DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 10 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are newly cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 31, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youm et al. (US 20180197409 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 20220129948 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20160012726 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Youm' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Youm teaches a server apparatus, comprising:
a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of vehicles belonging to a predetermined group; and (Youm: ¶ 084; communicator 110) a controller (Youm: ¶ 084; controller 130 ) configured to control, upon receiving an accident occurrence signal from an accident vehicle included in the plurality of vehicles, (Youm: ¶ 206; Upon detecting the state information of the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal device 100 may determine whether there is an accident involving the vehicle based on the detected state) . . . selected based on a location of the accident vehicle of the plurality of vehicles. (Youm: ¶ 105; Upon determining that the accident occurs, the controller 130 may control the second communicator 112 to transmit at least one of information received from the apparatus)
To the extent Youm is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . the communicator to transmit an assistance request signal to a target vehicle to be notified . . . from each of the plurality of vehicles from a candidate vehicle selected based on a distance from the location . . .; Cho does teach:
. . . the communicator to transmit an assistance request signal to a target vehicle to be notified (Cho: ¶ 137; V2V may be used between the connected vehicles) . . . from each of the plurality of vehicles from a candidate vehicle selected based on a distance from the location (Cho: ¶ 305; the initial location for participation by the first vehicle may be determined based on a distance between the first vehicle and a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles that are a shortest distance from the first vehicle.) . . .
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Youm because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of the “safety of autonomous connected vehicles may be greatly improved.” (Cho: ¶ 257).
To the extent Youm is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . a target vehicle to be notified . . .wherein the controller is further configured to select the target vehicle based on an acceptance or rejection response signal for an assistance request received . . . . and wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from the accident vehicle when the rejection response signal is received; Wang does teach:
. . .wherein the controller is further configured to select the target vehicle (Wang: ¶ 031; sent to a plurality of users having their vehicles parked in a closest proximity to the first user's vehicle location)based on an acceptance or rejection response signal (Wang: ¶ 031; users may accept or reject the request. If there is a rejection of the request notification by the second user) for an assistance request received (Wang: ¶ 127; users may choose in the settings of the mobile application to allow or not allow access to the function of assisting others) . . . and wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from the accident vehicle when the rejection response signal is received; (Wang: ¶ 031; If there is a rejection of the request notification by the second user, the request notification keeps transferring until at-least one user accepts the request notification of the first user.)
To the extent Youm does not teach: . . . [a distance from the location] of the accident vehicle . . . ; a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
Wang discloses the above claimed limitations except Wang measures the distance to a car requesting help parking instead of a car requesting help after an accident. In view of Youm’s teaching of a method for a vehicle to request help after an accident, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a distance to a disabled vehicle for the distance to a parking vehicle because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Here, the key element is seeking help from the nearest available vehicle and is present in both teachings.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Youm because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of ensuring the timeliness of the help sought (Wang: ¶ 033) is capable of helping the target vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Cho further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to select a vehicle having the closest distance from the accident vehicle among the plurality of vehicles as the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 305; the initial location for participation by the first vehicle may be determined based on a distance between the first vehicle and a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles that are a shortest distance from the first vehicle.) (Cho: ¶ 300; a request to participate in a specific event (e.g., a specific advertisement event or the like) is received from a first vehicle,)
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Cho further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the communicator to receive a response signal regarding a request for assistance from the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 302; when it is determined that the first vehicle is not suitable for participating in the specific event, a rejection message is sent in reply to the request to participate in the specific event from the first vehicle.)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Cho further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the communicator to transmit location information of the accident vehicle to the target vehicle to be notified as a destination based on receiving of an acceptance signal as the response signal for the assistance request from the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 303; when it is determined that the first vehicle can participate in the specific event, driving direction guidance is provided to the first vehicle and a plurality of vehicles that are participating in the specific event,)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Cho further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to change, based on receiving of a rejection signal as the response signal for the assistance request from the target vehicle to be notified, a vehicle next closest to the accident vehicle following the target vehicle to be notified received the rejection signal as the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 302; when it is determined that the first vehicle is not suitable for participating in the specific event, a rejection message is sent in reply to the request to participate in the specific event from the first vehicle.) (Cho: ¶ 305; the initial location for participation by the first vehicle may be determined based on a distance between the first vehicle and a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles that are a shortest distance from the first vehicle.)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Cho further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control, based on receiving of an acceptance signal as the response signal for the assistance request from the target vehicle to be notified, the communicator to transmit joining information of the target vehicle to be notified to the accident vehicle. (Cho: ¶ 303; when it is determined that the first vehicle can participate in the specific event, driving direction guidance is provided to the first vehicle and a plurality of vehicles that are participating in the specific event,)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, PA1 teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Cho further teaches:
wherein the joining information includes at least one of information on a driver of the target vehicle to be notified, a current location, and an expected arrival time to the location of the accident vehicle. (Cho: ¶¶ 304-305; driving direction guidance is provided to the plurality of vehicles that are participating in the specific event . . . a driving route and a duration for the specific event may be determined based on traffic density and people density at a specific time of a day in a target area for the greatest effect of the advertisement.)
Regarding claim 8, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Youm further teaches:
wherein the accident occurrence signal includes a collision detection signal or an airbag deployment signal of the accident vehicle. (Youm: ¶ 206; Upon detecting the state information of the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal device 100 may determine whether there is an accident involving the vehicle based on the detected state) (Youm: ¶ 068; state information may include . . . airbag operation detection information)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Cho further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control, based on inputting of an instruction regarding the assistance request through an input device by a driver of the accident vehicle, (Cho: ¶ 210; the driver of the vehicle 1501 may register for the participation in the parade via the mobile application on the driver's mobile device) the communicator to transmit the assistance request signal to the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 159; user profiles of registered users of connected vehicles may be stored in a database which is coupled to the ADC server, and the ADC server may access the database of the user profiles and consult the profile of the user (or driver) of the connected vehicle to determine whether the connected vehicle is to participate in the advertisement event.)
Regarding claim 10, Youm teaches a method of controlling a server apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving an accident occurrence signal from an accident vehicle included in a plurality of vehicles; (Youm: ¶ 206; Upon detecting the state information of the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal device 100 may determine whether there is an accident involving the vehicle based on the detected state) transmitting, upon receiving the accident occurrence signal, an assistance request signal . . . selected based on a location of the accident vehicle of the plurality of vehicles. (Youm: ¶ 105; Upon determining that the accident occurs, the controller 130 may control the second communicator 112 to transmit at least one of information received from the apparatus included in the vehicle 10 and the state information of the vehicle 10 detected through the detector 120, to the external server 30 through the first communicator)
To the extent Youm is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . from each of the plurality of vehicles from a candidate vehicle selected based on a distance from the location . . . ; Cho does teach:
. . . from each of the plurality of vehicles from a candidate vehicle selected based on a distance from the location (Cho: ¶ 305; the initial location for participation by the first vehicle may be determined based on a distance between the first vehicle and a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles that are a shortest distance from the first vehicle.) . . .
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Youm because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of the “safety of autonomous connected vehicles may be greatly improved.” (Cho: ¶ 257).
To the extent Youm is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . to a vehicle to be notified . . . selecting a target vehicle to be notified based on an acceptance or rejection response signal for an assistance request received . . . of the accident vehicle; and transmitting the assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from the accident vehicle when the rejection response signal is received.; Wang does teach:
. . . to a vehicle to be notified (Wang: ¶ 031; sent to a plurality of users having their vehicles parked in a closest proximity to the first user's vehicle location) . . . selecting a target vehicle to be notified based on an acceptance or rejection response signal (Wang: ¶ 031; users may accept or reject the request. If there is a rejection of the request notification by the second user) for an assistance request received (Wang: ¶ 127; users may choose in the settings of the mobile application to allow or not allow access to the function of assisting others) . . . and transmitting the assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from the accident vehicle when the rejection response signal is received (Wang: ¶ 031; If there is a rejection of the request notification by the second user, the request notification keeps transferring until at-least one user accepts the request notification of the first user.)
To the extent Youm does not teach: . . . [a distance from the location] of the accident vehicle . . . ; a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
Wang discloses the above claimed limitations except Wang measures the distance to a car requesting help parking instead of a car requesting help after an accident. In view of Youm’s teaching of a method for a vehicle to request help after an accident, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a distance to a disabled vehicle for the distance to a parking vehicle because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Here, the key element is seeking help from the nearest available vehicle and is present in both teachings.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Youm because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of ensuring the timeliness of the help sought (Wang: ¶ 033) is capable of helping the target vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Cho further teaches:
wherein the selection of the target vehicle to be notified is to select a vehicle having the closest distance from the accident vehicle among the plurality of vehicles as the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 305; the initial location for participation by the first vehicle may be determined based on a distance between the first vehicle and a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles that are a shortest distance from the first vehicle.) (Cho: ¶ 300; a request to participate in a specific event (e.g., a specific advertisement event or the like) is received from a first vehicle,)
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Cho further teaches:
further comprising receiving a response signal regarding a request for assistance from the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 302; when it is determined that the first vehicle is not suitable for participating in the specific event, a rejection message is sent in reply to the request to participate in the specific event from the first vehicle.)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Cho further teaches:
further comprising transmitting location information of the accident vehicle to the target vehicle to be notified as a destination based on receiving of an acceptance signal as the response signal for the assistance request from the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 303; when it is determined that the first vehicle can participate in the specific event, driving direction guidance is provided to the first vehicle and a plurality of vehicles that are participating in the specific event,)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Cho further teaches:
