehicle within communication range of the vehicle, wherein the second vehicle includes an onboard communication system configured to communicate with the external communication service; transmitting the combination of status report and identifier to the second vehicle; instructing the second vehicle to transmit the status report to the external communication system; and instructing the second vehicle to transmit a transmission success notification to the vehicle in response to the second vehicle successfully transmitting the status report to the external communication service
Regarding claim 15, the process of identifying a second vehicle can be done via a user’s eyes (i.e. identifying), and transmitting the status report can be done via a user’s voice. Making an instruction can also be generated via a user writing down instruction, and therefore, these limitations can be done in the human mind, and is therefore directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 16:
further comprising: determining the vehicle has an occupant; and requesting the occupant operates the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, this limitation in the context of the claim can be done by another use that determines that the vehicle has an occupant, and requesting the occupant to operate the vehicle. Since this can be done via a user’s eyes and voice, then this limitation is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 19:
determine the vehicle has stopped in a road tunnel, wherein the vehicle has stopped owing to: the vehicle is no longer able to navigate the road tunnel in the at least partially autonomous; or the vehicle is involved in a collision inside the road tunnel.
Regarding claim 19, a user can determine that the vehicle has stopped in a road tunnel (i.e. via identifying the surroundings) and the user can determine why the vehicle has stopped (i.e. collision). Therefore, this limitation is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 20:
identify a second vehicle driving in the road tunnel; and transmitting the status report to the second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is configured to transmit the status report to an external system, wherein the external system is located outside of the road tunnel.
Regarding claim 20, a user can identify a second vehicle driving in a road tunnel (i.e. via a user’s identification of the surroundings) and transmit the status report (i.e. via a user’s voice). Therefore, this limitation is directed towards an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A system, located on a first vehicle operating in at least a partially autonomous manner, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a signal detection component configured to determine a signal quality of first navigation signals received at the first vehicle, wherein the first navigation signals are received from a first external system; and in response to determining the first navigation signals have a signal quality below a threshold of acceptable operation, generate an instruction for the first vehicle to operate utilizing second navigation signals generated by at least one onboard sensor
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving navigation signals”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving step. The same rational applies to independent claims 11 and 17.
Claim 7:
wherein the communication component is further configured to transmit the status report to the external communication system located on the second vehicle.
Regarding the additional limitation of transmitting the status report to an external communication system located on the second vehicle, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, the transmitting step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data), and amounts to mere data transmission which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “receiving data” and “transmitting data”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specifications do not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The step of “receiving” data is taught in the primary reference Fischer et al. US20090079839A1, see at least Para. 0124. Accordingly, the step of collecting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Further, the step of transmitting data is taught in Para. 0124. The step of transmitting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 17, the claim limitation recites “computer readable tangible storage medium”. However, the usage of the phrase “computer readable tangible storage medium” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” (moving electrons, etc) media. The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer readable medium (Specification, paragraphs 14-15) and, thus does not constitute functional descriptive material. Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. US20090079839A1 (henceforth Fischer).
Regarding claim 1,
Fischer discloses:
A system, located on a first vehicle operating in at least a partially autonomous manner, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: (See at least Para. 0097, “vehicle control system 100 can be configured to acquire and process vehicle position information and terrain information from position sensors 150 and terrain sensors 160 to control vehicle 102 autonomously.”)
a signal detection component configured to determine a signal quality of first navigation signals received at the first vehicle, wherein the first navigation signals are received from a first external system; and in response to determining the first navigation signals have a signal quality below a threshold of acceptable operation, generate an instruction for the first vehicle to operate utilizing second navigation signals generated by at least one onboard sensor.
(See at least Para. 0124, “ In an exemplary embodiment, navigation module 204 may be configured to compute the present position of vehicle 102 and perform dead reckoning navigation. Dead reckoning navigation may be needed when vehicle 102 is unable to receive GPS signals (e.g., when vehicle 102 is in a tunnel, etc.)”. When it is determined that the signal quality is low (i.e. unable to receive GPS signals from an external GPS system), the vehicle is instructed to operate via dead reckoning navigation (i.e. wheel speed and wheel angle calculations, which are from onboard sensors).)
Regarding claim 2,
Fischer discloses:
wherein the signal quality of the first navigation signals being below the threshold of acceptable operation is a function of occlusion of the first navigation signals due to the first vehicle driving in a tunnel.
(See at least Para. 0124, “ In an exemplary embodiment, navigation module 204 may be configured to compute the present position of vehicle 102 and perform dead reckoning navigation. Dead reckoning navigation may be needed when vehicle 102 is unable to receive GPS signals (e.g., when vehicle 102 is in a tunnel, etc.)”.)
Regarding claim 3,
Fischer discloses:
further comprising an incident component configured to detect the first vehicle stopping. (See at least Para. 0154-0156.)
Regarding claim 10,
Fischer discloses:
wherein the first external system is configured to transmit the first navigation data to the first vehicle, and comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), a global positioning system (GPS), an autonomous geo-spatial positioning system, or a satellite-based positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) system.
(See at least Para. 0124-0125, wherein the GPS system transmits location data to the first vehicle.)
Regarding claim 11,
Fischer discloses:
A method comprising: determining, by a device comprising a processor located on a vehicle, a first signal quality of first signals received at the vehicle is below a threshold of signal quality for acceptable risk of operation of the vehicle, wherein the first signals comprise first data transmitted from an external system; and switching navigation of the vehicle from operation with the first data received from the external system to operation with second signals comprising second data generated by a first sensor located onboard the vehicle.
(See at least Para. 0124, “ In an exemplary embodiment, navigation module 204 may be configured to compute the present position of vehicle 102 and perform dead reckoning navigation. Dead reckoning navigation may be needed when vehicle 102 is unable to receive GPS signals (e.g., when vehicle 102 is in a tunnel, etc.)”. When it is determined that the signal quality is under a threshold for acceptable risk of operation of the vehicle (i.e. unable to receive GPS signals from an external GPS system), the vehicle is instructed to operate via dead reckoning navigation (i.e. wheel speed and wheel angle calculations, which are from onboard sensors), which represents switching navigation of the vehicle to second data generated by a first sensor (i.e. wheel speed and angle sensors) located onboard the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 12,
Fischer discloses:
wherein the first signals are received while the vehicle is driving through a tunnel.
(See at least Para. 0124, “ In an exemplary embodiment, navigation module 204 may be configured to compute the present position of vehicle 102 and perform dead reckoning navigation. Dead reckoning navigation may be needed when vehicle 102 is unable to receive GPS signals (e.g., when vehicle 102 is in a tunnel, etc.)”.)
Regarding claim 17,
Fischer discloses:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: monitor signal strength of first signals received at a vehicle operating in an at least partially autonomous manner, wherein the first signals are received from an external system and are utilized for navigation of the vehicle; determine a drop in the signal strength of the first signals from a first signal strength to a second signal strength, wherein the first signal strength is acceptable for the at least partially autonomous operation of the vehicle based on the first signals and the second signal strength is below a threshold acceptable for the at least partially autonomous operation of the vehicle based on the first signals; and switch navigation of the vehicle to be based on second signals, wherein the second signals are sourced from at least one sensor located onboard the vehicle. (See at least Para. 0124, “ In an exemplary embodiment, navigation module 204 may be configured to compute the present position of vehicle 102 and perform dead reckoning navigation. Dead reckoning navigation may be needed when vehicle 102 is unable to receive GPS signals (e.g., when vehicle 102 is in a tunnel, etc.)”. When it is determined that the signal quality is under a threshold for acceptable risk of operation of the vehicle (i.e. unable to receive GPS signals from an external GPS system), the vehicle is instructed to operate via dead reckoning navigation (i.e. wheel speed and wheel angle calculations, which are from onboard sensors), which represents switching navigation of the vehicle to second data generated by a first sensor (i.e. wheel speed and angle sensors) located onboard the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 18,
Fischer discloses:
wherein the drop of signal strength of the first signals from the first strength to the second strength results from the vehicle driving in a road tunnel. (See at least Para. 0124, wherein the drop in signal strength results from the vehicle driving in a road tunnel.)
Regarding claim 19,
Fischer discloses:
determine the vehicle has stopped in a road tunnel, wherein the vehicle has stopped owing to: the vehicle is no longer able to navigate the road tunnel in the at least partially autonomous; or the vehicle is involved in a collision inside the road tunnel. (See at least Para. 0154-0156.)
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 4-8, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Vadillo et al. US20200066147A1 (henceforth Vadillo).
Regarding claim 4,
Fischer discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-3 above. Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the first vehicle has stopped as a result of the first vehicle being involved in a collision, while the first vehicle was being driven in a self-navigating mode.” However, Vadillo teaches:
wherein the first vehicle has stopped as a result of the first vehicle being involved in a collision, while the first vehicle was being driven in a self-navigating mode.
(See abstract “traffic management of autonomous vehicles” and Para. 0052, “analyze the data captured by on-board sensors (e.g. camera 476, proximity sensors 478) to detect an abnormal situation in the traffic (e.g. an accident, a car broken down, a traffic jam) or in the autonomous vehicle itself (e.g. a breakdown reported by the Electronic Control Unit of the autonomous vehicle). The control unit 440 of the emergency control device 410a is further configured to wirelessly transmit an emergency signal including information related to the anomalous traffic condition detected by the anomalous traffic condition detection unit 450.”)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the incident component is further configured to generate a status report, the status report includes information regarding at least one of model type of the first vehicle, license plate number of the first vehicle, a situation report of the first vehicle, a location of the first vehicle, a contact, a contact telephone number, or information regarding an occupant of the first vehicle.” However, Vadillo teaches:
wherein the incident component is further configured to generate a status report, the status report includes information regarding at least one of model type of the first vehicle, license plate number of the first vehicle, a situation report of the first vehicle, a location of the first vehicle, a contact, a contact telephone number, or information regarding an occupant of the first vehicle.
(See at least Para. 0055, wherein vehicle B receives an emergency signal from the broken down vehicle in the tunnel. The emergency signal is a status report of an anomalous traffic condition (see Para. 0003), wherein the traffic condition includes a traffic accident (Para. 0021), which is a situation report of the first vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6,
Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “further comprising a communication component configured to establish communication with an external communication system, wherein the external communication system is located on a second vehicle”. However, Vadillo teaches:
further comprising a communication component configured to establish communication with an external communication system, wherein the external communication system is located on a second vehicle
(See at least Para. 0055, “Autonomous vehicle B is already in the tunnel 504 and receives an emergency signal 510 from the broken down vehicle 502”. The broken down vehicle A transmits a signal to an external communication system located on a second vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7,
Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the communication component is further configured to transmit the status report to the external communication system located on the second vehicle.”
However, Vadillo teaches:
wherein the communication component is further configured to transmit the status report to the external communication system located on the second vehicle(See at least Para. 0055, “Autonomous vehicle B is already in the tunnel 504 and receives an emergency signal 510 from the broken down vehicle 502”. The status report is transmitted to the external communication system located on the second vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8,
Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the communication component is further configured to instruct the external communication system on the second vehicle to forward the status report to a second external system”.
However, Vadillo teaches:
wherein the communication component is further configured to instruct the external communication system on the second vehicle to forward the status report to a second external system. (See at least Para. 0056, “Autonomous vehicle B also re-transmits the contingency alert (i.e., the emergency signal 510) to any vehicle outside the tunnel 504.”)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
Fischer further discloses:
determining, by a second onboard sensor, that the vehicle has stopped; (See at least Para. 0154-0161).
Fischer does not specifically state in response to determining that the vehicle has stopped, generating a status report detailing a current situation of the vehicle, wherein the current situation is one of: the vehicle is unable to drive with an acceptable level of safety while navigating with the second signals; or the vehicle is involved in a collision. However, Vadillo teaches:
in response to determining that the vehicle has stopped, generating a status report detailing a current situation of the vehicle, wherein the current situation is one of: the vehicle is unable to drive with an acceptable level of safety while navigating with the second signals; or the vehicle is involved in a collision.
(See at least Para. 0054-0056, wherein a status report (i.e. an emergency signal 510 that includes a traffic accident, see Para. 0022) is generated after the vehicle has stopped, and the current situation is one of the vehicle is unable to drive with an acceptable level of safety with the second signals or the vehicle is involved in a collision (i.e. an accident).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the status report is configured to be transmitted, via an external communication service, to at least one entity, wherein the entity is one of an insurance company, a medical service, a highway patrol, an emergency contact, a global navigation satellite system, or a global positioning system, wherein the status report includes an identifier identifying the entity to receive the status report.
However, Vadillo teaches:
wherein the status report is configured to be transmitted, via an external communication service, to at least one entity, wherein the entity is one of an insurance company, a medical service, a highway patrol, an emergency contact, a global navigation satellite system, or a global positioning system, wherein the status report includes an identifier identifying the entity to receive the status report.
(See at least Para. 0023, “an ambulance” is a medical service. Further see Para. 0036-0038.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 20,
Fischer does not specifically state the limitation “generate a status report; identify a second vehicle driving in the road tunnel; and transmitting the status report to the second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is configured to transmit the status report to an external system, wherein the external system is located outside of the road tunnel.” However, Vadillo teaches:
generate a status report; identify a second vehicle driving in the road tunnel; and transmitting the status report to the second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is configured to transmit the status report to an external system, wherein the external system is located outside of the road tunnel (See at least Para. 0054-0056, wherein the status report (i.e. the emergency signal) is transmitted to a second vehicle that is driving inside of the road tunnel, which is then transmitted to another external system located outside of the road tunnel.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Vadillo to include the above limitation in order to “solve the problem of securely and efficiently managing the traffic of autonomous vehicles, particularly in emergency situations” (Para. 0002, Vadillo). This would create a more robust system for managing autonomous vehicles in emergency situations, such that the anomalous traffic condition is mitigated/avoided (Para. 0003, Vadillo). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fischer and Vadillo. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 9 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer and Vadillo further in view of Yoshioka et al. US6337641B1 (henceforth Yoshioka).
Regarding claim 9,
Fischer and Vadillo discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 3-8 as recited above. Fischer does not specifically state the limitation ”wherein the second external system is a cloud-based computing system or a remotely located communication system, wherein the second external system is configured to forward the status report to an entity identified in the status report.”
However, Yoshioka teaches:
wherein the second external system is a cloud-based computing system or a remotely located communication system, wherein the second external system is configured to forward the status report to an entity identified in the status report
(See at least Column 2 lines 22-55, “ A fifth aspect of this invention provides an emergency reporting apparatus for a vehicle. The emergency reporting apparatus comprises a trigger button operable by a user in cases where the vehicle causes an accident; first means for detecting a collision of the vehicle against another object; second means for detecting that the vehicle causes an accident in response to at least one of operation of the trigger button and operation of the first means; third means for detecting a position of the vehicle; a memory; fourth means for storing information of the vehicle position detected by the third means into the memory; a communication device; fifth means for, when the second means detects that the vehicle causes an accident, using the communication device to call an emergency report receiving center and establish connection with the emergency report receiving center; sixth means for, when the connection with the emergency report receiving center has been established by the fifth means, transmitting the information of the vehicle position from the memory to the emergency report receiving center via the communication device; an informing device; and seventh means for, when the connection with the emergency report receiving center has been established by the fifth means, using the informing device to notify the user of an operating condition of the communication device.” The second external system is remotely located and forwards the status report to the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one