DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s contention (see pages 7-8 filed 24 February 2026)) with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of the claims has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 24 February 2026. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
3. Applicant’s contention (see pages filed 24 February 2026) with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the amendments provided. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Subsequently, the prior art rejections of all claims dependent therefrom are withdrawn.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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 14-19 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 claims 1, 6, and 11, Matus discloses a system and method for automatically warning at least one nearby vehicle of a potential safety hazard in or near a roadway (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 system and method 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), at least one sensor configured for measuring at least one of a velocity and heading of the potential hazard (velocity and heading implicitly measured in the disclosure of Matus over time in that radar, lidar, etc. are used to monitor the potential safety hazard’s PVA in a “temporal” characteristic or indicator; Matus at 0016, 0055, 0078).
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 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 claims 2 and 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 claims 5 and 15, Matus discloses wherein the message includes the location of the potential safety hazard and at least one of the measured velocity and heading of the potential safety hazard (message includes potential safety hazard’s PVA in a “temporal” characteristic or indicator; Matus at 0016, 0055, 0078).
Regarding claims 7 and 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 8, Matus discloses wherein the message further includes a time stamp indicating when the message was generated (e.g. time stamp; Matus at 0016).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, 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).
Regarding claim 14, Matus discloses wherein the one or more sensors includes at least one sensor configured to measure a distance between the sensor and the potential safety hazard (event data collected with radar; Matus at 0030).
Regarding claim 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 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 20 is allowed.
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 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 date of this final action.
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.
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
20 April 2026
Prosecution Insights