further comprising changing, based on receiving of a rejection signal as the response signal for the assistance request from the target vehicle to be notified, a vehicle next closest to the accident vehicle following the target vehicle to be notified received the rejection signal as the target vehicle to be notified. (Cho: ¶ 302; when it is determined that the first vehicle is not suitable for participating in the specific event, a rejection message is sent in reply to the request to participate in the specific event from the first vehicle.) (Cho: ¶ 305; the initial location for participation by the first vehicle may be determined based on a distance between the first vehicle and a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles that are a shortest distance from the first vehicle.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Cho further teaches:
further comprising transmitting, based on receiving of an acceptance signal as the response signal for the assistance request from the target vehicle to be notified, joining information of the target vehicle to be notified to the accident vehicle. (Cho: ¶ 303; when it is determined that the first vehicle can participate in the specific event, driving direction guidance is provided to the first vehicle and a plurality of vehicles that are participating in the specific event,)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 15. Cho further teaches:
wherein the joining information includes at least one of information on a driver of the target vehicle to be notified, a current location, and an expected arrival time to the location of the accident vehicle. (Cho: ¶¶ 304-305; driving direction guidance is provided to the plurality of vehicles that are participating in the specific event . . . a driving route and a duration for the specific event may be determined based on traffic density and people density at a specific time of a day in a target area for the greatest effect of the advertisement.)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Youm further teaches:
wherein the accident occurrence signal includes a collision detection signal or an airbag deployment signal of the accident vehicle. (Youm: ¶ 206; Upon detecting the state information of the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal device 100 may determine whether there is an accident involving the vehicle based on the detected state) (Youm: ¶ 068; state information may include . . . airbag operation detection information)
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Youm teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Cho further teaches:
wherein transmitting the assistance request signal further comprises transmitting the assistance request signal to the target vehicle to be notified based on inputting of an instruction regarding the assistance request (Cho: ¶ 159; user profiles of registered users of connected vehicles may be stored in a database which is coupled to the ADC server, and the ADC server may access the database of the user profiles and consult the profile of the user (or driver) of the connected vehicle to determine whether the connected vehicle is to participate in the advertisement event.) through an input device by a driver of the accident vehicle. (Cho: ¶ 210; the driver of the vehicle 1501 may register for the participation in the parade via the mobile application on the driver's mobile device)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed March 31, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection are effective and the rejection has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments filed March 31, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 1103 rejection of claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that prior art Cho and Gara
merely discloses that if a driver accepts invitation and assignment, an assignment module 615 may assign the roadside assistance service request to the driver. See Gara, paragraph [0098]. If the driver does not accept the invitation and assignment, the assignment module 615 may send the roadside assistance service request to a next driver or roadside assistance service provider on the list. See Gara, paragraph [0098]. However, Gara is silent on selecting a target vehicle based on the invitation and assignment. Also, Gara is silent on selecting a candidate vehicle selected based on a distance from a location of an accident vehicle. Thus, Gara fails to teach or suggest "wherein the controller is further configured to select the target vehicle based on an acceptance or rejection response signal for an assistance request received from each of the plurality of vehicles from a candidate vehicle selected based on a distance from the location of the accident vehicle," as recited by claim 1. Furthermore, amended independent claim 1 now recites "wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from the accident vehicle when the rejection response signal is received." (Applicant’s Arguments filed March 31, 2026, pgs. 7-8).
Newly applied art Wang teaches a system in which a driver makes a request for parking assistance and the system sends the request to the closest vehicle or vehicles, at which point, the target driver can accept, reject, or ignore the request. Upon a rejection, the system then sends a second request to the next furthest vehicle or vehicles.
Applicant further argues that
Youm merely discloses that a controller 130 may control a second communicator 112 to transmit at least one of information received from an apparatus included in a vehicle 10 and state information of the vehicle 10 detected through a detector 120, to the external server 30 through a first communicator 111. See Youm, paragraph [0105]. However, Youm is silent on transmitting assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from an accident vehicle when a rejection response signal is received. Thus, Youm fails to teach or suggest "wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the assistance request signal to another candidate vehicle having a next closest distance from the accident vehicle when the rejection response signal is received," as recited by claim 1. (Applicant’s Arguments filed March 31, 2026, pg. 8).
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above relies upon Cho for the teaching of transmitting a assistance-request signal to another candidate vehicle as Cho explicitly teaches the use of V2V communications. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Lu et al. (US 20230311697 A1) which discloses a system which sends “data to a server by devices either associated with an accident with a transport, or devices proximate to the accident. . . .In one example, the solutions can also be utilized to coordinate the ability to drop off a vehicle at a location using both the current state at the location, and a proposed future state using navigation destinations of other vehicles.” (Lu ¶ 093).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C..P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights