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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently integrate the invention into a practical application, and thus the 101 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulton (US20200062250A1) in view of Damerow (US20150344030A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boulton teaches;
A system of a vehicle having access to a network (taught as a computing device to obtain information about a proximate vehicle and create a risk profile, paragraph 0014), comprising:
a communication controller (taught as the computing device comprising a communication subsystem and a processor, paragraph 0014) to interface with: a mobile device (taught as the computing device being mobile devices such as smartphones, paragraph 0023, and where sensors are external to the system and communicate, paragraph 0032), the vehicle (taught as the computing system being included on a vehicle, paragraph 0019), or sensors coupled to the vehicle (taught as the computing device connecting to a plurality of sensors in a vehicle, paragraph 0019); and
a vehicle controller to perform a responsive operation at the vehicle (taught as a processor, element 120, to control operation of the computing device, paragraph 0028, and performing an action based on the risk profile, including changing driving behavior/actions, paragraph 0081, and issuing warnings or indicators, paragraph 0083);
wherein the system is to:
identify a target vehicle operating in proximity of the vehicle (taught as obtaining information about a proximate vehicle, paragraph 0015), wherein to identify the target vehicle, the system is to identify the target vehicle based on a license plate number of the target vehicle (taught as using automatic number plate recognition [ANPR] to identify surrounding vehicles, paragraph 0059);
determine a trust metric, the trust metric indicating a measurement of risk to operate the vehicle in the proximity of the target vehicle (taught as determining a risk profile for the proximate vehicle, paragraph 0015);
wherein the trust metric comprises a vehicle fitness score, and wherein to determine the vehicle fitness score, the system is to transmit the license plate number to a central server via the network (taught as communicating with a server for vehicle management paragraph 0044, and for data services, paragraph 0047, and other lookup services, paragraph 0055), the central system to calculate a vehicle fitness score based on at least a reputation of the target vehicle (taught as using vehicle make and model of the target vehicle, including test results and advisory items, paragraph 0067), a maintenance risk of the target vehicle (taught as using data services, such as maintenance reports and vehicle status, from servers, paragraph 0048), and
initiate the responsive operation at the vehicle, using the vehicle controller, based on the trust metric (taught as performing an action based on the risk profile, including changing driving behavior/actions, paragraph 0081, and issuing warnings or indicators, paragraph 0083),
wherein the responsive operation comprises initiating a braking mechanism to slow the vehicle down and increase a following distance behind the target vehicle (taught as an autonomous vehicle taking actions to avoid potential collisions, such as by leaving a larger distance/spacing between the ego vehicle and the target vehicle paragraph 0081).
However, Boulton does not explicitly teach; calculate a vehicle fitness score based on a probability of survival of a person involved in a collision with the target vehicle.
Damerow teaches; calculate a vehicle fitness score based on a probability of survival of a person involved in a collision with the target vehicle (taught as a risk calculation, including a survival probability function, paragraph 0051, which indicates the likelihood that a traffic participant survives, paragraph 0029, and are related to the predicted trajectories of other vehicles, e.g. paragraph 0047).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate survival probabilities as taught by Damerow in the system taught by Boulton in order to improve risk determination.
Regarding claim 4, Boulton teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the license plate is obtained using the sensors coupled to the vehicle (taught as using optical character recognition [OCR], paragraph 0059, such as by using camera(s), paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 7, Boulton teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the responsive operation comprises:
initiating navigational controls to guide the vehicle to avoid the target vehicle (taught as an autonomous vehicle taking actions to avoid potential collisions, such as by leaving a larger distance/spacing between the ego vehicle and the target vehicle paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 8, Boulton teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the responsive operation comprises:
initiating an alert to a passenger of the vehicle regarding the target vehicle (taught as warning the [ego] driver regarding a risk profile exceeding a threshold, paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 9, Boulton teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the responsive operation comprises:
initiating an alert to a passenger of the vehicle regarding the target vehicle (taught as warning the [ego] driver regarding a risk profile exceeding a threshold, paragraph 0083).
Regarding claims 11, 14, and 17-19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1, 4, and 7-9. Therefore, claims 11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 4, and 7-9 respectively.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulton (US20200062250A1) as modified by Damerow (US20150344030A1) in view of Ferguson (US20220194391A1).
Regarding claim 2, Boulton as modified by Damerow teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Boulton further teaches; wherein the trust metric comprises a situational safety score (taught as considering supplementary data in building a risk profile, paragraph 0078), and wherein to determine the situational safety score, the system is to:
determine a current weather condition of an environment the vehicle is operating in (taught as considering weather conditions, paragraph 0078);
obtain a current road condition over which the vehicle is travelling (taught as considering environmental conditions and road information, paragraph 0019),
transmit the current weather condition and the current road condition to a central system via the network (taught as communicating with a server for vehicle management paragraph 0044, and for data services, paragraph 0047, and other lookup services, paragraph 0055).
However, Boulton does not explicitly teach; the central system to calculate a situational safety score based on at least: a weather risk and a road risk, wherein the weather risk is based on statistics of weather-based fatalities, and the road risk is based on statistics of fatalities correlated with road conditions.
Ferguson teaches; the central system to calculate a situational safety score based on at least; wherein the weather risk is based on statistics of weather-based fatalities (taught as using a driving analysis sever to consider weather data and hazard data, including traffic accidents, paragraph 0049) and the road risk is based on statistics of fatalities correlated with road conditions (taught as considering numbers and types of accidents from traffic data, paragraph 0049).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate specific driver and weather considerations of the target vehicle in determining a risk score as taught by Ferguson in the system taught by Boulton in order to improve safety. Considering environmental factors allows the score to add in modifiers and conditions that may affect driving behavior and be used to adjust whether certain behaviors are risky or more appropriate. Furthermore, such considerations can be used for incentivizing/disincentivizing certain behaviors in conditions based on insurance rates, as suggested in Ferguson, by updating driver scores (e.g. paragraph 0052) to use in insurance rates, coverage and potential discounts (paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 6, Boulton as modified by Damerow teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Boulton further teaches; wherein the trust metric comprises a driver fitness score, and wherein to determine the driver fitness score, the system is to transmit the license plate number to the central system via the network (taught as communicating with a server for vehicle management paragraph 0044, and for data services, paragraph 0047, and other lookup services, paragraph 0055.
However, Boulton does not explicitly teach; the central system to calculate a driver fitness score based on at least: a license score, an offense score, and an accident score, wherein the license score is based on a driver license report of a driver of the target vehicle, the offense score is based on a traffic record of the driver of the target vehicle, and the accident risk is based on an age of the driver of the target vehicle.
Ferguson teaches; wherein the license score is based on a driver license report of a driver of the target vehicle (taught as using a driving record, paragraph 0031), the offense score is based on a traffic record of the driver of the target vehicle (taught as accident history being used in calculating driver score, paragraph 0064), and the accident score is based on an age of the driver of the target vehicle (taught as using the age of driver, paragraph 0031).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate specific driver and weather considerations of the target vehicle in determining a risk score as taught by Ferguson in the system taught by Boulton in order to improve safety. Considering environmental factors allows the score to add in modifiers and conditions that may affect driving behavior and be used to adjust whether certain behaviors are risky or more appropriate. Furthermore, such considerations can be used for incentivizing/disincentivizing certain behaviors in conditions based on insurance rates, as suggested in Ferguson, by updating driver scores (e.g. paragraph 0052) to use in insurance rates, coverage and potential discounts (paragraph 0064).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims2 and 6. Therefore, claims 12 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2 and 6 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that Winner’s injury risk is fundamentally different from the claim, which requires a probability of survival (a preemptive assessment, not a current assessment).
As the applicant has amended the independent claims past what Boulton discloses, the examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
The examiner notes that the claim language does not explicitly recite this requirement of the probability being preemptive. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
However, the examiner will amend the interpretation of the claims to better fit with the intention, and presents Damerow to rectify the change in interpretation. In particular, Damerow explicitly discusses survival probability calculations in future event probability (e.g. paragraph 0021, 0029, and 0047), as a way to measure a level of risk/score with other vehicles that modifies the behavior of the ego-vehicle.
To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Otherwise, the examiner recommends emailing or calling and suggesting available times.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further driver/vehicle risk scoring; US20220097691A1, US20180196427A1, US20180085380A1
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1:00-9:00.
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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights