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
This Office Action is in response to Amendments, Remarks & IDS filed on 10/23/2025 & 01/15/20026 for application number 18/237,805 filed on 08/24/2023, in which claims 1-50 were originally presented for examination. Claims 1-50 have been cancelled, and claims 51-70 have been added as new claims by the preliminary amendment filed on 11/06/2023. Claims 51, 54-58, 61 & 64-68 are now amended, and claims 51-70 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of: (1) applicant’s claim this application to be CON of application No. 17/715,340 filed on 04/07/2022, and (2) applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN-202241008320 filed on 02/17/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 08/24/2023, 11/06/2023 03/19/2024, 01/15/2025 & 01/15/2026 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 that, in preparing responses, the Applicant 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: Claim(s) objection(s) is/are withdrawn, as the amended Claim(s) filed on 10/23/2025 has/have properly addressed the claim(s) informality objection(s) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 06/23/2025.
Regarding the Double Patenting: The non-statutory double patenting rejection(s) of claim(s) is/are maintained for the same reasons recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 06/23/2025, and outlined below, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection(s) outlined below were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment(s).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejection(s) of claim(s) for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, is/are withdrawn, as the amended claim(s) filed on 10/23/2025 has/have overcome the rejection as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 06/23/2025.
Regarding the Claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1) & USC §103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection(s) of the claim(s) as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Grimm (US-2019/0147744-A1), and/or the rejection of claim(s) as being unpatentable over Grimm as modified by Furst (US-2013/0054093-A1), Kisser (US-2021/0404823-A1) and/or Eigo (JP-2004145400-A) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach at least these features. More specifically, Grimm is silent on at least "a safe area comprising a plurality of safe locations" and "generating a notification for display ... comprising a selectable option corresponding to a safe location of the plurality of safe locations.".”
(see Remarks pages 10-13; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the base amended claim(s) 51 and/or 61 apparently to overcome the current anticipation and/or obviousness rejections under §102(a)(1) and/or §103 as recited in the Non-Final office action mailed on 06/23/2025. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
Examiner has conducted a Double Patenting analysis with at least patent No. US-11,787,441-B2 and US-12,139,168-B2. Examiner found several Double Patenting issues with claims of this patent and instant application claims as currently presented.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 51-70 are rejected on the ground of Non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the patent No. US-11,787,441-B2 (hereinafter ‘441).
This is a Non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented and claims 51-70 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘441.
Instant Application
18/237,805
Conflicting Patent
US-11,787,441-B2 (hereinafter ‘441)
Comments
A method comprising:
A method performed by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions stored in a computer memory to perform the method comprising:
See ‘441 claim 1 preamble.
determining that a vehicle is parked, unoccupied, and comprises an inactive powertrain;
determining a location of a vehicle that is parked, unoccupied, and comprises an inactive powertrain;
See ‘441 claim 1 1st limitation.
Based on determining that the vehicle is parked, unoccupied, and comprises the inactive powertrain:
determining a current location of the vehicle;
determining a location of a vehicle that is parked, unoccupied, and comprises an inactive powertrain;
See ‘441 claim 1 1st limitation.
accessing data corresponding to the current location, wherein the data comprises an identifier of at least one object within a threshold distance of the current location and a trajectory of the at least one object;
accessing data corresponding to the current location, wherein the data comprises an identifier of at least one object within a threshold distance of the current location and a trajectory of the at least one object;
See ‘441 claim 1 2nd limitation.
determining whether the trajectory corresponds to an impact path with the vehicle;
determining whether the trajectory corresponds to an impact path with the vehicle;
See ‘441 claim 1 3rd limitation.
based on determining that the trajectory corresponds to the impact path with the vehicle,
identifying a safe area comprising a plurality of safe locations;
determining, based on the impact path, an evasive route for the vehicle that
evades the trajectory of the at least one object and terminates at the safe area;
in response to determining that the trajectory corresponds to the impact path with the vehicle,
identifying an evasive route for the vehicle and a safe location to terminate the evasive route;
See ‘441 claim 1 4th limitation.
transmitting a first instruction to the vehicle, wherein the first instruction causes activation of the powertrain of the vehicle and an autonomous mode of the vehicle that executes the determined evasive route;
generating an instruction to activate the powertrain of the vehicle and an autonomous mode of the vehicle to execute the identified evasive route to cause the vehicle to be navigated to the safe location
See ‘441 claim 1 5th limitation.
generating a notification for display, the notification indicating the safe area and comprising a selectable option corresponding to a safe location of the plurality of safe locations; and
generating a notification for the user on the device, wherein the notification corresponds to a vehicle status,
wherein the notification comprises at least one of an impact event warning and description, a planned evasive route map, and a safe destination,
wherein the notification further comprises at least one selectable option comprising at least one of an option to modify the evasive route, an option to modify the safe destination, an option to ignore the notification, and an option to prevent activation of autonomous mode
See claims 7 & 8 & 9
based on receiving a selection of the selectable option, transmitting a second instruction to the vehicle, wherein the second instruction causes the vehicle to modify the evasive route such that the modified evasive route terminates at the safe location corresponding to the selectable option.
generating an instruction to activate the vehicle powertrain and an autonomous mode of the vehicle to execute the identified evasive route so the vehicle ends up in the safe location,
wherein the notification further comprises at least one selectable option comprising at least one of an option to modify the evasive route, an option to modify the safe destination, an option to ignore the notification, and an option to prevent activation of autonomous mode.
See claim 1 & 9
Claims 51-70 are rejected on the ground of Non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the patent No. US-12,139,168-B2 (hereinafter ‘168).
Although claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 51-70 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘168. This is a Non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Instant Application
18/237,805
Conflicting Patent
US-12,139,168-B2 (hereinafter ‘168)
Comments
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
See ‘168 claim 1 preamble.
determining that a vehicle is parked, unoccupied, and comprises an inactive powertrain;
retrieving at least one vehicle profile [implies parked, unoccupied, and comprises an inactive powertrain],
See ‘168 claim 1 1st limitation.
Based on determining that the vehicle is parked, unoccupied, and comprises the inactive powertrain:
determining a current location of the vehicle;
determining, based on location data associated with the at least one vehicle profile, a first location of a vehicle corresponding to the at least one vehicle profile;
See ‘168 claim 1 1st limitation.
accessing data corresponding to the current location, wherein the data comprises an identifier of at least one object within a threshold distance of the current location and a trajectory of the at least one object;
retrieving at least one safe location from a plurality of tracked locations, wherein the at least one safe location is within a threshold distance of the first location; accessing, in real-time, object data associated with the first location;
See ‘168 claim 1 2nd limitation.
determining whether the trajectory corresponds to an impact path with the vehicle;
in real time, and without receiving user input:
determining, based on the object data, at least one object corresponds to a trajectory, wherein the trajectory corresponds to an impact path with the vehicle;
See ‘168 claim 1 3rd limitation.
based on determining that the trajectory corresponds to the impact path with the vehicle,
identifying a safe area comprising a plurality of safe locations;
determining, based on the impact path, an evasive route for the vehicle that
evades the trajectory of the at least one object and terminates at the safe area;
in response to determining that the trajectory corresponds to an impact path with the vehicle,
generating an evasive route for the vehicle based on the impact path, wherein the evasive route circumvents the impact path, and wherein the evasive route terminates at the at least one safe location;
See ‘168 claim 1 4th limitation.
transmitting a first instruction to the vehicle, wherein the first instruction causes activation of the powertrain of the vehicle and an autonomous mode of the vehicle that executes the determined evasive route;
generating an instruction to activate a powertrain of the vehicle and an autonomous mode of the vehicle to execute the identified evasive route;
and transmitting the instruction to the vehicle, to enable the vehicle to execute the identified evasive route to autonomously relocate to the at least one safe location and avoid the at least one object.
See ‘168 claim 1 5th limitation.
generating a notification for display, the notification indicating the safe area and comprising a selectable option corresponding to a safe location of the plurality of safe locations; and
generating an instruction to display a notification at an end user device associated with the at least one vehicle profile, wherein the notification comprises the at least one identifier.
See claim 9
based on receiving a selection of the selectable option, transmitting a second instruction to the vehicle, wherein the second instruction causes the vehicle to modify the evasive route such that the modified evasive route terminates at the safe location corresponding to the selectable option.
the notification comprises two selectable options for each of the at least two location identifiers; and
the two selectable options, when selected, correspond to respective evasive route instructions for each respective safe location corresponding to each of the at least two location identifiers.
See claim 10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 51, 54, 55, 61, 64 & 65 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. No. US-2019/0147744-A1 by Grimm et al. (hereinafter “Grimm”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 08/24/2023
As per claim 51, Grimm discloses a method comprising:
determining that a vehicle is parked, unoccupied, and comprises an inactive powertrain (Grimm, in at least Abstract and ¶¶1-16, discloses vehicle safety systems that prevent collisions when a vehicle is not in operation, such as in a parked position, in an ignition off state, or in any other detectable inoperative condition, wherein detecting the vehicle is in the parked condition includes determining a geographic location of the vehicle. Grimm, in at least Fig. 3 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶35-49, further discloses the controller 30 (or the Stationary Safety Monitoring (SSM)) selectively activates one or more active safety systems 12, such as the park assist system while the vehicle 10 is parked and potentially unattended to monitor the surrounding environment, wherein the SSM is activated automatically by the controller 30, for example, if one or more predetermined conditions are met, e.g., the vehicle 10 being in the off state, being parked at one or more particular locations, being away from one or more particular locations, being unattended for a predetermined amount of time, and the like or a combination thereof. Grimm also discloses the wakeup is performed in response to the vehicle 10 being placed in a parked condition, in which the engine is turned off and/or the vehicle 10 is put in a parking gear, and performing a long range check to detect a moving object within a first range of the vehicle 10, as shown at block 330, wherein if a moving object is detected in the first range of the long range detection, the SSM wakes up the short range detection, as shown at block 340 and 350);
PNG
media_image1.png
770
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grimm’s Fig. 3 (emphasis added)
based on determining that the vehicle is parked, unoccupied, and comprises the inactive powertrain:
determining a current location of the vehicle (Grimm, in at least Abstract and ¶¶1-16, discloses vehicle safety systems that prevent collisions when a vehicle is not in operation, such as in a parked position, in an ignition off state, or in any other detectable inoperative condition, wherein detecting the vehicle is in the parked condition includes determining a geographic location of the vehicle);
accessing data corresponding to the current location, wherein the data comprises an identifier of at least one object within a threshold distance of the current location and a trajectory of the at least one object (Grimm, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 3 & 4 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶1-16, discloses detecting presence of a moving object within a predetermined region from the vehicle, wherein the vehicle performs a stationary safety monitoring that includes detecting presence of a moving object within a predetermined region from the vehicle);
PNG
media_image2.png
716
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Grimm’s Fig. 4
determining whether the trajectory corresponds to an impact path with the vehicle (Grimm, in at least Fig(s). 3 & 4 and ¶¶1-16 & 33-53 discloses the external object on a collision course with the vehicle 10 [i.e., impact path], and the controller 30 initiates operations such as camera capture, detecting and capturing impact details, i.e., direction and force);
based on determining that the trajectory corresponds to the impact path with the vehicle, identifying a safe area comprising a plurality of safe locations (Grimm, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 3 and ¶¶1-16 & 26, illustrates, in FIG. 1, a vehicle, active safety zones around a vehicle and active safety systems that monitor the active safety zones. Grimm further discloses the detection includes determining that the geographic location is not one from a predetermined list of safe locations);
determining, based on the impact path, an evasive route for the vehicle that evades the trajectory of the at least one object and terminates at the safe area (Grimm, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶1-16, discloses in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region, the vehicle is autonomously displaced by a predetermined amount);
transmitting a first instruction to the vehicle, wherein the first instruction causes activation of the powertrain of the vehicle and an autonomous mode of the vehicle that executes the determined evasive route (Grimm, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3 & 4 and ¶¶1-16, 30-31 & 52, discloses in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region, the vehicle is autonomously displaced by a predetermined amount. Grimm further discloses the active safety systems 12 sends the signals to an automated driving unit that performs the maneuvers to move the vehicle 10 to avoid the potential collision, wherein the vehicle 10 is in the parked condition, but movable within specific constraints, such as based on surrounding immovable objects. Upon recognition of such cases, the technical solutions described herein facilitate the parked vehicle 10 to wake up and autonomously move-within the constraints-to avoid the potential collision. Grimm also discloses the kind of alert to generate is based on the probability of the potential collision determined by the short range check. Further, the controller 30 determines that the vehicle 10 is movable within specific constraints, such as based on surrounding immovable objects that are detected using the one or more sensors 20. Upon recognition of such cases, the controller 30 autonomously starts the parked vehicle 10, and autonomously moves the vehicle 10 within the constraints to avoid the potential collision, as shown at block 395).
generating a notification for display, the notification indicating the safe area and comprising a selectable option corresponding to a safe location of the plurality of safe locations (Grimm, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 3 & 4 and ¶¶9, 12, 15, 25, 29, 51, 52 & 56, discloses in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region initiating a notification for the moving object to prevent collision with the vehicle, wherein the notification for the moving object includes a visual alert to alert the driver of the potential hazards if needed using the HMI 26 based on the time to collision (TTC) value. Grimm further discloses sending a notification to the user of the vehicle 10 as an alert on a mobile device, a text message, a phone call, or any other such notification via one or more communication networks); and
based on receiving a selection of the selectable option, transmitting a second instruction to the vehicle, wherein the second instruction causes the vehicle to modify the evasive route such that the modified evasive route terminates at the safe location corresponding to the selectable option (Grimm, in at least Fig(s). 3 & 4 and ¶¶35 & 38, discloses the controller 30 (or the SSM) selectively activates one or more active safety systems 12, such as the park assist system while the vehicle 10 is parked (and potentially unattended) to monitor the surrounding environment, and further activates the HMI system 26, such as the vehicle lights, vehicle chirp, or vehicle horn if a collision with a remote vehicle is predicted in the parked state, to alert the remote vehicle).
As per claim 54, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. Grimm discloses wherein the notification further comprises:
at least one of an impact event warning and description or a planned evasive route map (Grimm, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 3 & 4 and ¶¶9, 12, 15, 25, 29, 51, 52 & 56, discloses in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region initiating a notification for the moving object to prevent collision with the vehicle, wherein the notification for the moving object includes a visual alert to alert the driver of the potential hazards if needed using the HMI 26 based on the time to collision (TTC) value. Grimm further discloses the notification is sent as an alert on a mobile device, a text message, a phone call, or any other such notification via one or more communication networks).
As per claim 55, Grimm discloses the method of claim 54, accordingly, the rejection of claim 54 above is incorporated. Grimm discloses wherein the notification further comprises:
at least one selectable option comprising an option to modify the planned evasive route map and an option to modify the safe area (Grimm, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶9, 12, 15, 25, 29, 35-52 & 56, discloses, in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region, initiating a notification for the moving object to prevent collision with the vehicle, wherein the notification for the moving object includes a visual alert to alert the driver of the potential hazards if needed using the Human Machine Interaction (HMI) 26 based on the time to collision (TTC) value, wherein if the TTC for the potential collision is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the SSM determines what kind of alert to generate to cause the moving object to change course, stop moving, or take any other action to avoid the potential collision. Grimm further discloses the notification is sent as an alert on a mobile device, a text message, a phone call, or any other such notification via one or more communication networks, wherein the controller 30 (or the Stationary Safety Monitoring (SSM)) selectively activates one or more active safety systems 12, such as the park assist system while the vehicle 10 is parked and potentially unattended to monitor the surrounding environment, wherein the SSM is activated automatically by the controller 30, for example, if one or more predetermined conditions are met, e.g., the vehicle 10 being in the off state, being parked at one or more particular locations, being away from one or more particular locations, being unattended for a predetermined amount of time, and the like or a combination thereof, wherein the wakeup is performed in response to the vehicle 10 being placed in a parked condition, in which the engine is turned off and/or the vehicle 10 is put in a parking gear, and performing a long range check to detect a moving object within a first range of the vehicle 10, as shown at block 330, wherein if a moving object is detected in the first range of the long range detection, the SSM wakes up the short range detection, as shown at block 340 and 350. Grimm also discloses the SSM may selectively activate the HMI components).
As per claims 61, 64 & 65, the claims are directed towards vehicle systems that recite similar steps performed by the methods of claims 51, 54 & 55, respectively. The cited portions of Grimm used in the rejection of claims 51, 54 & 55 disclose the same steps performed by the system of claims 61, 64 & 65, respectively. Therefore, claims 61, 64 & 65 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 51, 54 & 55 as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 52, 53, 62 & 63 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Grimm (US-2019/0147744-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2013/0054093-A1 to Furst et al. (hereinafter “Furst”)
As per claim 52, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. While Grimm discloses wherein determining that the vehicle is unoccupied (Grimm, in at least ¶¶35 & 58, discloses the vehicle 10 is parked and potentially unattended), it is silent on comprises using seat weight sensors to determine whether a vehicle passenger compartment of the vehicle has at least one vehicle occupant.
Furst, in at least ¶¶24 & 41 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle collision control systems, teaches using seat weight sensors to determine whether a vehicle passenger compartment of the vehicle has at least one vehicle occupant (Furst, in at least ¶¶24 & 41, teaches vehicle-occupant-specific parameters is the seat occupation of a vehicle occupant, the weight of a vehicle occupant and/or a model representative of the body shape of at least one vehicle occupant. It will be understood that the motor vehicle according to the invention includes suitable sensor systems which particularly monitor the passenger compartment of the vehicle, such as cameras, weight sensors, seat belt buckle sensors, and the like, which allow determination and optionally association of vehicle occupants in the passenger compartment as well as optionally their body measurements and weight).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm in view of Furst, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle collision control systems and the combination would provide for the estimation of expected injuries to the vehicle occupants (see at least Furst’s ¶56).
As per claim 53, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. While Grimm discloses wherein determining that the vehicle is unoccupied (Grimm, in at least ¶¶35 & 58, discloses the vehicle 10 is parked and potentially unattended), it is silent on comprises analyzing a captured image of a vehicle passenger compartment of the vehicle to determine whether the vehicle passenger compartment has at least one vehicle occupant.
Furst teaches, in at least ¶¶24 & 41 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle collision control systems, using seat weight sensors to determine whether a vehicle passenger compartment of the vehicle has at least one vehicle occupant (Furst, in at least ¶¶24 & 41, teaches vehicle-occupant-specific parameters is the seat occupation of a vehicle occupant, the weight of a vehicle occupant and/or a model representative of the body shape of at least one vehicle occupant. It will be understood that the motor vehicle according to the invention includes suitable sensor systems which particularly monitor the passenger compartment of the vehicle, such as cameras, weight sensors, seat belt buckle sensors, and the like, which allow determination and optionally association of vehicle occupants in the passenger compartment as well as optionally their body measurements and weight).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm in view of Furst, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle collision control systems and the combination would provide for the estimation of expected injuries to the vehicle occupants (see at least Furst’s ¶56).
As per claims 62 & 63, the claims are directed towards vehicle systems that recite similar steps performed by the methods of claims 52 & 53, respectively. The cited portions of Grimm & Furst used in the rejection of claims 52 & 53 teach the same steps performed by the system of claims 62 & 63, respectively. Therefore, claims 62 & 63 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 52 & 53 as outlined above.
Claims 57, 59, 60, 67, 69 & 70 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Grimm (US-2019/0147744-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2021/0404823-A1 to Kisser et al. (hereinafter “Kisser”)
As per claim 57, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. While Grimm discloses wherein the notification further comprises: a selectable option (Grimm, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶9, 12, 15, 25, 29, 35-52 & 56, discloses in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region initiating a notification for the moving object to prevent collision with the vehicle, wherein the notification for the moving object includes a visual alert to alert the driver of the potential hazards if needed using the HMI 26 based on the time to collision (TTC) value, wherein if the TTC for the potential collision is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the SSM determines what kind of alert to generate to cause the moving object to change course, stop moving, or take any other action to avoid the potential collision. Grimm further discloses the notification is sent as an alert on a mobile device, a text message, a phone call, or any other such notification via one or more communication networks, wherein the controller 30 (or the Stationary Safety Monitoring (SSM)) selectively activates one or more active safety systems 12, such as the park assist system while the vehicle 10 is parked and potentially unattended to monitor the surrounding environment, wherein the SSM is activated automatically by the controller 30, for example, if one or more predetermined conditions are met, e.g., the vehicle 10 being in the off state, being parked at one or more particular locations, being away from one or more particular locations, being unattended for a predetermined amount of time, and the like or a combination thereof, wherein the wakeup is performed in response to the vehicle 10 being placed in a parked condition, in which the engine is turned off and/or the vehicle 10 is put in a parking gear, and performing a long range check to detect a moving object within a first range of the vehicle 10, as shown at block 330, wherein if a moving object is detected in the first range of the long range detection, the SSM wakes up the short range detection, as shown at block 340 and 350. Grimm also discloses the SSM may selectively activate the HMI components), it does not explicitly disclose to return the vehicle to the current location after it has been cleared of impending impact.
Kisser, in at least Abstract and ¶¶7, 8 & 32-35 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle collision control systems, teaches to return the vehicle to the current location after it has been cleared of impending impact (Kisser, in at least Abstract and ¶¶7, 8 & 32-35, teaches automatically guiding the mobile unit based on the piece of hazard information and/or a received all-clear signal and/or a received guidance signal, the automatic guidance taking place so that the mobile unit is guided to a starting position of the mobile unit).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm in view of Kisser, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle collision control systems and the combination would prevent damage to the mobile unit, wherein the situation is prevented in which too many mobile units unnecessarily head toward a safe position even though the present location of these mobile units is not affected by the hazard (see at least Kisser’s ¶¶8 & 16).
As per claim 59, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. While Grimm is silent on claim 59 limitations, Kisser, in at least ¶¶22 & 71 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle collision control systems, teaches issuing a command to prevent other vehicles from parking in the safe location before the vehicle gets to the safe location (Kisser, in at least ¶¶22 & 71, discloses that based on the received piece of hazard information, one of these safe positions is selected, wherein the safe position is a space in an underground parking garage reserved [i.e., prevent other vehicles from parking in the safe location]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm in view of Kisser, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle collision control systems and the combination would prevent damage to the mobile unit, wherein the situation is prevented in which too many mobile units unnecessarily head toward a safe position even though the present location of these mobile units is not affected by the hazard (see at least Kisser’s ¶¶8 & 16).
As per claim 60, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. While Grimm is silent on claim 60 limitations, Kisser, in at least ¶¶22 & 71 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle collision control systems, teaches removing an advertised parking spot corresponding to the safe location from a plurality of advertised parking spots (Kisser, in at least ¶¶22 & 71, discloses that based on the received piece of hazard information, one of these safe positions is selected; wherein, the safe position is a space in an underground parking garage reserved [i.e., removing an advertised parking spot corresponding to the safe location]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm in view of Kisser, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle collision control systems and the combination would prevent damage to the mobile unit, wherein the situation is prevented in which too many mobile units unnecessarily head toward a safe position even though the present location of these mobile units is not affected by the hazard (see at least Kisser’s ¶¶8 & 16).
As per claims 67, 69 & 70, the claims are directed towards vehicle systems that recite similar steps performed by the methods of claims 57, 59 & 60, respectively. The cited portions of Grimm & Furst used in the rejection of claims 57, 59 & 60 teach the same steps performed by the system of claims 67, 69 & 70, respectively. Therefore, claims 67, 69 & 70 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 57, 59 & 60 as outlined above.
Claims 58 & 68 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Grimm (US-2019/0147744-A1) in view of Patent Publication No. JP-2004145400-A to Segawa Eigo (hereinafter “Eigo”)
As per claim 58, Grimm discloses the method of claim 51, accordingly, the rejection of claim 51 above is incorporated. While Grimm discloses wherein the notification further comprises: an option (Grimm, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶9, 12, 15, 25, 29, 35-52 & 56, discloses in response to detecting the moving object in the predetermined region initiating a notification for the moving object to prevent collision with the vehicle, wherein the notification for the moving object includes a visual alert to alert the driver of the potential hazards if needed using the HMI 26 based on the time to collision (TTC) value, wherein if the TTC for the potential collision is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the SSM determines what kind of alert to generate to cause the moving object to change course, stop moving, or take any other action to avoid the potential collision. Grimm further discloses the notification is sent as an alert on a mobile device, a text message, a phone call, or any other such notification via one or more communication networks, wherein the controller 30 (or the Stationary Safety Monitoring (SSM)) selectively activates one or more active safety systems 12, such as the park assist system while the vehicle 10 is parked and potentially unattended to monitor the surrounding environment, wherein the SSM is activated automatically by the controller 30, for example, if one or more predetermined conditions are met, e.g., the vehicle 10 being in the off state, being parked at one or more particular locations, being away from one or more particular locations, being unattended for a predetermined amount of time, and the like or a combination thereof, wherein the wakeup is performed in response to the vehicle 10 being placed in a parked condition, in which the engine is turned off and/or the vehicle 10 is put in a parking gear, and performing a long range check to detect a moving object within a first range of the vehicle 10, as shown at block 330, wherein if a moving object is detected in the first range of the long range detection, the SSM wakes up the short range detection, as shown at block 340 and 350. Grimm also discloses the SSM may selectively activate the HMI components), it does not explicitly disclose to ignore the notification.
Eigo, in at least Fig. 12 and ¶¶41 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of impact warning systems, teaches to ignore the notification (Eigo, in at least Fig. 12 and ¶¶41, teaches the driver of the vehicle can determine whether the warning is justified or false, and can then cancel the warning by pressing one of the buttons).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm in view of Eigo, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - impact warning systems and the combination would provide control to driver to correspond to false alarms (see at least Eigo’s ¶41).
As per claims 68, the claim is directed towards vehicle systems that recite similar steps performed by the method of claims 58. The cited portions of Grimm & Eigo used in the rejection of claim 58 teach the same steps performed by the system of claim 68. Therefore, claim 68 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 58 as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 56 & 66 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Double Patenting rejection and independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See previously mailed PTO-892 form.
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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661