DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/441,037 filed on July 22, 2026 in which claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15, and 20 were amended and claim 6 was cancelled.
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
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amendments to claim were appended to the end of the claim instead of being inserted together with the corresponding “determining” step. By appending the limitations to the end of the claim, the narrative of the invention is difficult to follow due to the intervening limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the amendments to the claims include multiple, separate limitations but no corresponding line break was inserted between these separate elements, rendering these claim difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims include multiple, separate limitations but no corresponding line break between these separate elements, rendering these claim difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 1-4, 7, 10, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur et al., US Publication 2018/0211529 (hereinafter Kaur), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 29, 2026 in view of Yang et al., US Publication 2021/0103740 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Kaur discloses a cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of “detecting a vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining the cause of a “flock traffic pattern,” which is later stated to include “accidents.” Additionally, Kaur discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶¶ 23, 39) by determining the location of non-connected vehicles in the accident, which would include those vehicles in the accident itself. (Kaur ¶ 23). Kaur later discloses that it determines whether or not the vehicle involved in the “emergency situation,” is a connected vehicle or not. (Kaur ¶ 39). Further, Kaur discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39, see also ¶¶ 40-41) by receiving images from a connected vehicle in relation to a traffic situation. Moreover, Kaur discloses “combining accident information into an aggregated data set” (Kaur ¶ 28) by combining flock data to determine road traffic patterns. Likewise, Kaur discloses “using the aggregated data set to generate an accident report” (Kaur ¶ 28) where the road traffic patterns are based on the presence of an accident, making it an accident report within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Kaur also discloses “wherein the determining step further comprises: evaluating accident information at a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 24) where the traffic management system may occur on a cloud-based server. In addition, Kaur discloses “determining that other vehicles were involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining if the vehicle involved in the emergency situation is a connected vehicle. Finally, Kaur discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status” (Kaur ¶39) by determining that the vehicle involved in the emergency incident is connected or not.
Kaur does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” or “attempting to establish direct wireless communication with each of the vehicles in the vicinity of the vehicle accident to ascertain the connected or not-connected status of each of the vehicles.”
However, Yang discloses a method for detecting non-connected vehicles including the step of “determining that a non-connected vehicle feature;” (Wang ¶ 20) by determining features about a vehicle, including non-connected vehicles. Additionally, Yang discloses “receiving … information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle …;” (Wang ¶ 25) where sensors of a connected vehicle are used to obtain the information, meaning that the non-connected vehicle is in the vicinity of the connected vehicle. Further, Yang discloses “wherein the … report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” (Wang ¶ 51) by reporting information about the non-connected vehicle. Finally, Yang discloses “attempting to establish direct wireless communication with each of the vehicles in the vicinity of the vehicle accident to ascertain the connected or not-connected status of each of the vehicles” (Wang ¶ 25) where the connected vehicle attempts to send a wireless signal (i.e., directly connect) to the non-connected vehicle in order to identify (i.e., ascertain the status) of the vehicle.
Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Yang was combined with Kaur, that the generated report including information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” of Yang would be the generated accident report Kaur. Therefore, the combination of Kaur and Yang at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle,” rendering it obvious.
