DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 29, 2025 Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 have been amended. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and the Applicant’s arguments for amended claims 1, 3 - 4, 6 – 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 17, and 20, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 20 under Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 101, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed on October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for amended claim 1, 3 - 4, 6 – 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 17, and 20, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 20 under Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 103 are discussed below.
Please see detailed rejections below.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 – 2, 7 – 11, 14 – 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0148201 A1 to KING et al. (herein after "King")
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
King’s autonomous vehicle perception based collision avoidance system discloses a method (see at least Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flowchart for determining whether or not to cause a vehicle to decelerate, and
PNG
media_image1.png
710
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
see ¶0023 when AV 102 detects a potential object representing a predicted collision, AV 102 brakes and/or mitigates collision potential), comprising:
identifying, by a controller, one or more operating conditions of a vehicle based at least in part on data received from one or more sensors (see at least Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general traveling trajectory of autonomous vehicle 102 perceiving its environment through sensor (environment) data 114 acquired via sensors 104 wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 monitor the operating conditions of the vehicle,
PNG
media_image2.png
794
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
see Fig. 5 ~ illustrates a general arrangement of controllers wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 comprise processors, and
PNG
media_image3.png
516
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as taught in ¶0013 ~ "the secondary system may determine that the primary system is offline ( e.g., the primary system has experienced as hardware or software failure, power to the first system was disrupted, etc.),");
determining, by the controller, whether a change in the one or more operating conditions of the vehicle indicates an event involving the vehicle (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091 ~ "At operation 322, the second system 304 may determine if an error occurred with the first system 302. For example, the second system 304 may determine that an error occurred with the first system 302 by determining that a signal has not been received from the first system 302 for more than a threshold amount of time, determining a hardware and/or software failure for the first system 302, and/or determining that power to the first system 302 was disrupted"); and
initiating, by the controller, a responsive action involving one or more onboard power sources of the vehicle responsive to determining occurrence of the event (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091); and
stopping a movement of the vehicle, by the controller, controlling an operation of a braking system of the vehicle, in response to determining that the event exceeded a predetermined threshold. (See at least Fig. 4, ¶0023, ¶0025 ~ "If the secondary system 108 detects the primary system error 128, the secondary system 108 may… cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver", ¶0071 ~ "If the primary system 106 is offline, then the trajectory validation component 218 may send a signal to the trajectory modification component 220… to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver", and ¶0093 ~ "At operation 320, the second system 304 may cause the vehicle to perform a maneuver, such as decelerate, stop, change lanes, pull over, swerve, or otherwise change the trajectory").
As to Claim 2,
King discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the event is one or more of an impact event, a derailment, or a flooding event. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4; King ~ outlines a process flowchart for determining whether or not to cause a vehicle to decelerate and ¶0023; King when AV 102 detects a potential object representing a predicted collision, AV 102 brakes and/or mitigates collision potential).
As to Claim 7,
King discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein initiating the responsive action includes initiating of inspection or repair of one or more mounting components that couple the one or more onboard power sources to the vehicle, by the controller. (See ¶0058 - ¶0059; King).
As to Claim 8,
King discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of
an accelerometer, an inclinometer, a gyro sensor, a speed sensor, a global positioning sensor, an impact sensor, a camera, or a pressure sensor. (See at least Fig. 1 ~ sensors 104 comprises a camera).
As to Claim 9,
King discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising
identifying a type of the event from one or more different types of events based at least in part on the data received from the one or more sensors. (See at least Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091).
As to Claim 10,
King discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising
selecting, by the controller, the responsive action to initiate based on the type of the event. (See at least Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091).
As to Claim 11,
King discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising
identifying the one or more operating conditions at one or more different locations of the vehicle. (See Fig. 4, ¶0023 - ¶0024, ¶0043, and ¶0091).
As to Claim 14,
King discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving data associated with a state of a portion of a route along which the vehicle is configured to move (see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flowchart for determining whether or not to cause a vehicle to decelerate and ¶0023 when AV 102 detects a potential object representing a predicted collision, AV 102 brakes and/or mitigates collision potential); and
determining whether the change in the one or more operating conditions indicates the event based at least in part on the state of the portion of the route. (See at least Fig. 4, ¶0023 - ¶0024, ¶0043 ~ "planning component 208 may determine various routes and/or trajectories and various levels of detail.… to guide the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first waypoint in the sequence of waypoints to a second waypoint in the sequence of waypoints", and ¶0091).
As to Claim 15,
King discloses the method of claim 14,
wherein determining if the change in the one or more operating conditions indicates the event based at least in part on the state of the portion of the route occurs prior to the vehicle moving along the portion of the route. (See Fig. 4, ¶0023 - ¶0024, ¶0043 ~ "planning component 208 may determine various routes and/or trajectories and various levels of detail.… to guide the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first waypoint in the sequence of waypoints to a second waypoint in the sequence of waypoints", and ¶0091; thus teaching directing the autonomous vehicle to move along a portion of route based in part on the state of the route occurring beforehand).
As to Claim 17,
King discloses a system (see at least Fig. 5), comprising:
a controller including one or more processors configured to control operation of a vehicle (see at least Fig. 5 ~ illustrates a general arrangement of controllers wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 comprise processors), the controller configured to
identify one or more operating conditions of the vehicle based at least in part on data received from one or more sensors (see at least Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general traveling trajectory of autonomous vehicle 102 perceiving its environment through sensor (environment) data 114 acquired via sensors 104 wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 monitor the operating conditions of the vehicle, see Fig. 5 ~ illustrates a general arrangement of controllers wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 comprise processors, and as taught in ¶0013 ~ "the secondary system may determine that the primary system is offline ( e.g., the primary system has experienced as hardware or software failure, power to the first system was disrupted, etc.),"),
the controller configured to determine whether a change in the one or more operating conditions of the vehicle indicates an event involving the vehicle (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091 ~ "At operation 322, the second system 304 may determine if an error occurred with the first system 302. For example, the second system 304 may determine that an error occurred with the first system 302 by determining that a signal has not been received from the first system 302 for more than a threshold amount of time, determining a hardware and/or software failure for the first system 302, and/or determining that power to the first system 302 was disrupted"), and
the controller configured to initiate a responsive action involving one or more onboard power sources of the vehicle responsive to determining occurrence of the event (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091); and
the controller configured to stop a movement of the vehicle, by controlling an operation of a braking system of the vehicle, in response to determining that the event exceeded a predetermined threshold. (See at least Fig. 4, ¶0023, ¶0025 ~ "If the secondary system 108 detects the primary system error 128, the secondary system 108 may… cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver", ¶0071 ~ "If the primary system 106 is offline, then the trajectory validation component 218 may send a signal to the trajectory modification component 220… to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver", and ¶0093 ~ "At operation 320, the second system 304 may cause the vehicle to perform a maneuver, such as decelerate, stop, change lanes, pull over, swerve, or otherwise change the trajectory").
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 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 3 – 4, 6, 16, and 18 - 20 are under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0148201 A1 to KING et al. (herein after "King") in view of U.S. Patent No. US 6,998,727 B2 to GRAY Jr. (herein after "Gray").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 3,
King discloses the method of claim 1.
However, King is silent in explicitly disclosing
wherein initiating the responsive action includes disabling the one or more onboard power sources onboard the vehicle.
On the other hand, Gray’s parallel power hybrid vehicle system discloses wherein initiating the responsive action includes disabling the one or more onboard power sources onboard the vehicle. (See Col. 8, Lines 59 - 61 ~ "if neither of the two operating conditions listed below are met, then the secondary power source 18 is not "and Claim 55 ~ "operating the vehicle under power from the primary power source and shutting off the primary power source during a braking event and operating the vehicle under power from the secondary power source, if an intent to stop is indicated; thereby teaching disabling (disconnecting), by the controller (Fig. 1 ~ CPU 28), one or more of the onboard electric power sources from electrical circuitry of the vehicle).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cho with Gray’s power source disabling capacity, as taught by Gray, to decrease inadvertent power discharge during vehicle impact and/or collision events; thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: improving safety, minimizing impact on drivability; and improving fuel efficiency.
As to Claim 4,
King discloses the method of claim 1.
However, King does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more onboard power sources include two or more onboard power sources that differ from each other, and further comprising
initiating, by the controller, a different responsive action associated with each of the two or more onboard power sources.
On the other hand, Gray discloses wherein the one or more onboard power sources include two or more onboard power sources that differ from each other (see Col. 2, Lines 3 - 6 ~ parallel hybrid vehicle), and further comprising initiating, by the controller, a different responsive action associated with each of the two or more onboard power sources. (See Fig. 4, Col. 8, Lines 59 - 61, and Claim 55).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cho with Gray’s parallel hybrid power system, as taught by Gray, to provide a diversity of power systems; thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: redundant propulsion systems, improved fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and enhanced performance.
As to Claim 6,
King/Gray discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising
selecting, by the controller, the responsive action from among plural different responsive actions based at least in part on a magnitude of the event. (See Col. 8, Lines 59 - 61 and Claim 55; Gray)
As to Claim 16,
The method of claim 1, further comprising
Determining, by the controller, if the change in the one or more operating conditions of the vehicle indicates the event while an operator of the vehicle is off-board the vehicle.
As to Claim 18,
King discloses the system of claim 17, but is silent in disclosing wherein the controller is configured to
disable the one or more onboard power sources responsive to determining the occurrence of the event.
Gray sufficiently discloses disabling the one or more onboard power sources onboard the vehicle. (See Col. 8, Lines 59 - 61 ~ "if neither of the two operating conditions listed below are met, then the secondary power source 18 is not "and Claim 55 ~ "operating the vehicle under power from the primary power source and shutting off the primary power source during a braking event and operating the vehicle under power from the secondary power source, if an intent to stop is indicated; thereby teaching disabling (disconnecting), by the controller (Fig. 1 ~ CPU 28), one or more of the onboard electric power sources from electrical circuitry of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cho with Gray’s power source disabling capacity, as taught by Gray, to decrease inadvertent power discharge during vehicle impact and/or collision events; thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: improving safety, minimizing impact on drivability; and improving fuel efficiency.
As to Claim 19,
King/Gray substantially discloses the system of claim 17,
wherein the controller is configured to
select the responsive action from among plural different responsive actions based at least in part on a magnitude of the event. (See Col. 8, Lines 59 - 61 and Claim 55; Gray).
As to Claim 20,
King discloses a method (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flowchart for determining whether or not to cause a vehicle to decelerate and ¶0023 when AV 102 detects a potential object representing a predicted collision, AV 102 brakes and/or mitigates collision potential), comprising:
identifying an occurrence of an event to a vehicle configured to move along a route (see Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general traveling trajectory of autonomous vehicle 102 perceiving its environment through sensor (environment) data 114 acquired via sensors 104 wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 monitor the operating conditions of the vehicle, see Fig. 5 ~ illustrates a general arrangement of controllers wherein primary system 106 and secondary system 108 comprise processors, and as taught in ¶0013 ~ "the secondary system may determine that the primary system is offline ( e.g., the primary system has experienced as hardware or software failure, power to the first system was disrupted, etc.),"),
the vehicle including one or more onboard electric power sources (see Fig. 5),
the event being one or more of an impact event, a derailment event, or a flooding event (see ¶0062); and
determining a responsive action responsive to identifying the occurrence of the event (see Fig. 4, ¶0013, ¶0023 - ¶0024 and ¶0091),
the responsive action including one or more of inspection or maintenance to the one or more onboard electric power sources. (See Fig. 4 and ¶0058 - ¶0059)
However, King is silent in explicitly disclosing disconnecting, by the controller, one or more of the onboard electric power sources from electrical circuitry of the vehicle.
Conversely, Gray’s parallel power hybrid vehicle system discloses disconnecting, by the controller, one or more of the onboard electric power sources from electrical circuitry of the vehicle. (See Col. 8, Lines 59 - 61 ~ "if neither of the two operating conditions listed below are met, then the secondary power source 18 is not "and Claim 55 ~ "operating the vehicle under power from the primary power source and shutting off the primary power source during a braking event and operating the vehicle under power from the secondary power source, if an intent to stop is indicated; thereby teaching disconnecting, by the controller (Fig. 1 ~ CPU 28), one or more of the onboard electric power sources from electrical circuitry of the vehicle).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cho with Gray’s power source disabling capacity, as taught by Gray, to decrease inadvertent power discharge during vehicle impact and/or collision events; thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: improving safety, minimizing impact on drivability; and improving fuel efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In particular, the available prior art appears to be silent in disclosing the method of claim 4,
where the different responsive actions are based at least in part on a position of each of the two or more onboard power sources relative to one or more others of the two or more onboard power sources or on a type of the two or more onboard power sources or a state of charge of one or both of the two or more onboard power sources.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1, 17 and 20 might possibly advance prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661