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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on pages 8 and 9, that Jain does not disclose detecting a safe situation specifically for the operator, examiner finds the argument moot. Examiner notes that the plain meaning of the concept of “safe” is not inherently limited to the operator’s personal safety, but is generally applied to the surroundings as well. For example, applicant’s own invention applies the concept of “safe” in the context of preventing roll away of a train, which in many scenarios has no effect on the personal safety of the operator that exited the train but is none the less a grave “safety” concern to others including any persons still onboard. Therefore examiner has applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of the concept of “safe” to include the situation as a whole and not merely limited to the operator’s personal safety. Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1) Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0319379 by Armstrong, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0356728 by Jain et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Armstrong teaches a vehicle safety system, comprising: operational sensors configured to sense one or more operational characteristics of a vehicle and to output operational data based on the one or more operational characteristics that are sensed (paragraph 203; a driver seat sensor for example); environmental sensors configured to sense one or more environmental characteristics and to output environmental data based on the one or more environmental characteristics that are sensed (paragraphs 198 and 199; air pressure sensors sense environmental characteristics); and one or more processors configured to examine the operational data and the environmental data to determine whether the vehicle is in a safe state for an onboard operator of the vehicle to exit the vehicle while avoiding the vehicle rolling away from a stationary state (paragraphs 53, 219 and 220; figure 1; risk [including roll-away risk] is determined based on the various sensor data), the one or more processors configured to examine the operational data and the environmental data to determine whether the vehicle is not in the safe state and to generate one or more notifications to the onboard operator in response to determining that the vehicle is not in the safe state (paragraph 205; warning is issued in unsafe situation).
Armstrong does not specifically teach sensing environmental characteristics of an environment external to the vehicle.
Jain teaches sensing environmental characteristics of an environment external to the vehicle (paragraph 222; outside temperature can be sensed to determine whether it is safe for driver to exit vehicle).
NOTE: system of Armstrong could incorporate outside environment data to make safety determinations.
Armstrong and Jain are combinable because they are both from the vehicle safety field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Armstrong with Jain to add an external environment sensor. The motivation for doing so would have been “detecting a safety hazard” (paragraph 222). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Jain to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 5, Armstrong teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the operational sensors include one or more of a location sensor configured to output location information indicative of a location of the vehicle, an orientation sensor configured to output orientation information indicative of an orientation of the vehicle, or a pilot sensor configured to output presence information indicative of a presence or absence of the operator onboard the vehicle (paragraph 203; pilot sensor [i.e. driver seat sensor] is disclosed).
4) Regarding claim 6, Jain (as combined with Armstrong in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the environmental sensors include one or more of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, or a precipitation sensor (paragraph 222; external temperature sensor is disclosed).
5) Claims 7, 11 and 12 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 1, 5 and 6 above, respectively.
6) Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0319379 by Armstrong, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication2023/0356728 by Jain et al. as applied to the rejections of claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0180607 by Choi et al.
7) Regarding claim 2, Jain does not specifically teach the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the operational sensors are configured to provide the operational data to the one or more processors and the environmental sensors are configured to provide the environmental data to the one or more processors after the operator leaves the vehicle.
Choi teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the operational sensors are configured to provide the operational data to the one or more processors and the environmental sensors are configured to provide the environmental data to the one or more processors after the operator leaves the vehicle (figure 4A and 4B; sensors of paragraph 76 and 77 continue collecting data after driver exits the vehicle [paragraph 68]).
Armstrong and Choi are combinable because they are both from the vehicle safety field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Armstrong with Choi to add continuing to collect sensor data after driver leaves the vehicle. The motivation for doing so would have been for autonomously parking the vehicle (paragraph 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Jain and Choi to obtain the invention of claim 2.
8) Regarding claim 3, Choi (as combined with Jain in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to continue examining the operational data and the environmental data subsequent to the operator leaving the vehicle to determine whether the vehicle is no longer in the safe state, the one or more processors configured to implement one or more responsive actions in response to determining that the vehicle is no longer in the safe state subsequent to the operator leaving the vehicle (paragraph 84; safety risk can be determined after driver leaves the vehicle and engages the emergency brake in response).
9) Regarding claim 4, Choi (as combined with Jain in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 3, wherein the one or more responsive actions include changing a brake setting of the vehicle (paragraph 84; brake is engaged is response to risk detection).
10) Claims 8-10 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 2-4 above, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-28 are allowed.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the prior art does not contain a valid combination of references that disclose a method of sensing an operational characteristic associated with a vehicle system and an environmental characteristic associated with an environment external to the vehicle system and determining, based on the operational characteristic and the environmental characteristic, a state of the vehicle system indicative of whether the vehicle system satisfies a condition associated with preventing unintended movement of the vehicle system from a stationary state while permitting an onboard operator to safely exit the vehicle system; responsive to determining that the state of the vehicle system is in a safe state, generating a notification indicating that the onboard operator is permitted to exit the vehicle system; and responsive to determining that the state of the vehicle is not in a safe state, implementing a responsive action to change the state of the vehicle to the safe state to permit the onboard operator to exit the vehicle. Similar prior art such as U.S. patent application publication 2018/0319379 by Armstrong, and U.S. patent application publication 2023/0356728 by Jain et al. disclose determining a safe state for a vehicle operator to exit a vehicle based upon operational and environmental data but fail to disclose an environmental characteristic external to the vehicle utilized for satisfying a condition for preventing unintended movement of the vehicle system from a stationary state.
Claims 23-28 are allowed because they depend upon an allowed claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