Kaur and Yang are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of determining the connection status of other vehicles.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur and Yang before him or her to modify the connection status determination of Kaur to include the direct connection method for determining the connection status of Yang.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kaur teaches the “base device” for generating accident reports involving connected and unconnected vehicles. Further, Yang teaches the “known technique” of determining that a vehicle is not connected by attempting to directly establish connection that is applicable to the base device of Kaur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “wherein the detecting step further comprises: gathering accident information with one or more vehicle sensor(s) or vehicle camera(s) mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining if the vehicle involved in the emergency situation is a connected vehicle and, if so, receives information about that vehicle. Further, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “providing the accident information from the vehicle sensor(s) or the vehicle camera(s) or from both the vehicle sensor(s) and the vehicle camera(s) to a control module mounted on the connected vehicle, ” (Kaur ¶ 39 and Fig. 4), by providing the information to the wireless communication module 408, which is shown to be mounted on the connected vehicle. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “evaluating the accident information at the control module” (Kaur ¶ 39) by analyzing (i.e., evaluating) the traffic information, which may include the accident information as discussed above. Likewise, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “detecting the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining the cause of a “flock traffic pattern,” which is later stated to include “accidents.” Finally, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “sending a wireless message or signal from the connected vehicle to a cloud- based backend system indicating that the vehicle accident has been detected” (Kaur ¶¶ 16, 24) where the system uses “wireless electronic communications technology” (Kaur ¶ 16) and may transmit the data to a cloud-based server system. (Kaur ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the detecting step further comprises: gathering accident information with one or more vehicle sensor(s) and/or vehicle camera(s) mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining if the vehicle involved in the emergency situation is a connected vehicle and, if so, receives information about that vehicle. Further, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “providing the accident information from the vehicle sensor(s) and/or the vehicle camera(s) to a control module mounted on the connected vehicle” (Kaur ¶ 39 and Fig. 4), by providing the information to the wireless communication module 408, which is shown to be mounted on the connected vehicle. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “sending a wireless message or signal that includes the accident information from the connected vehicle to a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 39) by sending the data to the traffic management system. Likewise, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “evaluating the accident information at the cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 39) by analyzing (i.e., evaluating) the traffic information, which may include the accident information and may occur on the cloud-based backend as discussed above. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “detecting the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining an accident.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the detecting step further comprises: gathering accident information with one or more sensor(s) or camera(s) or with both the one or more sensor(s) and camera(s) mounted on a connected entity that was not involved in the vehicle accident but was in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by monitoring images from a camara and other sensors of any vehicle that has opted in to assist in an emergency situation, including those that are in the vicinity but not involved in the accident. Further, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “sending a message or signal that includes the accident information from the connected entity to a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 39) by sending the data to the traffic management system. Moreover, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “evaluating the accident information at the cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶ 39) by analyzing (i.e., evaluating) the traffic information, which may include the accident information and may occur on the cloud-based backend as discussed above. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “detecting the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining an accident.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “identifying a location of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) by determining the GPS location of the GPS location of the vehicle that is being searched for in the emergency situation. Further, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “establishing an area of interest that includes the location of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 48 and Fig. 8) by establishing the flock (i.e., the area of interest) includes the accident in the right lane. Finally, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity within the area of interest” (Kaur ¶ 47) by receiving sensor data from the vehicles in the flock.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “wherein the area of interest is established by identifying an intersection or section of road that includes the location of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 48) by identing that the accident is in the right lane (i.e., a section of road).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “after the receiving step, evaluating images or video that was included with the accident information in order to recognize license plate characters or other indicia or both the license plate characters and the other indicia” (Kaur ¶ 39) by analyzing the camera image to determine if the information matches the vehicle description, which may be a license plate. Further, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses “evaluating images or video that was included with the accident information in order … to identify the non-connected vehicle as a function of the license plate characters or other indicia or both the license plate characters and the other indicia” (Kaur ¶ 20) by using cameras to identify non-connected vehicles through “indicia,” because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “indicia” includes any data used.
Regarding claim 20, Kaur discloses a cooperative detection system for use with vehicles, comprising “a plurality of connected vehicles” (Kaur ¶ 47) by including connected vehicles 802-1, 802-2, 802-3, and 802.4. Additionally, Kaur discloses “each of the connected vehicles is configured to detect a vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39) where each connected vehicle is configured to use sensor data to detect information about an emergency situation, such as an accident. Further, Kaur discloses “a cloud-based backend system” (Kaur ¶24) by transmit the data to a cloud-based server system. (Kaur ¶ 24). Moreover, Kaur discloses “the cloud-based backend system is in wireless communication with the plurality of connected vehicles” (Kaur ¶ 16) where the system uses “wireless electronic communications technology.” Likewise, Kaur discloses “receive via wireless communication accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39, see also ¶¶ 40-41) by receiving images from a connected vehicle in relation to a traffic situation. Kaur also discloses “combine accident information into an aggregated data set” (Kaur ¶ 28) by combining flock data to determine road traffic patterns. In addition, Kaur discloses “use the aggregated data set to generate an accident report” (Kaur ¶ 28) where the road traffic patterns are based on the presence of an accident, making it an accident report within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Finally, Kaur discloses “wherein the at least one connected entity is a connected vehicle that can transmit accident-related information including sensor data, images, video, location information, or the at least one connected entity is connected infrastructure including roadside equipment capable of transmitting information related to the accident or the at least one connected entity is a connected pedestrian having a smartphone or other device capable of wireless communication that can provide information relating to the accident” (Kaur ¶¶ 17, 18, 20) where the connected entity may be a connected vehicle capable of transmitting sensor data (Kaur ¶ 17) including a camera image (i.e., image data, Kaur ¶ 18), stream of images (i.e., video data, Kaur ¶ 18), and GPS data (i.e., location information, Kaur ¶ 20).
Kaur does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine if a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident detected by one of the connected vehicles where the determination that the vehicle is a non-connected vehicle is accomplished by attempting but failing to wirelessly communicate with the vehicle determined to be the non-connected vehicle” and “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle.”
However, Yang discloses a system for detecting non-connected vehicles including the step of “a plurality of connected vehicles.” (Yang ¶20) by including connected vehicles 102 and 122. Additionally, Yang discloses “a cloud-based backend system” (Yang ¶ 31) by describing a backend server shown to be connected to a cloud in Fig. 2. Further, Yang discloses “the cloud-based backend system is in wireless communication with the plurality of connected vehicles” (Yang ¶ 25) where the vehicles may be connected to the system wirelessly. Moreover, Yang discloses “receive via wireless communication … information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity …” (Yang ¶ 25) where the connected vehicles share data with the system of objects in their vicinity. Likewise, Yang discloses “combine … information into an aggregated data set” (Yang ¶ 25) by combining information over time to generate a data set. Yang also discloses “use the aggregated data set to generate a … report” ” (Wang ¶ 51) by reporting information about the non-connected vehicle. Finally, Yang discloses “wherein the at least one connected entity is a connected vehicle that can transmit accident-related information including sensor data, images, video, location information, or the at least one connected entity is connected infrastructure including roadside equipment capable of transmitting information related to the accident or the at least one connected entity is a connected pedestrian having a smartphone or other device capable of wireless communication that can provide information relating to the accident” (Yang ¶¶ 20, 38) where the connected entity may be a connected vehicle capable of transmitting sensor data (Yang ¶ 20) including a camera data (i.e., image data, Yang ¶ 20), stream of images (i.e., video data, Yang 38), and GPS data (i.e., location information, Yang ¶ 20).
Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Yang was combined with Kaur, that the generated report including information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” of Yang would be the generated accident report Kaur. Therefore, the combination of Kaur and Yang at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “determine if a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident detected by one of the connected vehicles where the determination that the vehicle is a non-connected vehicle is accomplished by attempting but failing to wirelessly communicate with the vehicle determined to be the non-connected vehicle” and “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” rendering them obvious.
Kaur and Yang are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of determining the connection status of other vehicles.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur and Yang before him or her to modify the connection status determination of Kaur to include the direct connection method for determining the connection status of Yang.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kaur teaches the “base device” for generating accident reports involving connected and unconnected vehicles. Further, Yang teaches the “known technique” of determining that a vehicle is not connected by attempting to directly establish connection that is applicable to the base device of Kaur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur in view of Seth et al., US Patent 11,562,436 (hereinafter Seth), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 29, 2026.
Regarding claim 5, Kaur discloses a cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of “detecting a vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 23) by determining the cause of a “flock traffic pattern,” which is later stated to include “accidents.” Additionally, Kaur discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶¶ 23, 39) by determining the location of non-connected vehicles in the accident, which would include those vehicles in the accident itself. (Kaur ¶ 23). Kaur later discloses that it determines whether or not the vehicle involved in the “emergency situation,” is a connected vehicle or not. (Kaur ¶ 39). Further, Kaur discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Kaur ¶ 39, see also ¶¶ 40-41) by receiving images from a connected vehicle in relation to a traffic situation. Moreover, Kaur discloses “combining accident information into an aggregated data set” (Kaur ¶ 28) by combining flock data to determine road traffic patterns. Finally, Kaur discloses “using the aggregated data set to generate an accident report” (Kaur ¶ 28) where the road traffic patterns are based on the presence of an accident, making it an accident report within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Kaur does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle, wherein the determining step further comprises: evaluating accident information at a control module mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident, determining that one or more other vehicle(s) were involved, then attempting to establish direct communication between the connected vehicle and the one or more other vehicle(s) to ascertain their connected status, and determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status.”
However, Seth discloses a cooperative detection method for use with vehicles, comprising the steps of “detecting a vehicle accident” (Seth col. 2, ll. 22-32) by detecting accident occurrences. Additionally, Seth discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident. Further, Seth discloses “receiving accident information from at least one connected entity in the vicinity of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 13, ll. 4-59) by receiving data from a sensor data from other electronic devices in proximity to the scene. Moreover, Seth discloses “generate an accident report, wherein the accident report includes information pertaining to the non-connected vehicle” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) where the incident response plan includes information about the offline vehicle. Likewise, Seth discloses “wherein the determining step further comprises: evaluating accident information at a control module mounted on a connected vehicle that was involved in the vehicle accident, ” (Seth col. 20, ll. 47-67) by performing the analysis of Kaur at the input device of Seth. Seth also discloses “determining that one or more other vehicle(s) were involved” (Seth col. 14, ll. 44-62) by determining the damage done to other vehicles in the accident. In addition, Seth discloses “then attempting to establish direct communication between the connected vehicle and the one or more other vehicle(s) to ascertain their connected status” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident. Finally, Seth discloses “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident based on its connected status” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) by detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident.
Kaur and Seth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle accident reporting.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur and Seth before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur to include the specifically claimed information of Seth.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kaur teaches the “base device” for generating an accident report. Further, Seth teaches the “known technique” of including specific non-functional data within an accident report that is applicable to the base device of Kaur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would not require any changes to the structure of Kaur.
Claims 8, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur in view of Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and in further view of Seth
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the area of interest is established by defining a perimeter around the location of the vehicle accident.”
However, Seth discloses “wherein the area of interest is established by defining a perimeter around the location of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 9, ll. 16-36) by establishing the area (i.e., perimeter) around the accident.
Kaur, Yang, and Seth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicles.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Seth before him or her to modify the accident reporting of Kaur and Yang to include the defined permitter of Seth.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Kaur and Yang teaches the “base device” for detecting non-connected vehicles involved in an accident. Further, Seth teaches the “known technique” for generating a perimeter around the accident that is applicable to the base device of Kaur and Uang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaur, Yang, and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur, Yang, and Seth discloses “wherein a size of the area of interest is inversely proportional to the density of connected entities located within the area of interest” (Kaur ¶ 48, and Fig. 8) where the flock with higher density is closer together, making the size of the area smaller (i.e., inversely proportional).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the combining step further comprises: collecting accident information that was previously acquired, filtering out accident information that is duplicative, and presenting the filtered accident information in a report.”
However, Seth discloses “collecting accident information that was previously acquired” (Seth col. 11, l. 48-col. 12, l. 3) where pre-accident data is used, which must necessarily have been previously acquired. Additionally, Seth discloses “filtering out accident information that is duplicative” (Seth col. 20, l. 47-67) by filtering out data, which would be data that is “not useful” or it would not be filtered out. Finally, Seth discloses “presenting the filtered accident information in a report” (Seth col. 12, l. 36-col. 13, l. 3) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a filter report is a report that has been filtered and by presenting the report, it is the filtered report.
Kaur, Yang, and Seth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicles.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Seth before him or her to modify the accident reporting of Kaur and Yang to include the filtering of Seth.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Kaur and Yang teaches the “base device” for generating vehicle accident reports. Further, Seth teaches the “known technique” for filtering accident reports that is applicable to the base device of Kaur and Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kaur, Yang, and Seth discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur, Yang, and Seth discloses “wherein the report includes identification information that identifies the non-connected vehicle involved in the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 9, ll. 16-36) by including license plate numbers for all the vehicles involved in the accident.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose “establishing an accident timeline that extends from a starting point before the vehicle accident to an ending point at or after the vehicle accident, establishing an area of interest that encompasses the location of the vehicle accident, using the aggregated data set to generate the accident report with the accident timeline, wherein the accident timeline includes information pertaining to a plurality of vehicles that were located within the area of interest at some point during the accident timeline.”
However, Seth discloses “establishing an accident timeline that extends from a starting point before the vehicle accident to an ending point at or after the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 10, ll. 21-25) by generating a virtual accident scene including various scene details at different points in time. Additionally, Seth discloses “establishing an area of interest that encompasses the location of the vehicle accident” (Seth col. 9, ll. 16-36) by establishing the area around the accident. Further, Seth discloses “using the aggregated data set to generate the accident report with the accident timeline” (Seth col. 10, ll. 21-25) where the act of displaying the virtual accident scene is displaying the report with the timeline. Finally, Seth discloses “wherein the accident timeline includes information pertaining to a plurality of vehicles that were located within the area of interest at some point during the accident timeline” (Seth col. 14, ll. 19-43) by giving an example of the virtual accident scene displaying the vehicles involved in the accident (i.e., located within the area of interest).
Kaur, Yang, and Seth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicles.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Seth before him or her to modify the accident reporting of Kaur and Yang to include the timeline features of Seth.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Kaur and Yang teaches the “base device” for generating vehicle accident reports. Further, Seth teaches the “known technique” for timeline features that is applicable to the base device of Kaur and Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur in view of Yang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Monteuuis et al., US Publication 2023/0408642 (hereinafter Monteuuis).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to disclose “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected vehicle.”
However, Monteuuis discloses a cooperative detection that receives vehicle data, “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected vehicle” (Monteuuis ¶¶ 34-35) by using V2X to send the data about collisions (i.e., accident information, Monteuuis ¶ 35) and where the V2X message may be from “other vehicles” that are connected to the V2X system. (Monteuuis ¶ 34).
Kaur, Yang, and Monteuuis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Monteuuis before him or her to modify the communication process of Kaur and Yang to include the V2X messaging process of Monteuuis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that the use of V2X provides known technological advantages such as low-latency and a broad user base, enabling large scale compatibility. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to disclose “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a piece of connected infrastructure.”
However, Monteuuis discloses a cooperative detection that receives vehicle data, “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a piece of connected infrastructure” (Monteuuis ¶¶ 34-35) by using V2X to send the data about collisions (i.e., accident information, Monteuuis ¶ 35) and where the V2X message may be from “traffic infrastructure.” (Monteuuis ¶ 34).
Kaur, Yang, and Monteuuis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Monteuuis before him or her to modify the communication process of Kaur and Yang to include the V2X messaging process of Monteuuis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that the use of V2X provides known technological advantages such as low-latency and a broad user base, enabling large scale compatibility. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to disclose “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected pedestrian.”
However, Monteuuis discloses a cooperative detection that receives vehicle data, “wherein the receiving step further comprises receiving a wireless cooperative perception message (CPM) that includes the accident information from a connected pedestrian” (Monteuuis ¶¶ 34-35) by using V2X to send the data about collisions (i.e., accident information, Monteuuis ¶ 35) and where the V2X message may be from “pedestrians.” (Monteuuis ¶ 34).
Kaur, Yang, and Monteuuis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Monteuuis before him or her to modify the communication process of Kaur and Yang to include the V2X messaging process of Monteuuis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that the use of V2X provides known technological advantages such as low-latency and a broad user base, enabling large scale compatibility. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur in view of Yang, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Cordova et al., US Publication 2019/0043273 (hereinafter Cordova).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to disclose “wherein the starting point and/or the ending point can be adjusted to change the duration of the accident timeline.”
However, Cordova discloses a cooperative detection method allowing for the review of accident reports, “wherein the starting point and/or the ending point can be adjusted to change the duration of the accident timeline” (Cordova ¶ 87) where the entire timeframe (i.e., time line) of the situation in the accident report may be specified (i.e., adjusted) by the reviewing adjuster.
Kaur, Yang, and Cordova are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Cordova before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur and Yang to include the timeline adjustment of Cordova.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a system that reduces the amount of time required to review the report. (Cordova ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kaur and Yang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kaur and Yang does not appear to disclose “wherein the area of interest can be adjusted to change the size of the area encompassed by the accident timeline.”
However, Cordova discloses a cooperative detection method allowing for the review of accident reports, “wherein the area of interest can be adjusted to change the size of the area encompassed by the accident timeline” (Cordova ¶ 74) by allowing the viewer of the accident report to “zoom” in on the map, which is changing the size of the area.
Kaur, Yang, and Cordova are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of connected vehicle monitoring.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kaur, Yang, and Cordova before him or her to modify the accident report of Kaur and Yang to include the area adjustment of Cordova.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a system that reduces the amount of time required to review the report. (Cordova ¶ 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 2, 4, and 14; the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 10-14) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 2, 4, and 14; the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with regards to the addition of the limitation “attempting to establish direct wireless communication with each of the vehicles in the vicinity of the vehicle accident to ascertain the connected or not-connected status of each of the vehicles” (Remarks 14-17) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kaur and Yang.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues Kaur fails to teach “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the detected vehicle accident” because “Kaur teaches only that non-detected vehicles may be detected by connected vehicles for the purpose of defining flocks of vehicles” where “flocks of vehicles are monitored, per Kaur, to determine where bottlenecks and traffic slowdowns occur.” (Remarks 14-15). Applicant continues that “[s]uch bottlenecks and traffic problems might be due to an accident, but the flocks of vehicles in Kaur are not themselves involved in any such accident: because “Instead, the flocks of vehicles, and each vehicle in the flock, are moving along a road relative to an accident site.” (Remarks 15). The examiner disagrees.
Kaur explicitly “determine[s] that an accident in the left lane is the source or cause of a present flock traffic pattern.” (Kaur ¶ 23). Kaur continues that it then determines “relative positions of connected and non-connected vehicles” in relation to the accident. (Kaur ¶ 23). Finally, Kaur discloses that the connection status of “a particular vehicle” in “an emergency situation,” which includes traffic accidents. (Kaur ¶ 39). Thus, by determining where an accident is and the locations of both connected and non-connected vehicles in the vicinity of the accident and determining the connection status of particular vehicles in an emergency situation, the system is determining if any vehicles in the accident are connected or not. This is further shown in Fig. 8 of Kaur where an accident is shown to be detected and that the vehicles, in that particular accident, were both connected, as indicated by the vehicles being color coded black. Therefore, Kaur does disclose “determining that a non-connected vehicle was involved in the vehicle accident” and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Kaur does not teach or even suggest that any specific vehicle actually involved in an accident is identified as having been in the accident, let alone that such a vehicle is a non-connected vehicle” because “it is directly contrary to the teachings of Kaur to assert that vehicles that have been in an accident that is causing a traffic jam could be placed into a flock of vehicles used to detect the traffic jam in the first place.” (Remarks 15). The examiner disagrees.
Again, as discussed above, Kaur explicitly shows “vehicles that have been in an accident that is causing a traffic jam could be placed into a flock of vehicles used to detect the traffic jam in the first place” in Fig. 8. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Kaur fails to teach or suggest: attempting wireless communication with accident participants.” (Remarks 15, emphasis added).
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “attempting wireless communication with accident participants”) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Applicant next argues “Seth does not fill in the significant deficiencies of Kaur” because “[n]owhere does Seth mention any determination regarding whether a vehicle in an accident is a connected vehicle or not” and “Seth assumes all vehicles can provide information regarding the accident and thus, teaches away from the concept of a non-connected vehicle and the need to provide information for accidents involving non-connected vehicles.” (Remarks 15). The examiner disagrees.
It is not enough for the applicant to show that there are differences between two references for the purposes of “teaching away.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Instead, a reference must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed …” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1200-1201, 73 USPQ2d 1145-1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Applicant has provided no evidence of any such statements. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues Seth does not teach “detecting an offline status of a vehicle in a minor accident" because “Seth states only that a ‘fender bender’ may be determined by ‘an affirmative indication of an accident by the driver/user and an ‘offline’ status of a proximity sensor mounted on a bumper of the driver's vehicle.’” (Remarks 15, citing Seth col. 12, ll. 49-52). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed in the Non-final Rejection dated April 29, 2026, Seth does in fact disclose this limitation. Seth explicitly discloses that it detects “an ‘offline’ status of a proximity sensor” of a vehicle involved in an accident. (Seth col. 12, ll. 43-56). Applicant’s claims do not define what a “non-connected vehicle” is and, thus, any “offline” vehicle in any state is a “non-connected vehicle” within the broadest reasonable interpretation. If Applicant believes that this is an important facet of the invention, the examiner recommends further description within the claim of what constitutes a “non-connected vehicle.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that these limitations are allowable for either the same reasons as claim 1 or for depending on such a claim. (Remarks 15-17). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Obaidi, US Publication 2018/0286245, System and method for attempting to directly connect to a vehicle.
Avedisov et al., US Publication 2022/0248196, System and method for detecting connected vehicles in an accident.
Khosla et al., US Publication 2023/0308849, System and method for attempting to directly connect to a vehicle.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights