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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on January 8, 2024. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 5, 2025 and January 12, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on December 5, 2025 have overcome the prior art rejections as well as the 35 USC 101 rejection. Therefore the examiner withdraws the prior art rejections made in the final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-11, filed December 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2021/0166565 A1, to Kumar et al.
The Double Patenting rejection is maintained, however the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s desire to refrain from submitting a terminal disclaimer until the instant application proceeds to allowance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/407,554. Specifically, Claims 1,8, & 15 are fully encompassed by Claims 1, 8, & 15, respectively, of the co-pending application, see 5(a) below. Claims 2, 9, & 16 are fully encompassed by claims 1, 8, & 15, respectively, of the co-pending application. Claims 3, 10, & 17 are fully encompassed by claims 2, 9, & 16, respectively, of the co-pending application. Claims 4, 11, & 18 are fully encompassed by claims 3, 10, & 17, respectively, of the co-pending application. Claims 5, 12, & 19 are fully encompassed by claims 4, 11, & 18, respectively, of the co-pending application. Claim 7 is fully encompassed by claim 6, respectively, of the co-pending application. Therefore, the patent application is provisionally rejected on the basis of non-statutory double patenting.
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes that the claim limitation “initiate one or more actions to assist or protect people or a property at the site of the emergency situation” of the instant application is fully encompassed by the corresponding limitation in Claim 1 of the co-pending application 18/407,554, “transmit, via the transceiver to a computing system, a notification corresponding to the emergency situation, the notification including a geolocation of the site of the emergency situation;” as the language of the instant application is a broader limitation of the co-pending application. Similar logic applies to independent claims 8 and 15 of both applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0059323 A1, to Gerrese et al., hereafter Gerrese in view of US 20210166565 A1, to Kumar et al., hereafter Kumar.
Regarding Claim 1, Gerrese discloses An autonomous vehicle, comprising: one or more sensors positioned on a body of the autonomous vehicle (Gerrese [0014], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses autonomous vehicles using sensors including a camera, LIDAR, RADAR, and audio sensors);
at least one processor (Gerrese [0048], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses an autonomous vehicle having one or more processors);
at least one memory storing instructions (Gerrese [0048], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses an autonomous vehicle having memory which stores instructions that are executed by a processor),
which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive sensor data from the one or more sensors; determine, from the sensor data, presence of an emergency situation…and an absence of an emergency vehicle at a site of the emergency situation (Gerrese [0069], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses detecting an emergency event via the camera sensors of the autonomous vehicle);
in accordance with the determining, trigger a first responder mode of the autonomous vehicle (Gerrese [0069], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses triggering a response, 206, when an emergency event is detected);…
However, Gerrese does not specifically disclose …not involving the autonomous vehicle…in response to the triggering of the first responder mode, control operations of the autonomous vehicle to assist in the emergency situation; and initiate one or more actions to assist or protect people or a property at the site of the emergency situation
Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …not involving the autonomous vehicle (Kumar [0082] & Fig. 7, Examiner Note: Kumar teaches a method for controlling an autonomous emergency response functions from a first vehicle (i.e. autonomous vehicle) to a second vehicle (i.e. vehicle in emergency))…in response to the triggering of the first responder mode, control operations of the autonomous vehicle to assist in the emergency situation; and initiate one or more actions to assist or protect people or a property at the site of the emergency situation (Kumar [0070], Examiner Note: Kumar discloses one of the emergency response functions being obtaining supplies loading unit to take to the emergency area (i.e. controlling the autonomous vehicle to assist with the emergency situation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the emergency event detection system of Gerrese with the control operations to assist with an emergency situation of Kumar in order to support injured passengers when no emergency services have arrived (Kumar [0068]).
Regarding Claim 2, Gerrese in view of Kumar teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, via the transceiver to a computing system, the sensor data including a geolocation of the site of the emergency situation, and audio or visual data corresponding to the emergency situation (Gerrese [0092]-[0094], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses providing data to the emergency vehicle which includes location data as well as image and audio data); and a
receive, via the transceiver from the computing system, instructions to transmit specific sensor data or perform the one or more actions to assist or protect the people or the property at the site of the emergency situation (Gerrese [0040], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses the AV receiving GPS information from the EMV, which the passenger can use to authorize the EMV to access the EV (i.e. actions to assist or protect the people in the emergency situation)).
Regarding Claim 4, Gerrese in view of Kumar teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: process the sensor data to remove personal identifying information from the sensor data before transmitting the sensor data to the computing system (Gerrese [0014], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses autonomous vehicles using sensors including a camera, LIDAR, RADAR, and audio sensors).
Regarding Claim 5, Gerrese in view of Kumar teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate three dimensional (3D) visualization images based on the sensor data from the one or more radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensors, the one or more light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors, or the one or more cameras (Gerrese [0055] & [0064], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses rendering representations of 3d volumes based on sensor data).
Regarding Claim 6, Gerrese in view of Kumar teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, further comprising one or more display devices mounted on one or more exterior sides of the autonomous vehicle (Gerrese [0037], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses one or more displays on the autonomous vehicle); and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to initiate the one or more actions to assist or protect the people or property at the site of the emergency situation by performing one or more of: pulling the autonomous vehicle in a driving lane or a shoulder at an angle or straight (Gerrese [0107], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses the AV pulling over to the shoulder to be out of the way of incoming traffic during an emergency);
displaying one or more messages on the one or more display devices to alert a passerby of the emergency situation or to request help (Gerrese [0037], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses one or more displays on the autonomous vehicle in order to communicate with third parties such as emergency responders); or
initiating a two-way communication between the passerby and an agent at a mission control, a police department, a fire department, or an emergency medical services department (Gerrese [0037], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses establishing communications between the autonomous vehicle and emergency responders).
Regarding Claim 7, Gerrese in view of Kumar teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1,
Gerrese further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine presence of the emergency situation and absence of the emergency vehicle at the site of the emergency situation based on one or more machine-learning models trained to identify the emergency situation including an accident, a fire, a smoke, a damaged property, or an injured person, based at least in part on acoustic data or visual data of the sensor data using the one or more radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensors, the one or more light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors, the one or more cameras, or the one or more microphones (Gerrese [0079], Examiner Note: Gerrese discloses using a machine learning algorithm in order to determine if an emergency even is occurring using the received sensor (e.g. audible and visual) data; [0022], Examiner Note: Gerresse discloses sensor data captured by the autonomous detail which can determine emergency responders have not arrived at the scene yet (i.e. absence of emergency vehicles)).
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
With respect to Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
With respect to Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
With respect to Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 3, 10, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0059323 A1, to Gerrese et al., hereafter Gerrese in view of US 20210166565 A1, to Kumar et al., hereafter Kumar as applied to claims 1, 8, & 15 above, and further in view of US 2023/0056551 A1, to Christensen.
Regarding Claim 3, as shown above, Gerrese in view of Kumar teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 2,
However, Gerrese does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: process the sensor data to remove personal identifying information from the sensor data before transmitting the sensor data to the computing system.
Christensen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: process the sensor data to remove personal identifying information from the sensor data before transmitting the sensor data to the computing system (Christensen [0028], Examiner Note: Christensen teaches excluding all personal information from data which is transmitted by the vehicle to a third party).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the emergency event detection system of Gerrese in view of Kumar with the removal of personal identifying information of Christensen in order to avoid transmitting or broadcasting personal or sensitive information unnecessarily (Christesen [0028]).
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645