DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/09/2026. This action is made Final.
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 .
Priority
The Examiner acknowledges that the current application is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of the parent application no. 16722827, which was filed on 12/20/2019. Since the subject matter in the parent case has been modified (hence the "in part" aspect of the "continuation"), the Examiner assumes that the claims in the current application are at least partially related to the new subject matter presented in the current specification. Consequently, the effective filing date of the current application will be considered as the actual filing date of the current application, namely 03/02/2023. In the event that a prior art reference used in a rejection based on prior art predates 03/02/2023 but does not precede the earlier filing date of the parent application, the Examiner will carefully examine the subject matter of any affected claims to ensure that the earlier filed parent application does not provide sufficient support for the indicated subject matter. If such a situation arises and the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner regarding the lack of support from the parent case, the Applicant has the option to indicate the specific location(s) within the alleged support for those particular claims in their response to the Examiner. By doing so, the Examiner could consider whether there is sufficient support to justify reverting the effective filing date for those specific claims back to the actual filing date of the parent application, i.e., 12/20/2019. Additionally, it is worth noting that while not mandatory, if the Applicant submits a marked-up version of the current application's specification, highlighting the changes made in comparison to the specification of the parent case, it would greatly enhance the efficiency of determining the effective filing dates for individual claims. This way, the Examiner can promptly identify the additions, deletions, or other modifications in subject matter between the parent case's specification and the current specification.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 18, 20 – 21, 24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims and specification have overcome the 112a rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that Obadai, at paragraph [0052], merely discloses obtaining the route traveled by the connected vehicle 105, but does not disclose obtaining the planned route of the other vehicles. The Applicant further contends that Obadai only discloses identifying a subset of other vehicles already located within a geographic area. (Remark, page 9 – 10)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pointing to paragraph [0052] and Figure 3 as a whole, the Applicant has misinterpreted the disclosure of Obadai as being limited to obtaining only the route traveled by, or predicted to be traveled by, the connected vehicle 105, while failing to recognize the disclosure relating to the routes of the other vehicles. Specifically, Obadai discloses identifying vehicles that are currently within the geographic area and traveling on the route traveled by, or predicted to be traveled by, the connected vehicle 105. Such disclosure necessarily implies that the routes, including planned routes, of the other vehicles within the geographic area are obtained and evaluated to determine whether those vehicles are traveling along the same route as the connected vehicle 105, in which case those vehicles are notified of the event. This interpretation is further supported by paragraph [0055], which states: “The system 150, upon receiving the information 310 from the vehicle 105, identifies other vehicles 110A and 110B traveling within the area of the vehicle 105, such as the scenario depicted in FIG. 3 where the vehicles 110A and 110B are depicted as traveling behind the vehicle 105 along the same route. The system 150 performs an action to provide information to those vehicles 110A and 110B.” Therefore, Obadai teaches obtaining the routes of the other vehicles within the affected geographic area and determining whether such vehicles are traveling along the relevant route in order to provide notification regarding the event.
With respect to the amendments to claims 1, 16, and 20, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the offboard control system is further configured to concurrently communicate the event alert to the offboard control system and the dispatcher.” The scope of this limitation is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this claim as “wherein the onboard controller is further configured to concurrently communicate the event alert to the offboard control system and the dispatcher.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5, 7, 9 – 17, 20 – 21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby, Robert Richard (Publication No. US 20190355256 A1; hereinafter Bielby) in view of Bramucci et al. (Publication No. US 20200001906 A1; hereinafter Bramucci) in further view of Obaidi, Ahmad (Publication No. US 20180286245 A1; hereinafter Obaidi).
Regarding to claim 1, Bielby teaches
A vehicle control system comprising:
an onboard controller disposed onboard a first vehicle (fig. 1, the onboard controller disposed onboard the “vehicle 200”), the onboard controller configured to:
receive an event signal indicative of an adverse event on a vehicular pathway, the event signal received from one or more of a user interface device or one or more sensors disposed onboard the first vehicle; ([Par. 0062], “methods of the present disclosure may begin with vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 detecting the existence of a hazard 10 in or near the roadway.”; [Par. 0035], “The sensing system, in various embodiments, may include one or more sensors 220 configured to detect and/or identify one or more hazards 10 proximate vehicle 200. In various embodiments, sensors 220 may include those sensors typically found in many piloted and autonomous vehicles today. For example, sensors 220 may include one or more image sensors be configured to capture imagery to which image processing techniques such as person-, object-, and/or vehicle-recognition algorithms may be applied.”)
determine event information associated with the adverse event on the vehicular pathway and the first vehicle; ([Par. 0062], “Further information concerning the nature, location, heading, and velocity of hazard 10, along with any other relevant information, may also be collected at this stage. As shown, this additional information may be further evaluated at vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 in an effort to further characterize hazard 10—that is, identify its nature, where it is, where it is moving, and other information relevant to assessing what actions are appropriate for avoiding or mitigating the risk of a collision with hazard 10or surrounding vehicles.”)
generate an event alert that contains the event information; ([Par. 0067], “after detecting and optionally characterizing hazard10, systems 100, 110, 120 may generate hazard warning message 12 for transmission to vehicle(s) 300.”)
obtain planned routes of other vehicles in a vehicle network of the first vehicle; ([Par. 0063], “ determine an appropriate action based on any number of relevant factors in addition to the information provided about hazard 10, including for example, the operating characteristics of vehicle 200, the locations, headings, and speeds of nearby vehicles, the availability of a road shoulder or other lanes to maneuver into, etc. “)
control a communication device onboard the first vehicle to communicate the event alert to an offboard control system configured to control movement of one or more second vehicles based on the event alert by modifying a respective planned route of each of the one or more second vehicles to bypass a location of the adverse event, wherein the one or more second vehicles are not mechanically connected to the first vehicle and do not operate under control of the first vehicle, ([Par. 0032], “in an embodiments vehicle 200 may transmit the hazard warning message 12 directly to vehicle 200 (not shown), in some embodiments vehicle 200 may additionally or alternatively transmit the message 12 indirectly to vehicle 300 via a remote server 400, such as a cloud server. Such a configuration may have several benefits. First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting… In an embodiment, remote server400 may be configured with traffic control algorithms for automatically rerouting traffic in response to hazard 10.” Wherein the “cloud server” reads on the “offboard control system”)
Bielby teaches relaying the event information to a remote server, wherein the remote server is configured to reroute traffic in response to the hazard, as described in paragraph [0032], but does not explicitly disclose to further communicate the event alert to a dispatcher.
However, Bramucci teaches further communicate the event alert to a dispatcher. ([Par. 0028], “During operation, a notification concerning an occurrence of a parameter or condition sensed or determined by the sensor may be received by the controller. The controller may communicate a hazard event notification to a remote server associated with a specified entity associated with a governmental agency, regulatory agency, or some other authority or entity, and/or a remote server of a back-office system (BOS) (e.g., a central office associated with the vehicle group and/or responsible for a route network). In one embodiment, the controller may directly communicate a hazard event notification to the remote server.”; [Par. 0033], “A notification of the hazard event communicated by the controller may result in a route designation that a hazard event may exist, or will exist (e.g., the vehicle is headed toward a fire, collision, obstacle, etc.), in a determined location. Hazard event information may then be disseminated to other vehicles and vehicle groups and/or operators of such vehicle groups who can then adjust and respond accordingly.”; [Par. 0034], “The controller can then communicate the notification to warn those vehicle group(s), other vehicle groups, the dispatcher, wayside devices, etc., of the predicted impending hazard event.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Bielby to incorporate the teaching of Bramucci. The modification would have been obvious because, by relaying event information to a dispatcher, it enables the dispatcher to perform appropriate actions to mitigate the impact of the event on other vehicles.
Bielby teaches transmitting the hazard warning message directly or indirectly to nearby vehicle based on their location and heading as described in par. [0061 - 0063], but does not explicitly disclose compare a location of the adverse event and the planned routes of the other vehicles; determine one or more second vehicles of the other vehicles in the vehicle network are affected by the adverse event based on the comparison;
However, Obaidi teaches compare a location of the adverse event and the planned routes of the other vehicles; ([Par. 0052], “In operation 420, the system 150 identifies a subset of the other vehicles located within a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105 that are predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle 105. For example, the context module 220 may identify, from the subscriber database 240 of the network carrier that is associated with a cloud-based network server (e.g., cloud engine 140), one or more subscribers of the communications network that are currently within vehicles located with a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105, on a route traveled by (or, predicted to be traveled by) the connected vehicle 105, and/or at areas predicted to be affected by the event that occurred at the connected vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0053], “as described herein, the system 150, in some cases, determines, from the information that identifies the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, a location of the vehicle 105 and a current status of the vehicle 105, and selects the subset of other vehicles based on the determined location of the vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0057], “The system 150, upon receiving the information 310 from the vehicle 105, identifies other vehicles 110A and 110B traveling within the area of the vehicle 105, such as the scenario depicted in FIG. 3 where the vehicles 110A and 110B are depicted as traveling behind the vehicle 105 along the same route. The system 150 performs an action to provide information to those vehicles 110A and 110B.” This implies that the predicted traveling route of other vehicles are compared to the location of the adverse event which is the location of the vehicle 105.)
determine one or more second vehicles of the other vehicles in the vehicle network are affected by the adverse event based on the comparison; ([Par. 0052], “In operation 420, the system 150 identifies a subset of the other vehicles located within a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105 that are predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle 105. For example, the context module 220 may identify, from the subscriber database 240 of the network carrier that is associated with a cloud-based network server (e.g., cloud engine 140), one or more subscribers of the communications network that are currently within vehicles located with a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105, on a route traveled by (or, predicted to be traveled by) the connected vehicle 105, and/or at areas predicted to be affected by the event that occurred at the connected vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0053], “as described herein, the system 150, in some cases, determines, from the information that identifies the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, a location of the vehicle 105 and a current status of the vehicle 105, and selects the subset of other vehicles based on the determined location of the vehicle 105.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Bielby and Bramucci to incorporate the teaching of Obaidi. The modification would have been obvious because identifying a subset of vehicles whose planned or predicted travel routes may be affected by the event enables the system to selectively transmit event warning messages to those vehicles, allowing the affected vehicles to take appropriate actions to avoid or mitigate the event.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein the onboard controller is configured to determine, as part of the event information, a type of the adverse event based on one or more of (i) sensed parameter data output from the one or more sensors; (ii) analysis of image data generated by one or more optical sensors disposed onboard the first vehicle; or (iii) user input via the user interface device. ([Par. 0035], “The sensing system, in various embodiments, may include one or more sensors 220 configured to detect and/or identify one or more hazards 10 proximate vehicle 200. In various embodiments, sensors 220 may include those sensors typically found in many piloted and autonomous vehicles today. For example, sensors 220 may include one or more image sensors be configured to capture imagery to which image processing techniques such as person-, object-, and/or vehicle-recognition algorithms may be applied. Additionally or alternatively, one or more optical ranging sensors (e.g., LIDAR, infrared), sonic ranging sensors (e.g., sonar, ultrasonic), or similar sensors may be positioned about the vehicle to detect and/or range potential hazards 10, as well as surrounding vehicles 300.”)
Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein the onboard controller is configured to separately communicate the event alert to the one or more second vehicles. ([Par. 0031 – 0032], “FIG. 2 schematically depicts another representative system 110 for generating and transmitting a message(s) 12 configured for warning nearby vehicle(s) of a potential safety hazard in or near the roadway. System 110 envisions a situation in which a vehicle 200 detects a hazard 10 (here, fallen tree blocking the road) and warns another vehicle 300 to reroute, thereby avoiding hazard 10 and minimizing any resulting traffic congestion that may otherwise delay the arrival of emergency responders to the scene.
[0032] While, in an embodiments vehicle 200 may transmit the hazard warning message 12 directly to vehicle 200 (not shown), in some embodiments vehicle 200 may additionally or alternatively transmit the message 12 indirectly to vehicle 300 via a remote server 400, such as a cloud server.”)
Regarding to claim 7, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches further comprising the offboard control system, wherein the offboard control system is configured to modify the respective planned route of each of the one or more second vehicles by generating and transmitting respective re-route messages to the one or more second vehicles, each of the re-route messages including detour navigation details that alter a series of pathways according to the planned route of the corresponding second vehicle that receives the re-route message to cause the corresponding second vehicle to bypass the location of the adverse event. ([Par. 0032], “While, in an embodiments vehicle 200 may transmit the hazard warning message 12 directly to vehicle 200 (not shown), in some embodiments vehicle 200 may additionally or alternatively transmit the message 12 indirectly to vehicle 300 via a remote server 400, such as a cloud server. Such a configuration may have several benefits. First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting. Second, remote server 400 may be configured to relay the hazard warning message 12 to authorities, who may otherwise not know of the hazard. This, in turn, may allow authorities to dispatch responders more quickly and efficiently, as well as to better manage large volumes of traffic that may impacted by the presence of hazard 10. In an embodiment, remote server400 may be configured with traffic control algorithms for automatically rerouting traffic in response to hazard 10.” It should be evident that the rerouting instructions from the remote server must include a sequence of pathways to avoid the hazard detected by vehicle 200.)
Regarding to claim 9, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of 1.
Bielby teaches further comprising the offboard control system, wherein the offboard control system is configured to identify the one or more second vehicles to which to modify the respective planned route thereof by determining that the one or more second vehicles are scheduled to travel through or within a designated proximity of the location of the adverse event within a designated period of time of receiving the event alert. ([Par. 0032], “While, in an embodiments vehicle 200 may transmit the hazard warning message 12 directly to vehicle 200 (not shown), in some embodiments vehicle 200 may additionally or alternatively transmit the message 12 indirectly to vehicle 300 via a remote server 400, such as a cloud server. Such a configuration may have several benefits. First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting. Second, remote server 400 may be configured to relay the hazard warning message 12 to authorities, who may otherwise not know of the hazard. This, in turn, may allow authorities to dispatch responders more quickly and efficiently, as well as to better manage large volumes of traffic that may impacted by the presence of hazard 10. In an embodiment, remote server400 may be configured with traffic control algorithms for automatically rerouting traffic in response to hazard 10.” It should be evident that the rerouting instructions from the remote server is for the vehicles that might be impacted by the event, so the vehicles can reroute to avoid the event accordingly.)
Regarding to claim 10, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches further comprising the offboard control system, wherein the offboard control system is configured to modify the respective planned route of each of the one or more second vehicles to cause the one or more second vehicles to bypass the location of the adverse event and avoid one or more pathways expected to be traversed by first responder vehicles traveling to the location of the adverse event. ([Par. 0031], “FIG. 2 schematically depicts another representative system 110 for generating and transmitting a message(s) 12 configured for warning nearby vehicle(s) of a potential safety hazard in or near the roadway. System 110 envisions a situation in which a vehicle 200 detects a hazard 10 (here, fallen tree blocking the road) and warns another vehicle 300 to reroute, thereby avoiding hazard 10 and minimizing any resulting traffic congestion that may otherwise delay the arrival of emergency responders to the scene.”; [Par. 0032] While, in an embodiments vehicle 200 may transmit the hazard warning message 12 directly to vehicle 200 (not shown), in some embodiments vehicle 200 may additionally or alternatively transmit the message 12 indirectly to vehicle 300 via a remote server 400, such as a cloud server. Such a configuration may have several benefits. First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting.”)
Regarding to claim 11, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein the onboard controller is further configured to confirm the adverse event after receiving the event signal and prior to generating the event alert, wherein the onboard controller is configured to confirm the adverse event by receiving a confirmation signal generated by the user interface device upon receiving an operator input. ([Par. 0043], “vehicle 200, in various embodiments, may include a dedicated interface for receiving input from the driver to generate and transmit hazard warning message 12. For example, vehicle 200 may include a button or similar interface on the steering wheel that the driver pushes upon detecting a hazard 10, causing systems 100, 110 to automatically generate and transmit a generic hazard alert message 12.”)
Regarding to claim 12, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein the onboard controller is further configured to confirm the adverse event after receiving the event signal and prior to generating the event alert, wherein the onboard controller is configured to confirm the adverse event by obtaining a value of a sensed parameter output by the one or more sensors that exceeds a threshold value. ([Par. 0043 – 0044], “
vehicle 200 may include or otherwise pair electronically with biological sensors worn or otherwise directed towards the driver for detecting sudden biological changes associated with surprise, fear, adrenaline response, such as rapid spike in heart rate. Systems 100, 110, in various embodiments, may be configured in such cases to automatically generate and transmit a hazard warning message 12 to surrounding vehicles 300. [0044] Like system 100 and 110, in which vehicle 200 includes one or more sensors for detecting hazard 10, system 120 may include one or more deployed sensors 500 configured for similar purposes.”)
Regarding to claim 13, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein the onboard controller is further configured to confirm the adverse event after receiving the event signal and prior to generating the event alert, wherein the onboard controller is configured to confirm the adverse event by obtaining one or more image attributes of interest present in the image data generated by the one or more optical sensors. ([Par. 0052], “in some cases, it may be possible for vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 may be able to determine the nature of hazard 10 (e.g., pedestrian, bicyclist, animal, large vs. small debris, large vs. small patch of ice) by further processing data from sensors 220 (or from deployed sensor 500 itself). For example, to the extent cameras or image sensors are utilized, person-, animal-, or object-recognition software may be employed to determine the nature of hazard 10.”)
Regarding to claim 14, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein, in response to the onboard controller receiving the event signal from the user interface device based on an operator input ([Par. 0043], “vehicle 200, in various embodiments, may include a dedicated interface for receiving input from the driver to generate and transmit hazard warning message 12. For example, vehicle 200 may include a button or similar interface on the steering wheel that the driver pushes upon detecting a hazard 10, causing systems 100, 110 to automatically generate and transmit a generic hazard alert message 12.”), the onboard controller is configured to confirm the adverse event by obtaining a value of a sensed parameter output by the one or more sensors that exceeds a threshold value. ([Par. 0043 – 0044], “vehicle 200 may include or otherwise pair electronically with biological sensors worn or otherwise directed towards the driver for detecting sudden biological changes associated with surprise, fear, adrenaline response, such as rapid spike in heart rate. Systems 100, 110, in various embodiments, may be configured in such cases to automatically generate and transmit a hazard warning message 12 to surrounding vehicles 300. [0044] Like system 100 and 110, in which vehicle 200 includes one or more sensors for detecting hazard 10, system 120 may include one or more deployed sensors 500 configured for similar purposes.”)
Regarding to claim 15, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches wherein the event information further comprises one or more of a medical attention indicator indicative of a requested medical response, a vehicle count indicator indicative of a number of vehicles associated with the event, a hazardous condition indicator indicative of a requested hazardous condition response, or an identification of the first vehicle. ([Par. 0030], “The message 12 generated and transmitted by vehicle 200 alerts vehicles 300a,300b to the presence of the hazard, allowing vehicle 300a in the left lane to brake prior to reaching the crosswalk and vehicle 300b to escape into the open right lane to avoid rear-ending vehicle 200, which itself is rapidly braking to avoid running over the pedestrian walking directly in front. Thanks to the hazard warning message 12 generated by and transmitted from vehicle 200, all three vehicles avoid colliding with the pedestrian and each other, resulting in a safe outcome.” Wherein this is at least mapped to “a hazardous condition indicator indicative of a requested hazardous condition response”)
Claims 16 – 17 recite the method with substantially similar scopes as claims 1 – 2 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 1 – 2 respectively above.
Regarding to claim 20, Bielby teaches A vehicle control system comprising:
an onboard controller disposed onboard a first vehicle (fig. 1, the onboard controller disposed onboard the “vehicle 200”), the onboard controller configured to:
receive an event signal indicative of an adverse event on a vehicular pathway, the event signal received from one or more of a user interface device or one or more sensors disposed onboard the first vehicle; ([Par. 0062], “methods of the present disclosure may begin with vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 detecting the existence of a hazard 10 in or near the roadway.”; [Par. 0035], “The sensing system, in various embodiments, may include one or more sensors 220 configured to detect and/or identify one or more hazards 10 proximate vehicle 200. In various embodiments, sensors 220 may include those sensors typically found in many piloted and autonomous vehicles today. For example, sensors 220 may include one or more image sensors be configured to capture imagery to which image processing techniques such as person-, object-, and/or vehicle-recognition algorithms may be applied.”)
obtain planned routes of other vehicles in a vehicle network with the first vehicle; ([Par. 0063], “ determine an appropriate action based on any number of relevant factors in addition to the information provided about hazard 10, including for example, the operating characteristics of vehicle 200, the locations, headings, and speeds of nearby vehicles, the availability of a road shoulder or other lanes to maneuver into, etc. “)
determine one or more second vehicles of the other vehicles in the vehicle network that are affected by the adverse event, prior to the one or more second vehicles reaching the location of the adverse event, wherein the one or more second vehicles are not mechanically connected to the first vehicle and do not operate under control of the first vehicle; ([Par. 0029], “FIG. 1 schematically depicts a representative system 100 for generating and transmitting a message(s) 12 configured for warning nearby vehicle(s) of a potential safety hazard in or near the roadway. System 100 envisions a situation in which a vehicle 200 detects the hazard 10 (here, a pedestrian in a crosswalk) and warns one or more nearby vehicles 300a, 300b.”; [Par. 0031], “FIG. 2 schematically depicts another representative system 110 for generating and transmitting a message(s) 12 configured for warning nearby vehicle(s) of a potential safety hazard in or near the roadway. System 110 envisions a situation in which a vehicle 200 detects a hazard 10 (here, fallen tree blocking the road) and warns another vehicle 300 to reroute, thereby avoiding hazard 10 and minimizing any resulting traffic congestion that may otherwise delay the arrival of emergency responders to the scene.” wherein since the warning only makes sense if the receiving vehicles are traveling toward the hazard, this aligns with the claim’s requirement that the onboard controller compares the location of the adverse event with planned routes.)
generate a respective event alert for each of the one or more second vehicles that are determined, the onboard controller configured to generate each respective event alert to include at least one of a re-route message or a control command message to modify the respective planned route of the corresponding second vehicle to cause the corresponding second vehicle to bypass the location of the adverse event; ([Par. 0030], “In the representative example shown, vehicle 200 is obstructing lines of sight between vehicles300a, 300b and hazard 10, and thus the drivers and/or sensors of vehicles 300a, 300b may not be aware of hazard 10. The message 12 generated and transmitted by vehicle 200 alerts vehicles 300a,300b to the presence of the hazard, allowing vehicle 300a in the left lane to brake prior to reaching the crosswalk and vehicle 300b to escape into the open right lane to avoid rear-ending vehicle 200, which itself is rapidly braking to avoid running over the pedestrian walking directly in front. Thanks to the hazard warning message 12 generated by and transmitted from vehicle 200, all three vehicles avoid colliding with the pedestrian and each other, resulting in a safe outcome.”; [Par. 0031], “FIG. 2 schematically depicts another representative system 110 for generating and transmitting a message(s) 12 configured for warning nearby vehicle(s) of a potential safety hazard in or near the roadway. System 110 envisions a situation in which a vehicle 200 detects a hazard 10 (here, fallen tree blocking the road) and warns another vehicle 300 to reroute, thereby avoiding hazard 10 and minimizing any resulting traffic congestion that may otherwise delay the arrival of emergency responders to the scene.”) and
control a communication device onboard the first vehicle to communicate the event alerts to the one or more second vehicles. ([Par. 0031], “FIG. 2 schematically depicts another representative system 110 for generating and transmitting a message(s) 12 configured for warning nearby vehicle(s) of a potential safety hazard in or near the roadway. System 110 envisions a situation in which a vehicle 200 detects a hazard 10 (here, fallen tree blocking the road) and warns another vehicle 300 to reroute, thereby avoiding hazard 10 and minimizing any resulting traffic congestion that may otherwise delay the arrival of emergency responders to the scene.”) and
Bielby teaches relaying the event information to a remote server, wherein the remote server is configured to reroute traffic in response to the hazard, as described in paragraph [0032], but does not explicitly disclose to further communicate the event alert to a dispatcher.
However, Bramucci teaches further communicate the event alert to a dispatcher. ([Par. 0028], “During operation, a notification concerning an occurrence of a parameter or condition sensed or determined by the sensor may be received by the controller. The controller may communicate a hazard event notification to a remote server associated with a specified entity associated with a governmental agency, regulatory agency, or some other authority or entity, and/or a remote server of a back-office system (BOS) (e.g., a central office associated with the vehicle group and/or responsible for a route network). In one embodiment, the controller may directly communicate a hazard event notification to the remote server.”; [Par. 0033], “A notification of the hazard event communicated by the controller may result in a route designation that a hazard event may exist, or will exist (e.g., the vehicle is headed toward a fire, collision, obstacle, etc.), in a determined location. Hazard event information may then be disseminated to other vehicles and vehicle groups and/or operators of such vehicle groups who can then adjust and respond accordingly.”; [Par. 0034], “The controller can then communicate the notification to warn those vehicle group(s), other vehicle groups, the dispatcher, wayside devices, etc., of the predicted impending hazard event.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Bielby to incorporate the teaching of Bramucci. The modification would have been obvious because, by relaying event information to a dispatcher, it enables the dispatcher to perform appropriate actions to mitigate the impact of the event on other vehicles.
Bielby teaches transmitting the hazard warning message directly or indirectly to nearby vehicle based on their location and heading as described in par. [0061 - 0063], but does not explicitly disclose compare a location of the adverse event and the planned routes of the other vehicles; determine one or more second vehicles of the other vehicles in the vehicle network are affected by the adverse event based on the comparison;
However, Obaidi teaches compare a location of the adverse event and the planned routes of the other vehicles; ([Par. 0052], “In operation 420, the system 150 identifies a subset of the other vehicles located within a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105 that are predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle 105. For example, the context module 220 may identify, from the subscriber database 240 of the network carrier that is associated with a cloud-based network server (e.g., cloud engine 140), one or more subscribers of the communications network that are currently within vehicles located with a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105, on a route traveled by (or, predicted to be traveled by) the connected vehicle 105, and/or at areas predicted to be affected by the event that occurred at the connected vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0053], “as described herein, the system 150, in some cases, determines, from the information that identifies the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, a location of the vehicle 105 and a current status of the vehicle 105, and selects the subset of other vehicles based on the determined location of the vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0057], “The system 150, upon receiving the information 310 from the vehicle 105, identifies other vehicles 110A and 110B traveling within the area of the vehicle 105, such as the scenario depicted in FIG. 3 where the vehicles 110A and 110B are depicted as traveling behind the vehicle 105 along the same route. The system 150 performs an action to provide information to those vehicles 110A and 110B.” This implies that the predicted traveling route of other vehicles are compared to the location of the adverse event which is the location of the vehicle 105.)
determine one or more second vehicles of the other vehicles in the vehicle network are affected by the adverse event based on the comparison; ([Par. 0052], “In operation 420, the system 150 identifies a subset of the other vehicles located within a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105 that are predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle 105. For example, the context module 220 may identify, from the subscriber database 240 of the network carrier that is associated with a cloud-based network server (e.g., cloud engine 140), one or more subscribers of the communications network that are currently within vehicles located with a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105, on a route traveled by (or, predicted to be traveled by) the connected vehicle 105, and/or at areas predicted to be affected by the event that occurred at the connected vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0053], “as described herein, the system 150, in some cases, determines, from the information that identifies the occurrence of the event at the vehicle, a location of the vehicle 105 and a current status of the vehicle 105, and selects the subset of other vehicles based on the determined location of the vehicle 105.”; [Par. 0057], “The system 150, upon receiving the information 310 from the vehicle 105, identifies other vehicles 110A and 110B traveling within the area of the vehicle 105, such as the scenario depicted in FIG. 3 where the vehicles 110A and 110B are depicted as traveling behind the vehicle 105 along the same route. The system 150 performs an action to provide information to those vehicles 110A and 110B.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Bielby and Bramucci to incorporate the teaching of Obaidi. The modification would have been obvious because identifying a subset of vehicles whose planned or predicted travel routes may be affected by the event enables the system to selectively transmit event warning messages to those vehicles, allowing the affected vehicles to take appropriate actions to avoid or mitigate the event.
Regarding to claim 21, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Obaidi further teaches wherein comparing the location of the adverse event to the planned routes of the other vehicles in the vehicle network of the first vehicle comprises: determining that the one or more second vehicles are within a predetermined range of the adverse event. ([Par. 0052], “In operation 420, the system 150 identifies a subset of the other vehicles located within a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105 that are predicted to be affected by the occurrence of the event at the vehicle 105. For example, the context module 220 may identify, from the subscriber database 240 of the network carrier that is associated with a cloud-based network server (e.g., cloud engine 140), one or more subscribers of the communications network that are currently within vehicles located with a geographic area that includes the connected vehicle 105, on a route traveled by (or, predicted to be traveled by) the connected vehicle 105, and/or at areas predicted to be affected by the event that occurred at the connected vehicle 105.”;)
Regarding to claim 24, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bramucci further teaches wherein the onboard controller is further configured to concurrently communicate the event alert to the offboard control system and the dispatcher. (Based on the 112f interpretation above)
([Par. 0028], “During operation, a notification concerning an occurrence of a parameter or condition sensed or determined by the sensor may be received by the controller. The controller may communicate a hazard event notification to a remote server associated with a specified entity associated with a governmental agency, regulatory agency, or some other authority or entity, and/or a remote server of a back-office system (BOS) (e.g., a central office associated with the vehicle group and/or responsible for a route network). In one embodiment, the controller may directly communicate a hazard event notification to the remote server.”; [Par. 0033], “A notification of the hazard event communicated by the controller may result in a route designation that a hazard event may exist, or will exist (e.g., the vehicle is headed toward a fire, collision, obstacle, etc.), in a determined location. Hazard event information may then be disseminated to other vehicles and vehicle groups and/or operators of such vehicle groups who can then adjust and respond accordingly.”; [Par. 0034], “The controller can then communicate the notification to warn those vehicle group(s), other vehicle groups, the dispatcher, wayside devices, etc., of the predicted impending hazard event.”)
Claim(s) 3 – 4, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi in view of Sedlik et al. (Publication No. US 20170084175 A1; hereinafter Sedlik).
Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 2.
Bielby teaches to relay the detected event to first responders via a remote server as described in par. [0032], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the onboard controller is configured select a first responder based on the type of the adverse event, and to control the communication device to also communicate the event alert to the first responder that is selected.
However, Sedlik teaches wherein the onboard controller is configured select a first responder based on the type of the adverse event, and to control the communication device to also communicate the event alert to the first responder that is selected. ([Par. 0070], “the transit service 202 may be configured to notify first responders as to the occurrence of a transit event 110, where such first responders provide a first response service relating to the transit event 110 for the location 204. For example, the transit service 202 may evaluate the information about the transit event 110 and may determine whether police, fire control personnel, medical personnel, tow trucks, or mechanics are to be directed to the location 204 of the transit event 110. The transit service 202 may therefore generate a notification 1006 to the first responders 1008, and may transmit the notification 1006 of the transit event 110 to the first responders 1008.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi to incorporate the teaching of Sedlik. The modification would have been obvious because evaluating the event to determine the most suitable first responder ensures that the notification is sent directly to the appropriate responder, enabling a faster and more effective mitigation of the event.
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, Obaidi and Sedlik teaches the system of claim 3.
Sedlik further teaches wherein the onboard controller is configured to communicate the event alert to:
medical emergency first responders in response to determining that the type of the adverse event is one of a rollover accident, a derailment, or a collision between multiple vehicles;
a roadside vehicle maintenance crew in response to determining that the type of the adverse event is a stalled vehicle; and
a route maintenance crew in response to determining that the type of the adverse event is an obstacle blocking the vehicular pathway.
([Par. 0022], “a transit event 110 may occur, such as a vehicular accident between two vehicles 104, that interferes with transit in the area 108. A variety of such transit events110 may arise, such as obstructions to transit through the area 108 (e.g., the development of traffic congestion due to heavy vehicular volume, construction, or a failure of traffic signals; debris or wildlife located in a lane of the road; or weather-related events, such as flooding or the formation of ice on the road).”; [Par. 0070], “the transit service 202 may be configured to notify first responders as to the occurrence of a transit event 110, where such first responders provide a first response service relating to the transit event 110 for the location 204. For example, the transit service 202 may evaluate the information about the transit event 110 and may determine whether police, fire control personnel, medical personnel, tow trucks, or mechanics are to be directed to the location 204 of the transit event 110. The transit service 202 may therefore generate a notification 1006 to the first responders 1008, and may transmit the notification 1006 of the transit event 110 to the first responders 1008.” This is interpreted that a responder is selected based on the type of event. For example, in the case of a collision, an emergency responder is contacted; if a vehicle stalls, a mechanic is notified; and if a road obstruction occurs, a maintenance crew is dispatched.)
Claim 18 recites the method with substantially similar scope as claim 3, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi in view of Kumar et al. (Publication No. US 20190039545 A1; hereafter Kumar).
Regarding to claim 8, the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi teaches the system of claim 1.
Bielby further teaches further comprising the offboard control system, wherein the offboard control system is configured to modify the respective planned route of each of the one or more second vehicles by generating and transmitting respective control command messages to the one or more second vehicles, ([Par. 0032], “While, in an embodiments vehicle 200 may transmit the hazard warning message 12 directly to vehicle 200 (not shown), in some embodiments vehicle 200 may additionally or alternatively transmit the message 12 indirectly to vehicle 300 via a remote server 400, such as a cloud server. Such a configuration may have several benefits. First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting. Second, remote server 400 may be configured to relay the hazard warning message 12 to authorities, who may otherwise not know of the hazard. This, in turn, may allow authorities to dispatch responders more quickly and efficiently, as well as to better manage large volumes of traffic that may impacted by the presence of hazard 10. In an embodiment, remote server400 may be configured with traffic control algorithms for automatically rerouting traffic in response to hazard 10.”)
Bielby teaches to transmit a message to a second vehicle for rerouting to avoid the hazard, but does not explicitly disclose each of the control command messages including one or more of steering settings, tractive settings, or brake settings that are automatically implemented by the corresponding second vehicle that receives the control command message to cause the corresponding second vehicle to bypass the location of the adverse event.
However, Kumar teaches ach of the control command messages including one or more of steering settings, tractive settings, or brake settings that are automatically implemented by the corresponding second vehicle that receives the control command message to cause the corresponding second vehicle to bypass the location of the adverse event. ([Par. 0020], “as further disclosed herein, machine learning algorithms may be utilized to identify warning signs of events and recognize future similar warning signs in order to predict an event is about to occur. The disclosed systems, methods, and apparatus may further transmit instructions to drivers for performing a vehicle maneuver to avoid and/or reduce the severity of an event or may instruct autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles to avoid and/or reduce the severity of an event by transmitting programmed vehicle maneuvers (e.g., decelerate, accelerate, swerve left, swerve right, stop, reverse, etc.) to the vehicle. Such transmissions may occur at the time of the event (e.g., in real time) or may be transmitted prior to the event and determined to be presented/initiated at the time of the event.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Bielby, Bramucci, and Obaidi to incorporate the teaching of Kumar. The modification would have been obvious because incorporating a remote server that transmits operating instructions for vehicle maneuvering enhances the effectiveness of avoiding an event. The remote server, overseeing multiple vehicles in the area, improves safety and facilitates coordinated movement, making it easier for vehicles to navigate and respond to the event.
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 STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights