DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 7/07/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 have been amended, claim 7 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/07/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are directed toward subject matter that has not been previously considered and has necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objection. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0174493 A1; hereinafter Lin) in view of Khosla et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0308849 A1; hereinafter Khosla) and further in view of Moran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0248949 A1; hereinafter Moran) and Hac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0193374 A1; hereinafter Hac).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses:
A system, located on a first vehicle navigating a lane of a road (computer system 602, see at least [0078]; computer system 302, see at least [0040]), comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components (memory 608, see at least [0078]; computer system implement hardware and software to implement modules, see at least [0079]); and
a processor (one or more processors 606, see at least [0078]) that executes at least one of the computer executable components that:
receives, from a second vehicle traveling in the lane ahead of the first vehicle, a notification that (receiving data from another vehicle, see at least [0074] and incorporating the received data to determine a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, see at least [0076]):
identifies a third vehicle traveling in the lane between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and
indicates that a collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur; (vehicle may transmit data to other vehicles based on a type of event such as a prediction of a collision, see at least [0014] and [0029]) *Examiner sets forth “first vehicle” would be able to receive a predicted collision message from “second vehicle”
adjust operation of the first vehicle (incorporating the received data to determine a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, see at least [0076])
Although Lin does not explicitly disclose the notification indicating a collision, Lin teaches a triggering event for data transmission to be a collision (see at least [0010] and [0068]).
Lin does not explicitly disclose:
identifies a third vehicle traveling in the lane between the first vehicle and the second vehicle
indicates that a rear end collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur
determines an available braking distance from a current location of the first vehicle to a location of the third vehicle;
determines a required braking distance for the first vehicle to stop without colliding with the third vehicle; and
based on a result of a comparison between the available braking distance and the required braking distance
However, Khosla teaches:
identifies a third vehicle traveling in the lane between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (information related to collision such as identifiers of vehicle involved in collision may be extracted and included in the broadcast message, see at least [0044])
indicates a rear end collision (see at least Fig. 3) between the third vehicle and the second vehicle (On-Board Unit (OBU) broadcast a message that an accident occurred, see at least [0044]; vehicle may broadcast a message to other entities, such as OBU entities, that a collision has been detected, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin by adding the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Additionally, Moran teaches:
indicates that a rear end collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur (determining by a first car that a car accident might occur between first car and a second car with the second car hitting the first car from behind, first car transmits an accident alert to a third car, in response to the alert, see at least [0073])
adjust operation of the first vehicle (the third car attempts to avoid a car accident by the third car, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin and the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla by adding the predicted accident from behind alert taught by Moran with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Moran teaches transmitting to a vehicle ahead instead of transmitting to a vehicle travelling behind the accident, One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a modification to transmit to following vehicles would also be possible in combination with the data transmission of Lin and collision broadcast message of Khosla. Furthermore, Moran teaches an embodiment of a third vehicle coming up on an accident between two leading vehicles (see at least [0144]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the third vehicle could automatically maneuver “to avoid being involved in the potential motor-vehicle accident” and “to reduce (e.g. minimize) damage inflicted upon the third motor-vehicle as a result of involvement in the potential motor-vehicle accident by performing at least one vehicle control action” (see [0019]).
Furthermore, Hac teaches:
determines an available braking distance from a current location of the first vehicle to a location of the third vehicle (distance between host vehicle and obstacle, see at least [0024]);
determines a required braking distance for the first vehicle to stop without colliding with the third vehicle (a minimum distance necessary to avoid collision by braking only, see at least [0024]); and
based on a result of a comparison between the available braking distance and the required braking distance (determine whether distance between vehicles is less than the minimum distance to avoid a collision, see at least [0085]), adjust operation of the first vehicle (controller 110 in operable communication with the active braking system, executes collision avoidance using automated braking, see at least [0004] and [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident from behind alert taught by Moran by adding the braking distance determination taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but Lin and Khosla do not teach:
the location of the third vehicle is a predicted location of the third vehicle upon colliding with the second vehicle.
However, Khosla teaches:
the location of the third vehicle is a predicted location of the third vehicle upon colliding with the second vehicle (broadcast message includes location of collision, see at least [0051])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the accident disclosed by Lin by adding the accident location between vehicles taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above and Lin further discloses:
the second vehicle is operating autonomously (vehicles may be autonomous vehicles; first autonomous vehicle sends data to a second autonomous vehicle, see at least [0015])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but Lin and Khosla do not teach:
the notification further comprises braking information regarding the third vehicle
However, Moran teaches:
the notification further comprises braking information regarding the third vehicle (car B starts braking and updated data is used for predicting likelihood of accident, see at least page 9, col. 2, para. 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin and the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla by adding the braking information taught by Moran with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to reduce (e.g. minimize) damage inflicted upon the third motor-vehicle as a result of involvement in the potential motor-vehicle accident by performing at least one vehicle control action” (see [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but Lin does not disclose:
the notification indicates a current location of the third vehicle
However, Khosla teaches:
the notification indicates a current location of the third vehicle (collision related information may include identifier of vehicle and additional information such as location, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin by adding the location taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
determines that the required braking distance is less than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; and reduces an operational velocity of the first vehicle
However, Hac teaches:
determines that the required braking distance is less than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; and reduces an operational velocity of the first vehicle (if distance between vehicles is less than the minimum distance to avoid a collision, emergency braking is applied, see at least [0085]; controller 110 in operable communication with the active braking system, executes collision avoidance using automated braking, see at least [0004] and [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the braking distance determination taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
determines that the required braking distance is greater than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; determines an adjacent lane is available; and maneuvers the first vehicle into the adjacent lane.
However, Hac teaches:
determines that the required braking distance is greater than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; determines an adjacent lane is available; and maneuvers the first vehicle into the adjacent lane (if actual distance d is larger than the braking distance, determine whether the adjacent lane is free of obstacles using side camera or radar system and control the steering for emergency lane change maneuver, see at least [0087]-[0089])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the lane change maneuver taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
adjusts the required braking distance as a function of at least one of a weather condition in an environment of the road or a road condition of the road
However, Hac teaches:
adjusts the required braking distance as a function of at least one of a weather condition in an environment of the road or a road condition of the road (minimum distance necessary to avoid a collision is calculated based on surface coefficient of adhesion, see at least [0086]; distance increases on slippery surface, see at least [0039]; icy surface, see at last [0020])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the surface coefficient by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “minimum distance is approximately inversely proportional to the surface coefficient” and must be taken into account for a safe braking distance estimation (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above and Khosla further discloses:
the first vehicle is operating at least partially autonomously while navigating the road (autonomous vehicles, see at least [0015])
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising (computer system 602, see at least [0078]; computer system 302, see at least [0040]):
receiving, by a system of a first vehicle navigating a lane of a road, from a second vehicle traveling in the lane ahead of the first vehicle, a notification (receiving data from another vehicle, see at least [0074] and incorporating the received data to determine a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, see at least [0076]) that:
indicates that a collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur (vehicle may transmit data to other vehicles based on a type of event such as a prediction of a collision, see at least [0014] and [0029]) *Examiner sets forth “first vehicle” would be able to receive a predicted collision message from “second vehicle”
adjusting, by the system, operation of the first vehicle (incorporating the received data to determine a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, see at least [0076])
Although Lin does not explicitly disclose the notification indicating a collision, Lin teaches a triggering event for data transmission to be a collision (see at least [0010] and [0068]).
Lin does not explicitly disclose:
indicates that a rear end collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur;
determining, by the system, an available braking distance from a current location of the first vehicle to a location of the third vehicle;
determining, by the system, a required braking distance for the first vehicle to stop without colliding with the third vehicle; and
based on a result of a comparison between the available braking distance and the required braking distance, adjusting, by the system, operation of the first vehicle
However, Khosla teaches:
indicates a rear end collision(see at least Fig. 3) between the third vehicle and the second vehicle (On-Board Unit (OBU) broadcast a message that an accident occurred, see at least [0044]; vehicle may broadcast a message to other entities, such as OBU entities, that a collision has been detected, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin by adding the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Additionally, Moran teaches:
indicates that a rear end collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur (determining by a first car that a car accident might occur between first car and a second car with the second car hitting the first car from behind, first car transmits an accident alert to a third car, in response to the alert, see at least [0073])
adjusting, by the system, operation of the first vehicle (the third car attempts to avoid a car accident by the third car, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin and the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla by adding the predicted accident from behind alert taught by Moran with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Moran teaches transmitting to a vehicle ahead instead of transmitting to a vehicle travelling behind the accident, One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a modification to transmit to following vehicles would also be possible in combination with the data transmission of Lin and collision broadcast message of Khosla. Furthermore, Moran teaches an embodiment of a third vehicle coming up on an accident between two leading vehicles (see at least [0144]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the third vehicle could automatically maneuver “to avoid being involved in the potential motor-vehicle accident” and “to reduce (e.g. minimize) damage inflicted upon the third motor-vehicle as a result of involvement in the potential motor-vehicle accident by performing at least one vehicle control action” (see [0019]).
Furthermore, Hac teaches:
determining, by the system, an available braking distance from a current location of the first vehicle to a location of the third vehicle (distance between host vehicle and obstacle, see at least [0024]);
determining, by the system, a required braking distance for the first vehicle to stop without colliding with the third vehicle; and (a minimum distance necessary to avoid collision by braking only, see at least [0024]); and
based on a result of a comparison between the available braking distance and the required braking distance, (determine whether distance between vehicles is less than the minimum distance to avoid a collision, see at least [0085]), adjusting, by the system, operation of the first vehicle (controller 110 in operable communication with the active braking system, executes collision avoidance using automated braking, see at least [0004] and [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident from behind alert taught by Moran by adding the braking distance determination taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but Lin does not explicitly disclose:
the location of the third vehicle is a predicted location of the third vehicle upon colliding with the second vehicle
However, Khosla teaches:
the location of the third vehicle is a predicted location of the third vehicle upon colliding with the second vehicle (vehicles 302 and 304 have been involved in a collision, see at least [0046] and Fig. 3; collision related information may include identifier of vehicle and additional information such as location, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the accident disclosed by Lin by adding the accident between vehicles taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known that accidents may occur between two vehicles. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above and Khosla further discloses:
at least one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is operating autonomously (autonomous vehicles, see at least [0015])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
determining, by the system, that the required braking distance is less than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises reducing an operational velocity of the first vehicle.
However, Hac teaches:
determining, by the system, that the required braking distance is less than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises reducing an operational velocity of the first vehicle (if distance between vehicles is less than the minimum distance to avoid a collision, emergency braking is applied, see at least [0085]; controller 110 in operable communication with the active braking system, executes collision avoidance using automated braking, see at least [0004] and [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the braking distance determination taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
determining, by the system, that the required braking distance is greater than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; determining, by the system, that there is an adjacent lane to the lane of the road; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises, in response to determining that the adjacent lane is available, navigating the first vehicle into the adjacent lane
However, Hac teaches:
determining, by the system, that the required braking distance is greater than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; determining, by the system, that there is an adjacent lane to the lane of the road; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises, in response to determining that the adjacent lane is available, navigating the first vehicle into the adjacent lane (if actual distance d is larger than the braking distance, determine whether the adjacent lane is free of obstacles using side camera or radar system and control the steering for emergency lane change maneuver, see at least [0087]-[0089])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the lane change maneuver taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable (memory 608, see at least [0078]; computer system implement hardware and software to implement modules, see at least [0079])by a processor (one or more processors 606, see at least [0078]) located on a first vehicle navigating a lane of a road (autonomous vehicle 328, see at least [0041]), to cause the processor to:
receive, from a second vehicle traveling in the lane ahead of the first vehicle, a notification that (receiving data from another vehicle, see at least [0074] and incorporating the received data to determine a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, see at least [0076]):
indicates that a collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur (vehicle may transmit data to other vehicles based on a type of event such as a prediction of a collision, see at least [0014] and [0029]) *Examiner sets forth “first vehicle” would be able to receive a predicted collision message from “second vehicle”
adjust operation of the first vehicle (incorporating the received data to determine a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, see at least [0076]),
Although Lin does not explicitly disclose the notification indicating a collision, Lin teaches a triggering event for data transmission to be a collision (see at least [0010] and [0068]).
Lin does not explicitly disclose:
identifies a third vehicle traveling in the lane between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and
indicates that a rear end collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur;
determine an available braking distance from a current location of the first vehicle to a location of the third vehicle;
determine a required braking distance for the first vehicle to stop without colliding with the third vehicle; and
based on a result of a comparison between the available braking distance and the required braking distance, adjust operation of the first vehicle
However, Khosla teaches:
identifies a third vehicle traveling in the lane between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (information related to collision such as identifiers of vehicle involved in collision may be extracted and included in the broadcast message, see at least [0044])
indicates a rear end collision (see at least Fig. 3) between the third vehicle and the second vehicle (On-Board Unit (OBU) broadcast a message that an accident occurred, see at least [0044]; after detection of collision, vehicle may broadcast a message to other entities, such as OBU entities, that a collision has been detected, see at least [0034]; vehicles 302 and 304 have been involved in a collision, see at least [0046] and Fig. 3; collision related information may include identifier of vehicle and additional information such as location, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin by adding the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Additionally, Moran teaches:
indicates that a rear end collision between the third vehicle and the second vehicle is going to occur (determining by a first car that a car accident might occur between first car and a second car with the second car hitting the first car from behind, first car transmits an accident alert to a third car, in response to the alert, see at least [0073])
adjust operation of the first vehicle (the third car attempts to avoid a car accident by the third car, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin and the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla by adding the predicted accident from behind alert taught by Moran with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Moran teaches transmitting to a vehicle ahead instead of transmitting to a vehicle travelling behind the accident, One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a modification to transmit to following vehicles would also be possible in combination with the data transmission of Lin and collision broadcast message of Khosla. Furthermore, Moran teaches an embodiment of a third vehicle coming up on an accident between two leading vehicles (see at least [0144]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the third vehicle could automatically maneuver “to avoid being involved in the potential motor-vehicle accident” and “to reduce (e.g. minimize) damage inflicted upon the third motor-vehicle as a result of involvement in the potential motor-vehicle accident by performing at least one vehicle control action” (see [0019]).
Furthermore, Hac teaches:
determine an available braking distance from a current location of the first vehicle to a location of the third vehicle (distance between host vehicle and obstacle, see at least [0024]);
determine a required braking distance for the first vehicle to stop without colliding with the third vehicle (a minimum distance necessary to avoid collision by braking only, see at least [0024]); and
based on a result of a comparison between the available braking distance and the required braking distance (determine whether distance between vehicles is less than the minimum distance to avoid a collision, see at least [0085]), adjust operation of the first vehicle (controller 110 in operable communication with the active braking system, executes collision avoidance using automated braking, see at least [0004] and [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident from behind alert taught by Moran by adding the braking distance determination taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the location of the third vehicle is a predicted location of the third vehicle upon colliding with the second vehicle
However, Khosla teaches:
the location of the third vehicle is a predicted location of the third vehicle upon colliding with the second vehicle (broadcast message includes location of collision, see at least [0051])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the accident disclosed by Lin by adding the accident location between vehicles taught by Khosla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “collision related information may be used” by other vehicles “to assist with avoiding the scene or the collision or to provide aid at the collision” (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
determine that the required braking distance is less than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises reducing an operational velocity of the first vehicle
However, Hac teaches:
determine that the required braking distance is less than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises reducing an operational velocity of the first vehicle (if distance between vehicles is less than the minimum distance to avoid a collision, emergency braking is applied, see at least [0085])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the braking distance determination taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above but the combination of Lin, Khosla, and Moran does not teach:
determine that the required braking distance is greater than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; determine that there is an adjacent lane to the lane of the road; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises, in response to determining that the adjacent lane is available, navigating the first vehicle into the adjacent lane
However, Hac teaches:
determine that the required braking distance is greater than the available braking distance based on the result of the comparison; determine that there is an adjacent lane to the lane of the road; and wherein adjusting the operation of the first vehicle comprises, in response to determining that the adjacent lane is available, navigating the first vehicle into the adjacent lane (if actual distance d is larger than the braking distance, determine whether the adjacent lane is free of obstacles using side camera or radar system and control the steering for emergency lane change maneuver, see at least [0087]-[0089])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, and the predicted accident alert taught by Moran by adding the lane change maneuver taught by Hac with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid collision” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above and Khosla further discloses:
at least one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is operating autonomously (autonomous vehicles, see at least [0015])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Khosla, Moran, and Hac as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Uhler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0294238 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac teaches the elements above and Lin further discloses:
a camera configured to generate an image of the road being navigated by the first vehicle (autonomous vehicles may capture camera data, see at least [0015]); and
The combination of Lin, Khosla, Moran, and Hac does not teach:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further: detects the third vehicle in the image based at least in part on third vehicle information in the notification
However, Uhler teaches:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further: detects the third vehicle in the image based at least in part on third vehicle information in the notification (acquisition and verification of vehicle identification numbers used to identify crashed vehicles within close proximity, see at least [0036])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmitted to other vehicles disclosed by Lin, the collision broadcast message taught by Khosla, the predicted accident alert taught by Moran, and the braking distance determination taught by Hac by adding the vehicle identification verification taught by Uhler with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for the immediate on scene vehicle identification” (see [0025]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662