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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/409,255 and the preliminary amendments filled on 01/10/2024.
Claims 38-57 are presented for examination. Claims 1-37 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 38, 53 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 38, the phrase “executed” on line 3 should apparently be “executed by the processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 55, the phrase “executable by a computer system” should apparently be “executable by a [[computer]]processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 38, 53 and 55, the punctuation mark comma (,) (comma) after the phrase “comprising” should apparently be colon (:). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 44 and 45 recites the limitation "first threshold speed” and “second threshold speed”, where the specification, filed on 01/10/2024 simply cites in para. [0272], [0277] that “the threshold speed is 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.” There is no clear boundary or limit setting for threshold speed found in the specification. Therefore, the claims 44 and 45 are indefinite for the phrase “threshold speed”.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 41-44, 46-47, 49, 51-52, 53-54 and 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693) (hereinafter Mukundan) in view of Chase et al. (US 2023/0305576) (hereinafter Chase).
Claim 38. Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693) teaches a system (see Para. [0006], discloses “receiving device” constitutes a system as claimed), comprising,
a communication module (See Para. [0006], discloses “transceiver” construed as communication module”); and
a processor (See Para. [0006], discloses “processor”);
wherein the processor storing instructions in a non-transitory memory (See Para. [0006], “memory and processor coupled together configured to receive first alert message”) that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, a first message by a host vehicle via the communication module from a source (See Abstract, Para. [0002], [0005], Figs. 6-7, Para. [0027], “receiving device [construed as first vehicle] receives first alert message from origination vehicle [construed as source] via wireless communication), wherein the first message comprises information on an erratic vehicle, wherein the information comprises one or more of a license plate number, a make and model, a color, a first contact zone, a location of the erratic vehicle, and a direction of travel of the erratic vehicle (See Abstract, “where the first alert message is indicative of the location, heading, and detection of erratic driving behavior”); and
transmit a second message, via the communication module, to alert a second vehicle, wherein the second message comprises a part of the first message, a second contact zone (See Para. [0004], [0006], [0061], Fig. 7, “the receiving device transmits second alert message comprising second information indicative of: the location of the origination vehicle, the heading of the origination vehicle, or the detection of the erratic driving behavior of the origination vehicle, or any combinations thereof”, and/or see Para. [0061], where the receiving device comprises a receiving vehicle [construed as host vehicle] and transmitting the second alert message to one or more additional vehicles [construed as second vehicle]), and see Para. [0060], “the second alert message may comprise the first alert message”, which constitutes that the second message comprises a part of the first message as claimed); and
wherein the system is a component of the host vehicle (Para. [0061], “the receiving device [i.e., system] may comprise a receiving vehicle [i.e., host vehicle]”, hence the system is a component of the host vehicle); and wherein the source is one of a first vehicle, a device, and a traffic infrastructure.
Nevertheless, Mukundan does not explicitly spell out where the second message comprises an evasive action for the second vehicle.
However, Chase teaches, where the message comprises an evasive action for the second vehicle (Para. [0076], “the WWMS 100 transmits warning messages and commands to nearby vehicles equipped with BBIS beacons 120 to take evasive actions to mitigate the potential for collision with the vehicle 110”, and see Para. [0072], “vehicle 110 is equipped with WWMS 100”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan with transmitting a message/command to nearby vehicle for an evasive action as taught by Chase in order to mitigate the potential for collision with erratic vehicle.
Claim 39. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the system is operable for broadcasting the second message (See Mukundan, Para. [0042], “devices that receive the message directly from the original vehicle may further propagate [i.e., broadcast] to other devices”).
Claim 41. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the first message further comprises an image of the erratic vehicle (See Mukundan, Para. [0031], “camera(s) 225 may include a dash camera capable of capturing images of a pursued vehicle”, and see Abstract, “transmitting alert message including location and heading of erratic behavior vehicle”). The examiner note that the cited reference Mukundan does not explicitly spell out where the captured image of the vehicle is transmitted in alert message. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan in view of teaching of Chas with transmitted a message with erratic vehicle picture in order to notify neighbor vehicle about a vehicle with erratic behavior for safety.
Claim 42. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the first message further comprises an image of a driver of the erratic vehicle and of passengers of the erratic vehicle (See Mukundan, Para. [0031], discloses “captured image including physical behaviors and/or eye movement by the driver and/or passengers”, and see Para. [0006], discloses “propagating a first alert message of detected erratic driving behavior). The examiner note that the cited reference Mukundan does not explicitly spell out where the captured image of the driver/passenger is transmitted in alert message. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan in view of teaching of Chas with transmitted a message with driver and/or passenger’s captured picture in order to identify erratic driving behavior.
Claim 43. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the first message further comprises one or more of an image of the first contact zone created by the erratic vehicle (See Mukundan, Para. [0004], “the first alert message comprising: a location of the origination vehicle/erratic vehicle”).
Claim 44. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the first contact zone comprises an areas where a group of surrounding vehicles that are moving at a speed at least one of above a first threshold speed, below a second threshold speed, and one or more vehicles are involved in a vehicle pursuit (See Mukundan, Fig. 1, 3-5, discloses a scenario of the claimed invention. Additionally, see Para. [0033], “the origination vehicle is not driving the speed limit (e.g., within a threshold range of the speed limit), it may determine that the origination vehicle is experiencing erratic driving”, and see Para. [0053], “in some instances (e.g., during a police chase) detected behavior of another vehicle”), and Para. [0055], “erratic driving behavior, such as police pursuit, speeding vehicle, swerving vehicle, etc.”).
Claim 46. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the first message further comprises a request for the host vehicle to move in a specific direction (See Chase, Para. [0052], “BBIS beacons 120 to notify shifting to one or more designated lanes (e.g., left two lanes”, and/or see Para. [0065], “instructions to begin moving the vehicles 110 towards the appropriate direction and lane as soon as the messages are received”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan with a instruction to a vehicle move two lanes left as taught Chas in order to avoid collision with one or more vehicles.
Claim 47. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 46, wherein the specific direction comprises a change in lane, a change in route, and a change in distance from the host vehicle (See Chase, Para. [0052], “BBIS beacons 120 to notify shifting to one or more designated lanes (e.g., left two lanes”, and/or see Para. [0065], “instructions to begin moving the vehicles 110 towards the appropriate direction and lane as soon as the messages are received”, and see Mukundan, Para. [0020], [0064], “a distance between the location of the receiving device and the location of the origination vehicle”, and see Para. [0073], “provide routing information for the vehicle, map data, alternative route data and/or traffic and street conditions data”, and Para. [0080], “request increased inter-vehicle distance from adjacent vehicles or may choose route options that avoid road hazard conditions”).
Claim 49. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase and Han teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the second contact zone is different from the first contact zone, and wherein the second contact zone is an updated situation about the first contact zone (See Mukundan, Para. [0012], [0027], [0050] Fig. 5, discloses different area [i.e., contact area] and different safety alert for different area”).
Claim 51. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the system is further operable to display the first message to a driver of the host vehicle (See Mukundan, Para. [0047], “Remote vehicles 330 may comprise an onboard unit (OBU) or other interface with which the remote vehicles 330 may notify drivers and passengers of the alert, and displaying alert message to enable user to take appropriate action”).
Claim 52. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the system is further operable to display the second message to a driver of the second vehicle (See Mukundan, Para. [0047], “Remote vehicles 330 may comprise an onboard unit (OBU) or other interface with which the remote vehicles 330 may notify drivers and passengers of the alert. VRUs such as pedestrians 350 and cyclists 340 may be alerted via VRU devices such as the mobile phone and/or wearable device (e.g., equipped to communicate directly with vehicles or other V2X devices via a PC5 or similar wireless interface). Such devices may respond similar to an Amber alert, in which the devices display an alert”).
Claims 53-54 are method claims corresponding to system claims 38 and 47 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales set forth as above.
Claims 55-57 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to system claims 38 and 47 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales set forth as above.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693) (hereinafter Mukundan) in view of Chase et al. (US 2023/0305576) (hereinafter Chase) and further in view of Arnicar (US 2025/0108811).
Claim 40. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, but they fails to teach, wherein the first message further comprises a noticeable feature of the erratic vehicle, wherein the noticeable feature comprises one or more of a bumper sticker, a dent, and any special accessory attached to the erratic vehicle.
However, Arnicar teaches, wherein the first message further comprises a noticeable feature of the erratic vehicle, wherein the noticeable feature comprises one or more of a bumper sticker, a dent, and any special accessory attached to the erratic vehicle (See Para. [0011], [0020], discloses “the vehicle receives information about unique bumper sticker”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan in view of teaching of Chase with transmission a visible marker/indicator such as a bumper sticker and/or vehicle damage information as taught by Arnicar in order to alert a second autonomous vehicle operating within a predetermined distance of the location of the object and notify of the risk score and the behavior profile as well as the location and/or direction of travel of the object. The second autonomous vehicle may thereby adjust one or more control parameters to plan a route or ensure safety protocols are prepared to anticipate a risky or unsafe action by the object if encountered.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693) (hereinafter Mukundan) in view of Chase et al. (US 2023/0305576) (hereinafter Chase) and further in view of Awad Alla et al. (US 2021/0020037) (hereinafter Awad).
Claim 45. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 44, wherein the first threshold speed determined based on a speed limit on a route on which the erratic vehicle is travelling (See Para. [0033], discloses “a threshold range of the speed limit, and it may determine that the origination vehicle is experiencing erratic driving when the vehicle is not driving the speed limit”).
Nevertheless, the cited prior arts fails to teach the second threshold speed is determined based an average speed of vehicles which are away from the erratic vehicle.
However, Awad teaches, threshold speed is determined based an average speed of vehicles which are away from the erratic vehicle (See Para. [0045], [0055], “the speed threshold can be determined based on average speed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan in view of teaching of Chas and determine a threshold speed based on average speed as taught by Awad in order to determine that vehicle is moving erratically when a speed of the vehicle exceeds a speed threshold e.g., a posted speed limit, an average speed of one or more vehicles.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693) (hereinafter Mukundan) in view of Chase et al. (US 2023/0305576) (hereinafter Chase) and further in view of Han (US 2024/0010231).
Claim 48. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 46, however they fails to explicitly spell out wherein the specific direction is displayed as a vector.
However, Han teaches, wherein the specific direction is displayed as a vector (See Para. [0159], “display route [i.e., vector] information of a host vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan in view of teaching of Chase and with displaying a route of the host vehicle as taught by Han in order to check the current position information of the vehicle during travel in response to the autonomous driving mode.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukundan et al. (US 2023/0249693) (hereinafter Mukundan) in view of Chase et al. (US 2023/0305576) (hereinafter Chase) and further in view of Ghimire et al. (US 2022/0132289) (hereinafter Ghimire).
Claim 50. The teaching of Mukundan as modified by the teaching of Chase teaches the system of claim 38, however they fails to explicitly spell out wherein the second message further comprises a request for a daisy chain communication to notify other surrounding vehicles within a geographical range or a route of a nearby vehicle.
However, Ghimire teaches, wherein the second message further comprises a request for a daisy chain communication to notify other surrounding vehicles within a geographical range or a route of a nearby vehicle (See Para. [0062]-[0063], “the controller 20 of any vehicle, e.g., vehicle 30, 60, may be further configured to generate a relay request message 56, 56′, 56″ to request that another vehicle, e.g., vehicle 32, 34, comprising a V2X communication system transmit the emergency message 54, 54′, 54″ for receipt by one or more additional vehicles, e.g., vehicle 36, 38, 40, comprising a V2X communication system”, same as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Mukundan in view of teaching of Chase and with relaying emergency message to other vehicle and request other vehicle to further relaying the emergency message to additional vehicle as taught by Ghimire in order to aware all the vehicle surrounding the host vehicle about an emergency event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657