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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 details one or more sensors for detecting a safety hazard and then lists two necessary sensors. The latter seemingly conflicts with the former requirement; appropriate clarification/correction requested.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s contention (see pages 6-8 filed 16 June 2026)) with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the arguments provided1. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Subsequently, the prior art rejections of all claims dependent therefrom are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are warranted (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
4a. Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus (US 2019/0122543), and further in view of Rider (US 2015/0179066).
Regarding claim 11, Matus discloses a method (method of providing for proximate inter-vehicle communication regarding potential road events including hazards on or near a roadway such as an accident in the lane of travel going over a hill; Matus at 0011, 0021), the method comprising:
Detecting a potential safety hazard in or near a roadway using one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors includes at least one sensor configured to measure a distance between the sensor and the potential safety hazard (radar, LIDAR, optical sensors, etc. on board the first vehicle provides range to potential hazard; Matus at 0030).
Determining a location of the potential safety hazard using information provided by the one or more sensors (traffic event location determined; Matus at 0011, 0019, 0020).
Generating a message including information concerning at least one of a location of the one or more sensors and the location of the potential safety hazard (processor in devices collects all data and assembles a message for transmission; Matus at 0009, 0012, 0015, 0028, 0029, 0032, 0085).
Transmitting the message wirelessly to at least one nearby vehicle (proximate vehicle immediately warned regarding the hazard event; Matus at abstract, 0009, 0011, 0068).
Matus includes updating information regarding the incident and confirming its existence but is silent to receiving a request from at least one nearby vehicle in response to the message.
Rider, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches distributed incident reports regarding potential safety hazards in a geographical area (Rider at 0026) including hazard velocity/trajectory and location information (Rider at 0012, 0015), and in response to receiving the incident report, a nearby vehicle can actively or passively request updated data on the road hazard (Rider at 0020).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to augment the invention of Matus with the request option of Rider. Doing so would ensure the vehicle would receive timely, relevant information regarding the current road of travel.
Regarding claim 12, Matus discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a camera, an image sensor, an optical sensor, a sonic sensor, a traction sensor, a wheel impact sensor, and a location sensor (Matus at 0030).
Regarding claim 14, Matus discloses wherein determining the location of the potential safety hazard includes relating the distance to the location of the one or more sensors (event data collected with radar; Matus at 0030).
Regarding claim 16, Matus discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one sensor configured for measuring at least one of a velocity and heading of the first vehicle (velocity of vehicle ascertained; Matus at 0009), wherein the message includes the location of the first vehicle (vehicle position; Matus at 0009), wherein the message includes at least one of the measured velocity and heading of the first vehicle (Matus at 0012, 0018, 0019).
Regarding claim 18, Matus discloses identifying a nature of the potential safety hazard using, at least in part, information collected by the one or more sensors, and wherein the message further includes information concerning the nature of the potential safety hazard (collected data compared with accident event model to characterize the event, and then the identified event is transmitted out; Matus at 0009, 0012, 0051).
Regarding claim 19, Matus discloses wherein the method is implemented according to instructions stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium that, when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method (Matus at 0085).
4b. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus (US 2019/0122543), and further in view of Rider (US 2015/0179066) and Nix (US 2019/0164430).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Matus discloses a system (proximate inter-vehicle communication system regarding potential road events including hazards on or near a roadway such as an accident in the lane of travel going over a hill; Matus at 0011, 0021), the system comprising:
One or more sensors configured to detect a potential safety hazard in or near a roadway (radar, LIDAR, optical sensors, etc. on board the first vehicle; Matus at 0021, 0028, 0030).
Wherein the one or more sensors includes at least one sensor configured to measure a distance between the sensor and the potential safety event (radar provides range to hazard; Matus at 0030).
A memory containing computer readable instruction for generating a message including at least one of a location of the one or more sensors and a location of the potential safety hazard (information combined with supplemental data gathered for determination of a potential traffic event, to be transmitted to other vehicles including location of vehicle sensing the event as well as event location; Matus at 0009, 0019, 0028, 0085).
A processor configured to read the computer readable instructions from the memory and generate the message (processor in devices collects all data and assembles a message for transmission; Matus at 0009, 0012, 0015, 0028, 0029, 0032, 0085).
A transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit the message to at least one nearby vehicle (proximate vehicle immediately warned regarding the hazard event; Matus at abstract, 0009, 0011, 0068).
Matus includes updating information regarding the potential safety hazard and confirming its existence; Matus is silent as to measure at least one of a velocity and heading of the potential safety hazard as well as receiving a request from at least one nearby vehicle in response to the message.
Rider, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches distributed incident reports regarding potential safety hazards in a geographical area (Rider at 0026) including hazard velocity/trajectory and location information (Rider at 0012, 0015), and in response to receiving the incident report, a nearby vehicle can actively or passively request updated data on the road hazard (Rider at 0020).
Nix, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches monitoring the velocity and heading of the potential safety hazard (Nix at 0083), and including, in the message, the location of the potential safety hazard and at least one of the measured velocity and heading of the potential safety hazard (inter-vehicle communication concerning velocity and heading of threat; Nix at 0083, 0089).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to augment the invention of Matus with the request option of Rider and sensing of Nix. Doing so would ensure the vehicle would receive timely, more detailed, and more relevant information regarding the current road of travel and a potential safety hazard.
Regarding claim 2, Matus discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a camera, an image sensor, an optical sensor, a sonic sensor, a traction sensor, a wheel impact sensor, and a location sensor (Matus at 0030).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Matus discloses wherein the message includes the location of the potential safety hazard (radar, LIDAR, optical sensors, etc. on board the first vehicle provides range to potential hazard; Matus at 0016, 0030, 0058), and the combination teaches and at least one of the measured velocity and heading of the potential safety hazard (inter-vehicle communication concerning velocity and heading of threat; Nix at 0083, 0089).
Regarding claim 7, Matus discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one sensor configured for measuring at least one of a velocity and heading of the first vehicle (velocity of vehicle ascertained; Matus at 0009), wherein the message includes the location of the first vehicle (vehicle position; Matus at 0009), wherein the message includes at least one of the measured velocity and heading of the first vehicle (Matus at 0012, 0018, 0019).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Matus discloses wherein the message further includes a time stamp indicating when the message was generated (e.g. time stamp; Matus at 0016).
Regarding claim 9, Matus discloses wherein the processor is further configured to identify a nature of the potential safety hazard using, at least in part, information collected by the one or more sensors, and wherein the message further includes information concerning the nature of the potential safety hazard (collected data compared with accident event model to characterize the event, and then the identified event is transmitted out; Matus at 0009, 0012, 0051).
Regarding claim 10, Matus discloses wherein the one or more sensors are deployed in or near the roadway (e.g. traffic cameras; Matus at 0032).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 04 September 2026
1 Independent claim 11 does not maintain a sensor to determine velocity and heading of the potential safety hazard and remains rejected for those reasons cited below and those mentioned in the prior rejection. However, said limitation is included in claim 15 and claims 15 and 17 rejected under new grounds and rationale.
Prosecution Insights