DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claims 38-39 and 41-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693 A1) in view of Khosla et al. (US 2023/0306832 A1).
As to claims 38, 54 and 56, Mukundan discloses a system comprising, a sensor (para. 0053-0054), a communication module (para. 0063); and a processor (Fig. 12); wherein the processor storing instructions in a non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the processor to: scan, via the sensor (Fig. 11) of a host vehicle, to observe surroundings for an erratic behavior (para. 0027, 0037); determine an erratic vehicle by analyzing for the erratic behavior (para. 0027, 0037); scan, via the sensor, to determine an identity (para. 0092) of the erratic vehicle and analyze a traffic condition (para. 0043-0044, 0075) around the erratic vehicle; determine a possibility of a collision (para. 0025-0027); alert, via the communication module, a nearby vehicle by sending a message (para. 0002-0006); and determine an evasive action to avoid the collision (para. 0087); and wherein the system is a component of a vehicle (Fig. 9). Mukundan does not explicitly disclose the use of different frequency to determine an identify of the erratic vehicle. However, Khosla teaches increasing frequency of image capture to identify license plate of vehicle. Therefore, given the teaching of Khosla, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system/method of Mukundan, by employing the well-known or conventional features of increasing image capture frequency, to identify the license plate of the erratic vehicle.
As to claim 39, Mukundan further teaches wherein the sensor comprises one or more of a camera, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor (para. 0092, Fig. 11).
As to claim 41, Mukundan further teaches wherein the erratic behavior comprises one or more of a swerving, a speeding, a sudden lane change, a frequency of lane change, an acceleration above a first threshold, and a deceleration below a threshold, a vehicle with emergency lights on, a vehicle with siren on, and a complete stop (para. 0030, 0040).
As to claim 42, Mukundan further teaches wherein the message comprises the identity of the erratic vehicle, wherein the identity comprises one or more of a vehicle identification number, a license plate number, a make and model, a color, and a noticeable feature and wherein the noticeable feature comprises one or more of a bumper sticker, a dent, and an accessory attached to the erratic vehicle, and wherein the system is operable for broadcasting the message (para. 0092).
As to claim 43, Mukundan further teaches wherein the message further comprises a location of the erratic vehicle and a direction of travel of the erratic vehicle (claim 1), and wherein the message further comprises a request for a daisy chain communication to notify other surrounding vehicles in a geographical range (the use of daisy chain communication is well-known).
As to claim 44, Mukundan further teaches wherein the message further comprises one or more of an image of the erratic vehicle and an image of a driver of the erratic vehicle and passengers of the erratic vehicle (para. 0031).
As to claim 45, Mukundan further teaches wherein the system is operable to determine a contact zone created by the erratic vehicle, wherein the contact zone comprises one or more of a group of surrounding vehicles that are moving at a speed below a first threshold speed, a group of surrounding vehicles that are moving at a speed above a second threshold speed, a group of surrounding vehicles that are moving at a speed within a threshold speed limits, and one or more of vehicles involved in a vehicle pursuit, and wherein the first threshold speed, the second threshold speed, and the threshold speed limits are determined based on a speed limit on a route on which the erratic vehicle is traveling and an average speed of vehicles which are away from the erratic vehicle (para. 0033, 0053, 0055).
As to claim 46, Mukundan further teaches wherein the message further comprises one or more of an image of the contact zone created by the erratic vehicle, and a zone around the erratic vehicle comprising the contact zone (para. 0004).
As to claim 46, Mukundan further teaches wherein the message comprises a request for moving in a specific direction for the nearby vehicle (para. 0039).
As to claims 48 and 57, the use of AI to identify a pattern is well-known.
As to claim 49, Mukundan further teaches wherein the machine vision system and the artificial intelligence module is operable to determine a collision avoidance action and wherein the collision avoidance action is determined by considering one or more of energy requirements of the host vehicle, a weather condition, the traffic condition, and a time requirement to reach a destination (para. 0033, 0080, 0086).
As to claim 50, Mukundan further teaches wherein the communication module is operable for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication (para. 0021, 0039).
As to claim 51, Mukundan further teaches wherein the evasive action comprises one or more of maintaining a distance of the host vehicle from the erratic vehicle, adjusting a distance of the host vehicle from the erratic vehicle, performing a change in a route, performing a reverse maneuver, and performing a lane change, and wherein the host vehicle performs the evasive action (para. 0039, 0080).
As to claim 52, Mukundan further teaches wherein requesting the nearby vehicle to one or more of adjusting a distance from the host vehicle, a lane change, a reverse maneuver, and a change in a route (para. 0039, 0080).
As to claims 53 and 55, Mukundan further teaches the system further sends an alert message to a law enforcement agency about the erratic vehicle, and wherein the alert message comprises one or more of a license plate number, a make and model, a color, a location of the erratic vehicle, and a direction of travel of the erratic vehicle (Claim 1).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan and Khosla, as applied to claim 38 above, further in view of Kato et al. (US 2021/0403015 A1).
As to claim 40, Mukundan and Khosla do not explicitly teach wherein the first frequency is adjusted dynamically to the second frequency based on one or more of the traffic condition, a weather condition, a geo location, a road condition, and a distance from the erratic vehicle, and wherein the traffic condition comprises a number of vehicles surrounding the erratic vehicle and their speed. However, Kato teaches the first frequency is adjusted dynamically to the second frequency based on one or more of the traffic condition, a weather condition, a geo location, a road condition, and a distance from the erratic vehicle, and wherein the traffic condition comprises a number of vehicles surrounding the erratic vehicle and their speed (para. 0017-0033). Therefore, given the teaching of Kato, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system/method of Mukundan, by employing the well-known or conventional features of sensor frequency based on traffic condition and weather condition, to detect the erratic behavior more accurately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights