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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MacArthur (US 2015/0130607).
Claim 1:
A system for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle, the system comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to the vehicle, the sensor data including sensor data with respect to a following vehicle;
one or more rear brake lights configured to emit light; and
an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the plurality of sensors and the one or more rear brake lights and configured to: receive the sensor data from at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors; and
automatically activate at least one rear brake light of the one or more rear brake lights based on the sensor data indicating that the following vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than a speed of the vehicle.
MacArthur discloses:
“A system for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, MacArthur discloses “a system for alerting following motorists using a vehicle's rear brake lights” and “a system and method for preventing rear-end collisions” (MacArthur, [0003], [0017]).
MacArthur further discloses “a plurality of sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to the vehicle, the sensor data including sensor data with respect to a following vehicle,” as recited in claim 1. In particular, MacArthur discloses rear-mounted sensors including transmitter/receiver distance sensors configured to monitor a trailing vehicle and determine range and closing speed information. MacArthur discloses that the system “monitors the relative speed and distance of a trailing vehicle from a lead vehicle” ([0008]), that the lead vehicle “directs sensor signals rearward to monitor the location of the trailing vehicle” ([0038]), and that “distance sensors 212 comprise one or more ultrasonic sensor, LIDAR, radar sensor, IR sensor, laser sensor or the like” ([0047]). The disclosed sensors therefore detect sensor data relating to the vehicle and sensor data relating to a following vehicle.
MacArthur further discloses “one or more rear brake lights configured to emit light,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, MacArthur discloses rear brake lights that are “illuminated or pulsed” ([0008]), “activating and pulsing the brake lights” ([0022]), and “pulses the rear brake lights” ([0038]).
MacArthur further discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the plurality of sensors and the one or more rear brake lights,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, MacArthur discloses a “control unit 200 having one or more microprocessors” ([0044]) that receives “sensor inputs from the transmitter/receiver 201” ([0044]) and receives inputs from “distance sensors 212” ([0047]) while controlling the brake lights.
MacArthur further discloses that the ECU is configured to “receive the sensor data from at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, MacArthur discloses that inputs are received by the microprocessor “by way of the distance sensors 212” ([0047]) and that the control unit receives “sensor inputs from the transmitter/receiver 201” ([0044]).
MacArthur further discloses that the ECU is configured to “automatically activate at least one rear brake light of the one or more rear brake lights based on the sensor data indicating that the following vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than a speed of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, MacArthur discloses that the system determines “the closure speed of a trailing vehicle” ([0022]), calculates “closing speed” ([0038]-[0039]), compares the “closing velocity” against a threshold ([0040]-[0042]), and when the closing velocity exceeds the threshold “the system pulses the brake lights at a high rate” ([0042]). MacArthur further discloses that the system “operates independently of input from the user” and “determined to realize a vehicle approaching at too great of a speed relative to the lead vehicle” ([0045]), and that “if the following car is travelling at an excessive rate of speed relative to the speed of the lead vehicle, the system energizes the brake lights” ([0051]).
Claim 10:
An apparatus for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to the vehicle with respect to a following vehicle;
one or more rear brake lights configured to emit light; and a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of sensors and the one or rear brake lights and configured to:
receive an activation signal indicative of an instruction to activate at least one rear brake light of the one or more rear brake lights to provide the rear-end collision mitigation alert based on the sensor data indicating that the following vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than a speed of the vehicle, and
automatically activate the at least one rear brake light to provide the rear-end collision mitigation alert in response to the received activation signal.
MacArthur discloses:
“An apparatus for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle,” as recited in claim 10, as evidenced by the disclosures identified above regarding a rear brake light warning system for preventing rear-end collisions ([0003], [0017], [0019]).
MacArthur further discloses “a plurality of sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to the vehicle with respect to a following vehicle,” as recited in claim 10. Specifically, MacArthur discloses rear-mounted transmitter/receiver sensors and distance sensors for monitoring a trailing vehicle and calculating range and closing velocity ([0008], [0038], [0039], [0047]).
MacArthur further discloses “one or more rear brake lights configured to emit light,” as recited in claim 10, including brake lights configured to illuminate and pulse ([0008], [0022], [0038]).
MacArthur further discloses “a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of sensors and the one or more rear brake lights,” as recited in claim 10. Specifically, MacArthur discloses “control unit 200 having one or more microprocessors” receiving “sensor inputs from the transmitter/receiver 201” and controlling brake light outputs ([0044], [0047]).
MacArthur further discloses that the controller is configured to “receive an activation signal indicative of an instruction to activate at least one rear brake light,” as recited in claim 10. Specifically, MacArthur discloses the control unit receiving distance inputs and brake switch inputs ([0044]-[0045]) and generating brake light activation responsive to the detected approach condition of a trailing vehicle.
MacArthur further discloses that the activation occurs “based on the sensor data indicating that the following vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than a speed of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 10. Specifically, MacArthur discloses determining closure speed and relative speed conditions of a trailing vehicle relative to the lead vehicle and activating brake lights when the trailing vehicle approaches at an excessive rate ([0022], [0038]-[0042], [0045], [0051]).
MacArthur further discloses “automatically activate the at least one rear brake light to provide the rear-end collision mitigation alert in response to the received activation signal,” as recited in claim 10. Specifically, MacArthur discloses that the system “pulses the brake lights at a high rate” ([0042]), “operates independently of input from the user” ([0045]), and “energizes the brake lights” when the trailing vehicle approaches at excessive relative speed ([0051]).
Claim 17:
A method for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting, via a plurality of sensors, sensor data relating to the vehicle; receiving, via an electronic control unit (ECU), the sensor data from the plurality of sensors; determining, via the ECU, based on the received sensor data; and
that a following vehicle of the vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than a speed of the vehicle
automatically activating, via the ECU, at least one rear brake light of one or more rear brake lights light in response to determining that the following vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than the speed of the vehicle.
MacArthur discloses:
“A method for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle,” as recited in claim 17. Specifically, MacArthur discloses a “method and system for preventing rear-end collisions” using brake lights to alert following motorists ([0003], [0017]).
MacArthur further discloses “detecting, via a plurality of sensors, sensor data relating to the vehicle,” as recited in claim 17. Specifically, MacArthur discloses rear-mounted sensors and transmitter/receiver systems for obtaining distance and relative speed information regarding a trailing vehicle ([0038], [0039], [0047]).
MacArthur further discloses “receiving, via an electronic control unit (ECU), the sensor data from the plurality of sensors,” as recited in claim 17. Specifically, MacArthur discloses a control unit and microprocessors receiving inputs from the distance sensors and transmitter/receiver system ([0044], [0047]).
MacArthur further discloses “determining, via the ECU, based on the received sensor data,” as recited in claim 17. Specifically, MacArthur discloses calculating range and closing speed of the trailing vehicle and comparing those values against threshold values ([0039]-[0042]).
MacArthur further discloses determining “that a following vehicle of the vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than a speed of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 17. Specifically, MacArthur discloses determining whether the trailing vehicle is “closing at an excessive rate” ([0040]), whether the “closing velocity” exceeds a threshold ([0042]), and whether the “following car is travelling at an excessive rate of speed relative to the speed of the lead vehicle” ([0051]).
MacArthur further discloses “automatically activating, via the ECU, at least one rear brake light of one or more rear brake lights in response to determining that the following vehicle is approaching the vehicle at a speed greater than the speed of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 17. Specifically, MacArthur discloses that when the excessive closing velocity condition is detected, “the system pulses the brake lights at a high rate” ([0042]), “operates independently of input from the user” ([0045]), and “energizes the brake lights” in response to the detected approach condition ([0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2,6-7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160).
Claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, MacArthur discloses a system for automatically providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert on a vehicle. MacArthur teaches a rear brake light warning system configured to monitor a trailing vehicle and activate or pulse rear brake lights based on unsafe following conditions. See, e.g., Para 3 (“a system that monitors the closure rate of a trailing vehicle and the distance between the trailing vehicle and the lead vehicle to apply either a pulsing rear brake signal or a static brake signal”), PARA8 (“the system includes rear-mounted sensors for tracking the speed and position of the trailing vehicle”), PARA17 (“the system uses this input to calculate standoff distance and relative speed”), and PARA51 (“if the following car is travelling at an excessive rate of speed relative to the speed of the lead vehicle, the system energizes the brake lights to rapidly pulse”).
MacArthur further teaches an electronic control system configured to receive sensor data and automatically activate rear brake lights responsive to dangerous following-vehicle conditions. Specifically, MacArthur discloses a control unit having microprocessors configured to receive distance and speed inputs from rear sensors and control brake light activation. See PARA44 (“The system comprises a control unit 200 having one or more microprocessors that can calculate the trailing vehicle closing speed based on distance inputs”), PARA45 (“the brake lights 101 [are pulsed] if the distance inputs 201 over time are calculated by the control unit 200 and determined to realize a vehicle approaching at too great of a speed relative to the lead vehicle”), and PARA47 (“distance sensors 212 comprise a transmitter and receiver that can determine the distance between a trailing vehicle and the lead vehicle bumper”).
However, MacArthur does not expressly disclose determining a “time to collision (TTC)” based on the sensor data, nor expressly disclose determining automatic activation of the brake lights based on the TTC being less than a threshold value.
Jung cures this deficiency. Jung expressly teaches determining a time to collision (TTC) with a rear-side vehicle based on sensor-derived vehicle information. Specifically, Jung discloses at PARA47 that “the controller 140 may calculate a time to collision (TTC) with a rear side vehicle,” and further teaches that “the time to collision may be calculated … based on the distance between a host vehicle and a rear side vehicle, a host vehicle speed, and a rear side vehicle speed.”
Jung further teaches determining vehicle warning-light control actions based on TTC threshold values. For example, Jung discloses at PARA48 that the controller controls switching of emergency lights or turn indicators “in consideration of the time to collision with the rear side vehicle,” including conditions where “Time to collision < First time.” Jung additionally discloses at PARA49 that when the TTC is less than the first time threshold, the controller determines that collision risk is too high and controls warning-light operation accordingly. Jung further discloses TTC threshold comparisons at PARA60-PARA63.
Therefore, Jung teaches the limitation of:
“determine a time to collision (TTC) of the vehicle with an object based on the sensor data; and determine that the sensor data indicates to automatically activate at least one rear brake light of the one or more rear brake lights based on the determined TTC being less than a threshold value.”
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rear brake light warning system of MacArthur to incorporate Jung’s TTC-based determination and threshold evaluation techniques because both references are directed to rear-collision mitigation systems that evaluate relative vehicle approach conditions and automatically control rear warning lights based on collision risk. Incorporating Jung’s TTC calculations into MacArthur’s closure-rate and distance monitoring system would have predictably improved the system’s ability to evaluate collision likelihood and provide more accurate activation of rear warning indicators under unsafe following conditions.
Claim 6:
MacArthur discloses a system for providing rear-end collision mitigation alerts on a vehicle using a plurality of rear-mounted sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to a following vehicle. MacArthur teaches that the system includes distance sensors such as radar, ultrasonic, infrared, laser, or transmitter/receiver-based sensors configured to detect distance, range, and closing speed of a trailing vehicle. See, e.g., PARA39 (“The system includes a transmitter and receiver … used to calculate range”), PARA40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle relative to the lead vehicle”), PARA47 (“distance sensors 212 comprise a transmitter and receiver”), and PARA51 (“the system includes a rear-mounted sensor that determines the distance of a following vehicle”).
MacArthur further discloses that the sensor data is processed by a control unit configured to calculate relative speed and distance and to determine whether a following vehicle is approaching at an excessive rate, thereby triggering activation of rear brake lights. See PARA44 (“calculate the trailing vehicle closing speed based on distance inputs”) and PARA45 (“pulses the brake lights if distance inputs … indicate a vehicle approaching at too great of a speed”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of sensors include an image sensor, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor, or a brake sensor configured to detect instantaneous brake force. MacArthur does disclose a GPS-based speed input (PARA46, PARA48), which provides vehicle speed/location-related data.
Jung discloses a vehicle control system including multiple sensor-based inputs and a controller configured to determine vehicle state conditions and control vehicle warning outputs based on such inputs. Jung teaches sensor-driven vehicle control using environmental and motion-related data, including processing of vehicle state information for collision avoidance and alert generation. See PARA44 (controller-based vehicle control system), PARA47 (sensor-based calculation of time-to-collision), and PARA74 (system improves safe autonomous driving by transmitting vehicle state to surroundings). Jung thus reinforces the use of multiple types of vehicle sensor inputs and control logic for automated safety response systems.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur to explicitly include at least one of the recited sensor types (e.g., image sensor, IMU sensor, location sensor, or brake sensor) as part of the plurality of sensors, in view of Jung’s teaching of multi-sensor vehicle control architectures and sensor-based decision-making for collision mitigation systems.
Claim 6 recites “at least one of an image sensor configured to detect image data, a location sensor configured to detect location data, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor configured to detect inertial data, or a brake sensor configured to detect braking data including a level of instantaneous force applied on a brake pedal.”
MacArthur already discloses a location-related sensing modality via GPS-based speed and position input (PARA46, PARA48), which corresponds to a location sensor configured to detect location data within the broadest reasonable interpretation. MacArthur further discloses brake-related input via a brake switch signal (PARA44–PARA46), which provides braking condition data to the control unit.
Accordingly, MacArthur in view of Jung teaches or renders obvious a system including at least one of the claimed sensor types, where MacArthur provides location and braking-related sensing inputs and Jung reinforces the use of multiple sensor inputs in vehicle control systems for collision mitigation and automated response.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine MacArthur’s rear-vehicle sensing system with Jung’s multi-sensor vehicle control framework because both references are directed to vehicle safety and collision avoidance systems that rely on sensor inputs to detect and respond to hazardous driving conditions. The combination would result in a predictable system improvement in which known vehicle sensors are used interchangeably or in addition to existing sensors to enhance detection reliability and responsiveness.
This combination represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 7:
MacArthur discloses a system for providing rear-end collision mitigation alerts on a vehicle using a plurality of rear-mounted sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to a following vehicle. MacArthur teaches that the system includes rear-facing sensing devices such as radar, ultrasonic, infrared, laser, or transmitter/receiver-based sensors configured to detect distance, range, and closing speed of a trailing vehicle. See, e.g., PARA39 (“transmitter and receiver … used to calculate range”), PARA40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle relative to the lead vehicle”), PARA47 (“distance sensors 212 comprise a transmitter and receiver”), and PARA51 (“rear-mounted sensor that determines the distance of a following vehicle”).
MacArthur further discloses that the sensor data is processed by a control unit configured to calculate relative speed and distance and determine whether a following vehicle is approaching at an excessive rate, thereby triggering activation of rear brake lights. See PARA44 (“calculate the trailing vehicle closing speed based on distance inputs”) and PARA45 (“pulses the brake lights if distance inputs … indicate a vehicle approaching at too great of a speed”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the ECU is further configured to determine that the sensor data indicates the prescribed condition based on image data, location data, inertial data, or braking data as expressly recited in claim 7. MacArthur primarily relies on transmitter/receiver-based range sensing and optionally GPS-based speed inputs (PARA46, PARA48), which provide location/speed-related information but do not explicitly disclose the full multi-modal decision structure recited in claim 7.
Jung discloses a vehicle control system including multiple sensor-based inputs and a controller configured to determine vehicle state conditions and control vehicle warning outputs based on such inputs. Jung teaches processing of diverse vehicle and environmental data, including camera/image-based inputs, vehicle motion state data, and braking-related information, for collision avoidance and alert generation. See Jung (NF Office Action) discussion of sensor fusion including camera 120, sensor 110, GPS 130 and vehicle state processing for determining collision-related conditions.
Jung further teaches that vehicle control decisions for collision mitigation alerts are made based on multiple types of sensor inputs representing vehicle state and environment conditions, thereby supporting multi-modal decision logic rather than reliance on a single sensing modality.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur to determine that the sensor data indicates the prescribed condition based on at least one of image data, location data, inertial data, or braking data in view of Jung’s teaching of multi-sensor fusion architectures for vehicle safety systems.
Claim 7 recites determining whether the prescribed condition exists “based on at least one of the image data, the location data, the inertial data, or the braking data.”
MacArthur already teaches location-based and motion-based inputs via GPS-derived speed and distance calculations (PARA46, PARA48), which correspond to location and motion-related data used in determining trailing vehicle conditions. MacArthur further inherently processes time-based range variation data, which reflects inertial behavior of relative motion between vehicles (PARA39–PARA41).
Jung reinforces the use of multiple sensor modalities, including image-based perception and vehicle state sensing, to determine collision risk conditions and trigger warning outputs. Accordingly, Jung provides clear motivation to extend MacArthur’s single-modality transmitter/receiver system into a multi-modal sensor decision framework.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine MacArthur’s rear-vehicle ranging system with Jung’s multi-sensor decision-making architecture because both references are directed to vehicle collision mitigation systems that evaluate surrounding conditions to trigger warning outputs. Integrating additional sensor modalities (image, inertial, braking, or expanded location inputs) would improve robustness and reliability of collision detection without changing the fundamental operation of MacArthur’s system, yielding predictable results.
This combination represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 8:
MacArthur discloses a system for providing rear-end collision mitigation alerts on a vehicle using rear-mounted sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to a following vehicle. MacArthur teaches a control system that activates rear brake lights based on detected closing speed and distance of a trailing vehicle. See, e.g., PARA42 (“pulses the brake lights at a high rate to improve communication”), PARA45 (“pulses the brake lights … if distance inputs indicate a vehicle approaching too great of a speed”), and PARA51 (“system energizes the brake lights to rapidly pulse”). Thus, MacArthur discloses a light emitting apparatus (rear brake lights) that is selectively activated in response to collision risk conditions.
However, MacArthur does not explicitly define the light emitting apparatus as operating between a first state corresponding to an ON state (light emitting) and a second state corresponding to an OFF state (light not emitting) as a structured dual-state oscillation system.
Jung discloses a vehicle warning light control system in which a controller causes lights to flash by alternating between an ON state and an OFF state. Specifically, Jung teaches that vehicle lights are controlled to oscillate between a first state in which light is emitted and a second state in which light is not emitted as part of a flashing warning output for collision avoidance purposes (NF rejection analysis; Para. 44–54 discussion of flashing emergency lights and turn indicators). Jung therefore explicitly teaches the claimed binary state structure of light operation.
Claim 8 recites that the “first state and the second state of the at least one light emitting apparatus are an on state corresponding to the light being emitted and an off state corresponding to the light not being emitted, respectively.”
MacArthur teaches the ON state through activation and pulsing of brake lights in response to trailing vehicle risk conditions (PARA42, PARA45, PARA51). Jung explicitly teaches that such pulsing or flashing operation is implemented as alternating ON and OFF states of the light emitting device, thereby providing the missing explicit structural definition of the second OFF state.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system to explicitly operate as alternating ON and OFF states as taught by Jung, because both references are directed to vehicle safety warning systems that communicate collision risk through flashing light outputs. The modification would merely formalize the known flashing behavior already inherent in MacArthur into explicitly defined ON/OFF states consistent with conventional vehicle lighting control systems, yielding predictable results without changing the underlying function.
This combination represents an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, where Jung’s explicit ON/OFF state control is substituted into MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system to clarify and structure the light modulation behavior.
Claim 11:
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation alert system including one or more light emitting apparatuses (rear brake lights) configured to emit light and controlled by a control unit in response to detection of a following vehicle approaching at an excessive rate. See, e.g., PARA42 (“pulses the brake lights at a high rate to improve communication”), PARA45 (“pulses the brake lights if distance inputs indicate a vehicle approaching too great of a speed”), and PARA51 (“system energizes the brake lights to rapidly pulse”). MacArthur therefore teaches a warning light system in which the light emitting apparatus is selectively activated to provide a collision mitigation alert.
However, MacArthur does not explicitly define the operation of the light emitting apparatus as transitioning between a first state corresponding to an ON state (light emitting) and a second state corresponding to an OFF state (light not emitting) as a structured oscillation model.
Jung discloses a vehicle warning light control system in which a controller causes a light emitting apparatus to operate by oscillating between a first ON state and a second OFF state. Jung explicitly teaches that flashing vehicle lights are implemented as alternating ON/OFF states controlled by a vehicle ECU in response to detected collision-related conditions, thereby providing a structured light modulation architecture for safety warnings.
Claim 11 recites a system in which the light emitting apparatus operates between a first ON state and a second OFF state as part of a rear-end collision mitigation alert system.
MacArthur teaches the functional behavior of the ON state through activation and pulsing of brake lights in response to detected unsafe following conditions (PARA42, PARA45, PARA51). Jung explicitly teaches that such pulsing behavior is implemented as a defined oscillation between ON and OFF states, thereby providing the missing explicit structural definition of the second OFF state and the oscillation framework.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system to operate explicitly as alternating ON and OFF states as taught by Jung, because both references are directed to vehicle safety warning systems that communicate collision risk through flashing or pulsing light outputs. Incorporating Jung’s explicit ON/OFF state definition into MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system would merely formalize an already inherent flashing behavior using well-known light control techniques, resulting in predictable operation without changing the system’s function.
This combination represents an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, where Jung’s explicit ON/OFF state flashing definition is substituted into MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system to clarify and structure the light modulation behavior.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of Bloomfield (US 6,411,204).
Claim 3:
The ECU is further configured to: determine a rate of deceleration of the vehicle based on the sensor data; and determine that the sensor data indicates the prescribed condition based on the determined rate of deceleration of the vehicle being greater than a threshold rate of deceleration.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision warning system including a rear-mounted transmitter/receiver configured to determine distance and closing velocity of a trailing vehicle. See PARA.39 (“transmitter and receiver… used to calculate range”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44 (“control unit… calculates trailing vehicle closing speed based on distance inputs”).
MacArthur further discloses comparing calculated closing velocity to a predetermined threshold to determine a hazardous condition and activating brake light pulsing in response. See PARA.22, PARA.23, PARA.42.
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose determining a rate of deceleration of the vehicle based on sensor data or using deceleration-based threshold comparison of the host vehicle as a trigger condition.
Jung discloses a vehicle control system having multiple sensors (e.g., camera, GPS, and other vehicle state inputs) and an ECU configured to process sensor data for collision mitigation and warning output generation. See Jung Fig. 1; para. 35–43; para. 44–54.
Jung further discloses determining vehicle state conditions based on sensor fusion and triggering warning outputs based on time-to-collision (TTC) thresholds derived from sensor data processing.
However, Jung does not explicitly disclose computing a rate of deceleration of the vehicle as a triggering condition for collision alert activation.
Bloomfield discloses vehicle safety systems that explicitly determine vehicle deceleration rates and use such deceleration information to control warning signal activation. See Bloomfield Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col. 6, lines 7–60.
Bloomfield teaches determining a rate of deceleration of the vehicle and using threshold-based deceleration conditions to maintain or adjust activation of warning indicators depending on braking severity and vehicle slowdown conditions.
Thus, Bloomfield explicitly provides the missing teaching absent from both MacArthur and Jung.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s closing-speed-based alert system in view of Jung’s multi-sensor vehicle control architecture to incorporate additional vehicle state evaluation parameters, and further in view of Bloomfield’s teaching of deceleration-based threshold triggering, because such combination enhances detection robustness by incorporating multiple predictive and reactive vehicle motion parameters for collision mitigation systems.
The combination would result in a predictable improvement in vehicle safety monitoring by supplementing closing velocity and TTC-based determinations with deceleration-based hazard assessment.
This modification would have been an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 3 recites:
determining a rate of deceleration of the vehicle based on sensor data; and determining that the sensor data indicates a prescribed condition based on the determined rate of deceleration of the vehicle being greater than a threshold rate of deceleration.
MacArthur: teaches closing velocity and range calculations (PARA.39–P42); does not teach deceleration of host vehicle
Jung: teaches sensor fusion and TTC-based triggering (para. 44–54); does not teach deceleration-based trigger
Bloomfield: teaches deceleration-based vehicle condition detection (col. 6, lines 7–60); teaches missing limitation
Bloomfield explicitly teaches the deceleration-based triggering mechanism required by claim 3, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate such known deceleration-based condition detection into MacArthur’s and Jung’s collision warning systems to improve sensitivity and accuracy of hazard detection.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art, Bloomfield shows determine a rate of deceleration of the vehicle based on the sensor data; and determine that the sensor data indicates the prescribed condition based on the determined rate of deceleration of the vehicle being greater than a threshold rate of deceleration (Fig. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 7-60; for example: Control 18 may then function to maintain the maximum flash rate of indicator 14, to continue warning others of the hazardous condition, until safety light system 10 is disconnected at the scene of the accident. Although described as having multiple threshold levels at which the flash rate of indicator 14 changes, clearly the scope of the present invention includes more or less threshold levels and/or continuously varying the flash rate in accordance with the measured deceleration rate.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the determination a rate of deceleration with prescribed condition as suggest by Bloomfield to the system of MacArthur and Jung because it would provide addition or alternative condition to be monitored for the vehicle, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9:
the at least one light emitting apparatus in the first state is configured to emit a light of a first level of brightness, and the at least one light emitting apparatus in the second state is configured to emit a light of a second level of brightness different from the first level of brightness.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation system including rear-mounted transmitter/receiver sensors configured to determine range and closing velocity of a trailing vehicle. See PARA.39 (“transmitter and receiver… used to calculate range”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit processing distance inputs and activating brake light pulsing).
MacArthur further discloses activating and pulsing rear brake lights based on comparison of closing speed to a threshold condition. See PARA.22, PARA.23, PARA.42.
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that a first state of the light emitting apparatus corresponds to a first brightness level and a second state corresponds to a second brightness level different from the first brightness level.
MacArthur instead teaches pulsing or flashing brake lights as binary or time-modulated activation without express disclosure of multi-intensity brightness states.
Jung discloses a vehicle control system including multiple sensors (camera, GPS, and vehicle state inputs) and an electronic control unit configured to process sensor data and generate collision mitigation alerts. See Jung Fig. 1; para. 35–43; para. 44–54.
Jung further discloses activation of warning lights (emergency lights or turn indicators) in a flashing manner based on sensor-derived conditions such as time-to-collision.
However, Jung does not explicitly disclose:
different brightness levels between light states, or
intensity-modulated lighting outputs as distinct first and second states.
Jung is limited to flashing control logic rather than luminance differentiation.
Bloomfield discloses vehicle safety lighting systems that vary warning light intensity based on vehicle operating conditions such as deceleration severity and hazard level.
See Bloomfield:
col. 6, lines 7–60
FIG. 1
FIG. 3
Bloomfield teaches that warning indicators may be controlled with different intensity levels or flashing states depending on detected vehicle conditions, including deceleration and hazard severity thresholds.
Thus, Bloomfield explicitly provides multi-level light output control including varying brightness or intensity between operational states.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s brake-light pulsing system in view of Jung’s sensor-based vehicle control architecture to include graded light intensity control as taught by Bloomfield, because incorporating variable brightness levels allows the system to communicate different levels of hazard severity more effectively to trailing vehicles, improving driver response and situational awareness.
The combination yields a predictable enhancement in vehicle warning communication systems by extending binary flashing signals into multi-intensity signaling schemes.
This modification would have been an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art, Bloomfield shows the at least one light emitting apparatus in the first state is configured to emit a light of a first level of brightness, and the at least one light emitting apparatus in the second state is configured to emit a light of a second level of brightness different from the first level of brightness (col. 6, line 6-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the light of a first and second level of brightness as suggest by Bloomfield to the light flashing of MacArthur and Jung because it would provide alternative indication in regards to the notification, thereby increasing the flexibility of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 12, it corresponds to claim 9; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation warning system that includes a plurality of rear-mounted sensors configured to detect sensor data relating to a trailing vehicle. MacArthur teaches a transmitter/receiver-based sensing system (e.g., radar, ultrasonic, IR, laser) configured to determine distance and closing speed of a following vehicle. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle to provide distance signals”), PARA.40 (“calculated closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.47 (“distance sensors comprise a transmitter and receiver”).
MacArthur further discloses a control unit configured to process sensor data to determine whether a trailing vehicle is approaching at an excessive rate and to activate brake light pulsing in response. See PARA.44 (“calculate the trailing vehicle closing speed based on distance inputs”) and PARA.45 (“pulses the brake lights … if a trailing vehicle is closing too fast”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the system further includes a second or additional dependent feature corresponding to claim 12 (as dependent from claim 9), specifically the use of different light emission states corresponding to different brightness levels.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety warning system using multiple sensors and a controller configured to generate visual alerts based on vehicle state conditions, including flashing and modulation of external lights for collision mitigation. Jung further teaches adaptive control of vehicle signaling outputs based on sensor-derived conditions such as time-to-collision and relative vehicle dynamics. See PARA44–PARA52 (controller-based determination of collision conditions and activation of visual warning outputs).
Bloomfield explicitly discloses varying light output intensity/brightness levels in a vehicle warning light system, including multiple flashing states corresponding to different severity levels of a detected hazardous condition. See Bloomfield col. 6, lines 6–40 (“multiple threshold levels at which the flash rate … changes … varying visual warning intensity”).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s brake light pulsing system in view of Jung and Bloomfield to include multiple light emission states having different brightness levels corresponding to different alert conditions.
This modification is supported because Bloomfield teaches that varying light intensity or brightness levels enhances the effectiveness of warning systems by providing graded urgency indication, and Jung teaches that vehicle control systems routinely adjust visual alert outputs based on sensor-derived collision risk conditions. Combining these teachings with MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system would result in a predictable enhancement of warning functionality.
Claim 12 recites that the first and second states correspond to different brightness levels of emitted light. Bloomfield expressly teaches multiple brightness or intensity levels of a vehicle warning light output depending on hazard severity (col. 6, lines 6–40), thereby satisfying the claimed limitation. Jung (PARA44–PARA52) further supports dynamic adjustment of visual alerts based on detected vehicle conditions.
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Bloomfield teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement multiple brightness levels in MacArthur’s brake light pulsing system using Bloomfield’s known variable-intensity warning techniques, in combination with Jung’s adaptive vehicle alert control system, because such modification would improve the communicative clarity and effectiveness of collision warnings.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of Brady et al. (US 2019/0052359).
As per claim 4, the invention of MacArthur in view of Jung meets the limitation of claim but does not explicitly mention the ECU is further configured to: determine a level of instantaneous force applied on a brake pedal on the vehicle; and determine that the sensor data indicates the prescribed condition based on the determined level of instantaneous force applied on the brake pedal on the vehicle being greater than a threshold level.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation system including a transmitter/receiver-based sensing arrangement configured to detect a trailing vehicle, calculate relative distance and closing speed, and activate brake light pulsing when a hazardous condition is detected. See PARA.39 (“transmitter and receiver … used to calculate range”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit calculates closing speed and activates brake lights when threshold is exceeded).
MacArthur further discloses a control system receiving inputs from vehicle sensors and determining unsafe following conditions based on calculated dynamic parameters. See PARA.44 (“control unit having microprocessors that calculate trailing vehicle closing speed”) and PARA.46 (vehicle brake switch and speed inputs as additional sensor inputs).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose determining a level of instantaneous force applied on a brake pedal or using that brake force as a threshold condition for activating the warning system.
Jung discloses a vehicle control system configured to process multiple sensor inputs including vehicle state information and environmental driving data to determine collision risk conditions and activate warning outputs. Jung teaches that vehicle systems may use braking-related signals and sensor fusion to determine hazardous driving states and trigger alert mechanisms. See PARA44–PARA52 (sensor-based vehicle control and collision mitigation logic).
Brady explicitly discloses detecting brake force applied to a brake pedal and using that braking force as a trigger for vehicle communication and safety signaling systems. See Brady para. 13, 24, 40–41, 45, 53 (“braking force is calculated … when a brake force is applied … by pressing a brake pedal”).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s collision warning system in view of Jung and Brady to include detection and use of instantaneous brake pedal force as a triggering or condition-determining input for activating the rear-end collision mitigation alert system.
This modification is supported because Brady teaches using brake force as a direct indicator of vehicle deceleration intent and safety status, while Jung teaches integrating multiple vehicle state inputs into a unified collision avoidance decision system. Incorporating brake force detection into MacArthur’s system would provide an additional reliable indicator of imminent braking behavior of the lead vehicle, improving responsiveness and accuracy of the warning system.
Claim 4 recites determining a level of instantaneous force applied on a brake pedal and using it to determine the prescribed condition. Brady explicitly discloses determining braking force based on brake pedal application (para. 13, 24, 40–41, 45, 53), thereby meeting this limitation. Jung further supports combining vehicle sensor inputs for collision mitigation decision-making (PARA44–PARA52).
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Brady teaches or renders obvious the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to incorporate brake force sensing into MacArthur’s system using Brady’s known brake-force detection techniques in combination with Jung’s multi-sensor vehicle control framework because this represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art, Brady shows determine a level of instantaneous force applied on a brake pedal on the vehicle; and determine that the sensor data indicates the prescribed condition based on the determined level of instantaneous force applied on the brake pedal on the vehicle being greater than a threshold level (Fig. 4; Para 13,24,40-41,53,45; for example: The lead vehicle 400 is equipped with a VLC communication system that communicates with a dedicated VLC lamp or using existing lights on the vehicle 400, such as the brake lights. When a brake force is applied (operation 402), a braking force is calculated (operation 404). The brake force may be applied by a driver (e.g., by pressing a brake pedal) or autonomously (e.g., by the vehicle to autonomously slow or stop the vehicle).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the determination a brake force with prescribed condition as suggest by Brady to the system of Jung because it would provide addition or alternative condition to be monitored for the vehicle, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of Bloomfield (US 6,411,204) and further in view of Brady et al. (US 2019/0052359).
As per claim 5, it corresponds to claims 2-4, it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
MacArthur discloses a rear-end collision mitigation system including a transmitter/receiver-based distance sensing arrangement configured to determine range and closing speed of a trailing vehicle and activate brake light pulsing when a threshold condition is detected. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle to provide distance signals”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit calculating closing speed and activating brake lights when unsafe conditions are detected).
MacArthur further discloses multiple sensor inputs including distance sensing, vehicle brake switch input, and vehicle speed input used by a control unit to determine collision risk conditions. See PARA.44 (“control unit having microprocessors”), PARA.46 (“brake switch and speed input”), and PARA.47 (“distance sensors comprise transmitter and receiver”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose all additional dependent features of claims 2–4 in combination (e.g., image sensor, IMU sensor, brake force-based detection, or brightness variation in light output).
Jung discloses a vehicle control system using multiple sensors including image-based sensing, GPS/location data, and vehicle state inputs to determine collision risk and generate adaptive warning outputs. See PARA44–PARA52 (sensor fusion and adaptive warning control system).
Bloomfield discloses varying light intensity and flashing behavior based on detected hazard severity, including multiple brightness levels and threshold-based control of warning light output. See Bloomfield col. 6, lines 6–40.
Brady discloses brake-force detection and use of braking input as a triggering condition for vehicle safety signaling systems. See Brady para. 13, 24, 40–41, 45, 53.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s system in view of Jung, Bloomfield, and Brady to incorporate additional sensor modalities (image, location, IMU, brake force) and enhanced light signaling characteristics (variable brightness and threshold-based control) to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of collision warning detection and response.
This modification is supported because Jung teaches multi-sensor fusion for vehicle safety decision-making, Bloomfield teaches variable-intensity visual warning outputs to indicate severity of conditions, and Brady teaches brake-force based triggering of vehicle warning systems. Combining these known techniques with MacArthur’s baseline rear-vehicle sensing system yields a predictable improvement in safety signaling performance.
Claim 5, as dependent on prior claims, encompasses the additional sensor and signaling limitations addressed in claims 2–4. Jung explicitly teaches multi-modal sensor integration (PARA44–PARA52), Bloomfield teaches variable brightness and flashing intensity (col. 6, lines 6–40), and Brady teaches brake-force based detection (para. 13, 24, 40–41, 45, 53), thereby collectively satisfying the dependent limitations.
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung, further in view of Bloomfield and Brady, teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to integrate additional sensor types and enhanced light output controls into MacArthur’s system using known techniques from Jung, Bloomfield, and Brady because such modifications represent the implementation of use of known techniques to improve similar device in the same way, yielding predictable results.
It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
Claim(s) 13,14,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of background of Cronmiller et al. (US 9,889,795).
As per claim 13, the invention of MacArthur in view of Jung meets the limitation of claim but does not explicitly mention the predetermined frequency is based on a manufacturer setting.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation system including a transmitter/receiver-based sensing arrangement configured to detect a trailing vehicle and determine relative distance and closing velocity. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit activates brake light pulsing based on unsafe following conditions).
MacArthur further discloses that the system uses sensor data processed by a control unit to determine whether a trailing vehicle is approaching at an excessive rate and to activate warning outputs accordingly. See PARA.41–PARA.42 (comparison of closing speed to preset maximum threshold).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined flashing frequency is based on a manufacturer setting as recited in claim 13.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety system using a controller configured to process sensor inputs and generate adaptive warning outputs based on collision risk conditions. See PARA44–PARA52 (sensor-based control of warning signals).
Cronmiller explicitly discloses that flashing frequency parameters in vehicle warning systems may be set or defined based on manufacturer settings, allowing configurable control over warning behavior. See Cronmiller col. 1, lines 6–18 (“predetermined frequency is based on a manufacturer setting”).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s brake light pulsing system in view of Jung and Cronmiller to allow the flashing frequency to be defined by manufacturer settings in order to provide flexibility and configurability in warning system behavior.
This modification is supported because Cronmiller teaches that manufacturer-configurable settings are a known and conventional approach for controlling vehicle light signaling parameters, and Jung teaches adaptive control of vehicle warning outputs based on detected conditions. Combining these teachings with MacArthur’s system yields predictable configurability benefits without changing the fundamental operation of the system.
Claim 13 recites that the predetermined flashing frequency is based on a manufacturer setting. Cronmiller explicitly discloses this feature (col. 1, lines 6–18), thereby satisfying the limitation. Jung further reinforces the use of configurable, controller-based vehicle warning systems (PARA44–PARA52).
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Cronmiller teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement manufacturer-defined flashing frequency settings in MacArthur’s system using Cronmiller’s known configurability approach in combination with Jung’s adaptive control system because this represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art of vehicle warning light system, Cronmiller shows the predetermined frequency is based on a manufacturer setting (col. 1, lines 6-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the manufacturer setting as suggest by Cronmiller to the light emitting apparatus of MacArthur in view of Jung because it would allow the light emitting apparatus to be operated using pre-existing or manufacturer setting as one well known technique in the art, thereby increasing the flexibility of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 14, the invention of MacArthur in view of Jung meets the limitation of claim but does not explicitly mention the predetermined frequency is at least a threshold level of frequency.
MacArthur discloses a rear vehicle collision mitigation warning system including a transmitter/receiver-based distance sensing system configured to continuously determine range and closing velocity of a trailing vehicle. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle to provide distance signals”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit calculating relative speed and activating brake light pulsing when closing speed exceeds a threshold).
MacArthur further teaches that the system processes sensor data at high frequency and compares calculated closing velocity against a preset maximum threshold to determine hazardous conditions. See PARA.41–PARA.42 (“continually calculates the closing speed and compares it to a preset maximum”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined frequency of light pulsing is at least a threshold level of frequency as recited in claim 14.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety system in which a controller receives sensor data and activates visual warning outputs such as flashing lights based on collision risk conditions, including time-to-collision and vehicle state parameters. See PARA44–PARA52 (sensor-based control logic for activating flashing warning outputs). Jung supports adaptive control of warning signal timing and intensity based on detected driving conditions.
Lahav explicitly discloses vehicle warning light systems in which flashing frequency is set at or above a threshold value (e.g., at least 4 Hz) to ensure effective visual alerting of following drivers. See Lahav para. 39 (“predetermined frequency is at least 4 hertz”).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s brake light pulsing system in view of Jung and Lahav to ensure that the predetermined flashing frequency meets or exceeds a threshold level in order to improve visibility and responsiveness of the warning signal under hazardous driving conditions.
This modification is supported because Lahav teaches that higher minimum flashing frequencies improve driver perception and reaction time in vehicle warning systems, and Jung teaches adaptive control of vehicle alert outputs based on sensed collision risk. Combining these teachings with MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system yields a predictable improvement in warning effectiveness.
Claim 14 recites that the predetermined frequency is at least a threshold frequency. Lahav expressly discloses a minimum flashing frequency threshold of at least 4 Hz (para. 39), thereby meeting the claimed limitation. Jung further reinforces the use of sensor-driven control logic for dynamic adjustment of warning signal behavior (PARA44–PARA52).
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Lahav teaches or renders obvious the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement a minimum threshold flashing frequency in MacArthur’s system using Lahav’s known frequency constraints in combination with Jung’s adaptive control system because this represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art, Bloomfield shows the predetermined frequency is at least a threshold level of frequency (col. 6, line 6-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the predetermined frequency is at least a threshold level of frequency as suggest by Bloomfield to the light flashing of MacArthur in view of Jung because it would provide a desire frequency in regards to the light emitting apparatus for notification, thereby increasing the flexibility of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of background of Cronmiller et al. (US 9,889,795), further in view of background of Lahav et al. (US 2019/0051184).
As per claim 15, the invention of MacArthur and Jung meets the limitation of claim but does not explicitly mention the predetermined frequency is at least 4 hertz.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation system including a transmitter/receiver-based sensing system configured to detect a trailing vehicle, calculate range and closing velocity, and activate brake light pulsing when a threshold condition is met. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit activates brake lights based on excessive closing speed).
MacArthur further discloses that the system uses continuous sensor sampling and threshold comparison logic to determine unsafe following conditions. See PARA.41–PARA.42 (“continually calculates the closing speed and compares it to a preset maximum”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined flashing frequency is at least 4 hertz as recited in claim 15.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety control system that uses sensor inputs to dynamically control visual warning outputs such as flashing lights based on collision risk conditions. See PARA.44–PARA.52 (adaptive vehicle warning control based on sensor data).
Lahav explicitly discloses that vehicle warning light systems may operate with a flashing frequency of at least 4 hertz to improve visibility and driver response time. See Lahav para. 39 (“predetermined frequency is at least 4 hertz”).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s brake light pulsing system in view of Jung and Lahav to ensure that the flashing frequency meets or exceeds a minimum threshold (e.g., at least 4 Hz) in order to improve the effectiveness and perceptibility of the warning signal under hazardous driving conditions.
This modification is supported because Lahav teaches that higher-frequency flashing improves driver recognition and reaction time, and Jung teaches adaptive control of vehicle warning outputs based on detected collision risk conditions. Combining these teachings with MacArthur’s pulsing brake light system yields a predictable enhancement in safety signaling performance.
Claim 15 recites a flashing frequency of at least 4 hertz. Lahav explicitly discloses this limitation (para. 39), thereby satisfying the claim requirement. Jung further reinforces adaptive control of flashing outputs based on sensor-driven conditions (PARA.44–PARA.52).
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Lahav teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement a minimum flashing frequency threshold in MacArthur’s system using Lahav’s known frequency parameters in combination with Jung’s adaptive vehicle control system because this represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art of vehicle warning light system, Lahav shows the predetermined frequency is at least 4 hertz (Para 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the predetermined frequency is at least 4 hertz as suggest by Lahav to the light emitting apparatus with flashing feature of MacArthur and Jung because it would allow the light to indicate to the trailing vehicle that the host vehicle is a potential collision risk, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of background of Cronmiller et al. (US 9,889,795), further in view of Mankin et al. (US 2016/0339928).
As per claim 16, the invention of MacArthur in view of Jung meets the limitation of claim but does not explicitly mention the controller is in data communication with a remote server and further configured to receive data including the predetermined frequency from the remote server.
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation system including a transmitter/receiver-based sensing system configured to detect a trailing vehicle and determine distance and closing velocity. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit activates brake light pulsing based on detected unsafe conditions).
MacArthur further discloses that sensor inputs are processed by a control unit comprising microprocessors configured to calculate relative vehicle dynamics and generate warning outputs. See PARA.44 (“control unit having microprocessors that calculate trailing vehicle closing speed”).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose that the controller is in data communication with a remote server and further configured to receive data including the predetermined frequency from the remote server as recited in claim 16.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety control architecture in which a controller processes sensor data to determine collision risk and generate warning outputs, and which may include communication of vehicle state information within a broader networked system. See PARA44–PARA52 (sensor-based vehicle control and adaptive warning logic).
Mankin explicitly discloses a vehicle system in communication with a remote server configured to transmit and receive vehicle control parameters, including warning signal configuration data such as flashing frequency settings. See Mankin para. 24 (“vehicle is in data communication with a remote server and further configured to receive data including the predetermined frequency from the remote server”).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s vehicle warning system in view of Jung and Mankin to include remote server communication for receiving control parameters such as flashing frequency in order to enable centralized control, updates, and improved system configurability.
This modification is supported because Mankin teaches cloud-based or remote server communication for vehicle systems to update operational parameters, while Jung teaches adaptive vehicle control systems that respond dynamically to sensed conditions. Combining these teachings with MacArthur’s system yields a predictable enhancement in system flexibility and manageability.
Claim 16 recites that the controller is in data communication with a remote server and receives data including the predetermined frequency. Mankin explicitly discloses this limitation (para. 24), thereby satisfying the claim requirement. Jung further supports the use of networked adaptive vehicle control systems (PARA44–PARA52).
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Mankin teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement remote server-based parameter control in MacArthur’s system using Mankin’s known vehicle-to-server communication architecture in combination with Jung’s adaptive control system because this represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Alternatively:
In the analogous art of vehicle visual system, Mankin shows the vehicle is in data communication with a remote server and further configured to receive data including the predetermined frequency from the remote server (Para 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the vehicle is in data communication with a remote server and further configured to receive data including the predetermined frequency from the remote server as suggest by Mankin to the controller of the light emitting apparatus with flashing feature of MacArthur in view of Jung because it would allow the light frequency to be controlled by remote server, thereby increasing the remote controlling and communication of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 2015/0130607) in view of Jung (US 2022/0041160), further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2007/0040664).
Claim 18:
MacArthur discloses a rear-end collision mitigation system including a transmitter/receiver-based sensing system configured to detect a trailing vehicle, determine distance and closing velocity, and activate brake light pulsing when a hazardous condition is detected. See PARA.39 (“transmitter … reflected off of a trailing vehicle”), PARA.40 (“closing velocity of the trailing vehicle”), and PARA.44–PARA.45 (control unit activates brake lights when unsafe following conditions are detected).
MacArthur further discloses that the system includes sensor-driven logic for determining whether a trailing vehicle is approaching at an excessive rate and triggering warning outputs accordingly. See PARA.41–PARA.42 (comparison of closing velocity to threshold conditions).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly disclose activating, via the ECU, a panic braking function configured to apply a maximum level of instantaneous braking force, a pre-brake assistance function configured to apply a reduced braking force, or a forward-collision warning system configured to predict collision risk and output warnings as recited in claim 18.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety system including a controller configured to process sensor inputs and generate collision mitigation warnings and adaptive control outputs based on detected driving conditions. See PARA44–PARA52 (sensor-based collision risk determination and warning activation).
Johnson explicitly discloses vehicle systems that activate different levels of braking assistance and warning outputs under emergency (“panic braking”) conditions, including enhanced visual and acoustic alerting during high-risk braking events. See Johnson para. 61 (panic braking conditions triggering intensified warning outputs and safety responses).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s collision warning system in view of Jung and Johnson to include multiple levels of braking assistance and forward-collision warning functions, including panic braking, pre-brake assistance, and forward-collision warning, in order to enhance vehicle safety response during imminent collision scenarios.
This modification is supported because Johnson teaches graded braking and emergency response behaviors tied to braking force and collision severity, while Jung teaches sensor-driven adaptive vehicle control systems that dynamically respond to collision risk conditions. Combining these teachings with MacArthur’s system yields a predictable enhancement in safety functionality and responsiveness.
Claim 18 recites panic braking, pre-brake assistance, and forward-collision warning functionalities. Johnson explicitly discloses panic braking-related activation of intensified safety responses (para. 61), thereby teaching at least the panic braking aspect of the claim. Jung further supports multi-sensor collision prediction and adaptive warning generation (PARA44–PARA52).
Therefore, MacArthur in view of Jung and Johnson teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement multi-tier braking and warning functions in MacArthur’s system using Johnson’s known emergency braking response schemes in combination with Jung’s adaptive collision detection system because this represents an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Alternatively:
As per claim 18, the invention of MacArthur in view of Jung meets the limitation of claim but does not explicitly mention activating, via the ECU, a panic braking configured to apply a maximum level of instantaneous braking force on the vehicle, a pre-brake assistance configured to apply a predetermined level of instantaneous braking force less than the maximum level of instantaneous braking force on the vehicle, or a forward-collision warning system configured to predict a forward collision of the vehicle with an object within a predetermined amount of time and to provide a warning notification via an output device coupled to the ECU.
In the analogous art of vehicle lighting system, Johnson shows activating, via the ECU, a panic braking configured to apply a maximum level of instantaneous braking force on the vehicle (Para 61: In certain selected embodiments, CDS 400 also may be adapted to provide CDDS encoded to represent plural motive states of LV 405. For example, during a "firm" application of force to brake pedal 455, a CDS annunciator, such as one or both of 435 and 440, may be actuated in a first predetermined diversity CDDS sequence. Similarly, during a "hard" application of force to brake pedal 455, multiple CDS annunciators, such as one or more of 435, 440, and 445 may be lit in a second predetermined diversity CDDS sequence. Additional colors, light intensities, and temporal CDDS sequences may be emitted by CDSS 400, relative to the "firm" brake application circumstance. In addition, during an emergency, or “panic” application of force to brake pedal 455 (similar to the scenario indicated in FIG. 1A-1D, or above, during LV ABS activation), visual annunciators 435, 440, 445 may be actuated with a different, more visually striking visual diversity scheme, and accompanied by a loud acoustic emission in diversity from acoustic annunciator 450.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include activating, via the ECU, a panic braking configured to apply a maximum level of instantaneous braking force on the vehicle as suggest by Johnson to vehicle system with braking feature of MacArthur in view of Jung because it would provide panic braking in order to avoid collision, thereby increasing the safety of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 19-20:
MacArthur discloses a vehicle rear-end collision mitigation system configured to detect unsafe following conditions and generate automated visual warnings based on relative vehicle motion.
Specifically, MacArthur teaches:
calculating closing speed between vehicles and comparing it to a threshold (PARA.41, PARA.42);
determining unsafe following distance conditions based on sensor inputs (PARA.43);
automatically activating brake light pulsing when a hazardous condition is detected (PARA.42, PARA.45);
using a control unit configured to process distance and speed sensor inputs (PARA.44–PARA.46);
optionally providing additional driver warning alerts (PARA.49).
MacArthur therefore discloses automatic activation of rear brake lights in response to detected hazardous driving conditions.
MacArthur does not expressly disclose:
activation of a panic braking system;
activation of a pre-brake assistance system;
activation of a forward collision warning system as a predictive ECU-based safety module;
simultaneous activation of braking system functionality with brake light activation.
Jung discloses a vehicle safety control system including:
an ECU configured to receive sensor data from multiple vehicle sensors (NF Jung ¶37–43);
processing of sensor data to determine collision risk conditions using predictive logic (NF Jung ¶44–54);
automatic activation of vehicle warning outputs based on detected collision risk (NF Jung ¶44–54);
real-time vehicle safety decision-making architecture for collision avoidance systems.
Jung therefore provides a predictive, ECU-based forward collision warning framework that triggers automated safety responses.
Johnson discloses coordinated vehicle safety responses including:
activation of emergency or panic braking conditions (NF Johnson ¶61);
simultaneous or coordinated activation of visual warning outputs during braking events (NF Johnson ¶61);
temporal coupling between braking states and visual warning signals (NF interpretation, NF p. 11–13).
Johnson therefore teaches coordination between braking systems and visual signaling outputs during emergency conditions.
Claim 19 recites:
activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system includes activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system simultaneously with automatically activating the at least one rear brake light
MacArthur (PARA.41–P53)
detection of hazardous closing conditions → PARA.41–P43
automatic brake light activation → PARA.42, PARA.45
sensor-based control system → PARA.44–P46
not disclosed braking subsystem (panic/FCW/pre-brake)
not disclosed simultaneous activation with braking system
Jung (¶37–54)
ECU-based collision prediction system (Jung ¶44–54)
automated activation of vehicle safety outputs 9Jung ¶44–54)
predictive collision risk determination (Jung ¶37–43)
Johnson (¶61)
panic braking activation (Johnson ¶61)
coordinated visual warning during braking ( Johnson ¶61)
simultaneous or temporally linked activation of braking and lighting systems (p. 11–13)
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify MacArthur’s rear-end collision mitigation system in view of Jung’s ECU-based predictive collision warning architecture and further in view of Johnson’s emergency braking and coordinated signaling system, such that a panic braking system, pre-brake assistance system, or forward collision warning system is activated simultaneously with automatic activation of rear brake lights upon detection of a hazardous driving condition.
MacArthur provides a reactive distance-based hazard detection and warning system, Jung provides a predictive ECU-based collision avoidance framework, and Johnson provides coordinated activation of braking and visual signaling systems during emergency conditions.
It would be an implementation of use of known techniques to improve similar device in the same way because all references relate to vehicle safety systems that detect collision risk and generate coordinated braking and visual warning responses, and combining these known techniques predictably improves reaction time and driver awareness.
Claim 20:
MacArthur discloses a rear-end vehicle safety and collision mitigation system in which a vehicle includes rear-mounted sensors configured to detect a following vehicle and a controller configured to activate rear brake lights in response to detected hazardous conditions. See PARA.44–PARA.45 (controller pulses brake lights when a trailing vehicle approaches at an excessive rate), PARA.47 (rear-mounted sensor system determining following vehicle distance), and PARA.51 (activation of rear lighting in response to detected proximity conditions). MacArthur further teaches coordinated safety responses based on sensed vehicle proximity and braking-related conditions.
MacArthur does not explicitly disclose activating a panic braking system, pre-brake assistance, or forward-collision warning system, nor does it explicitly disclose the temporal relationship between such braking functions and activation of rear brake lights as claimed. However, MacArthur does disclose triggering vehicle safety responses (brake light activation) in response to collision risk conditions, thereby providing a timing-based coordinated safety output framework.
Jung discloses a vehicle control system configured to generate collision mitigation alerts and activate vehicle warning outputs, including light-based alerts, based on sensor-determined time-to-collision and other vehicle state parameters. See PARA44–PARA52 (controller-based collision mitigation system using sensor inputs such as distance and velocity to determine hazard conditions), and PARA72 (ECU coordinating multiple safety outputs including lighting and vehicle control actions). Jung further teaches coordinated activation of vehicle safety responses based on detected collision risk conditions.
Johnson discloses vehicle systems in which emergency or “panic” braking conditions trigger multiple safety outputs, including coordinated activation of lights and braking-related control functions during emergency braking scenarios. See PARA.61 (during “panic” braking, multiple visual annunciators are actuated in a visually striking pattern, coordinated with emergency braking conditions).
Claim 20 recites that activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system includes activating such system immediately after automatically activating the at least one rear brake light.
MacArthur in view of Jung, further in view of Johnson, fails to explicitly disclose the precise temporal ordering of activating braking-related safety systems immediately after rear brake light activation. However, MacArthur teaches triggering rear brake lights in response to hazard detection, and Jung teaches coordinated activation of multiple vehicle safety outputs based on collision risk determination, while Johnson explicitly teaches coordinated activation of braking-related emergency systems together with visual warning outputs during panic braking conditions.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to coordinate the activation timing of braking-related safety functions relative to rear brake light activation in the manner claimed because vehicle safety systems routinely coordinate braking and lighting responses to improve hazard communication to following drivers.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement such timing coordination as:
It would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a limited number of predictable timing relationships between braking system activation and rear light activation (e.g., simultaneous activation, activation before, or activation after). Selecting “immediately after” rear brake light activation represents one such predictable timing arrangement that yields expected and predictable signaling behavior in vehicle safety systems.
Alternatively:
As per claims 19-20, the combined invention of MacArthur and Jung in view of Johnson meets the limitation of and the combined invention would have been obviously show “activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system includes activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system simultaneously with automatically activating the at least one light emitting apparatus to oscillate between the first state and the second state at the predetermined frequency” and “activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system includes activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system immediately after automatically activating the at least one light emitting apparatus to oscillate between the first state and the second state at the predetermined frequency.” (Johnson shows activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system includes activating the panic braking, the pre-brake assistance, or the forward-collision warning system simultaneously with/immediately after automatically activating the at least one light emitting apparatus [Johnson discloses actuated/maybe lit light, see Para 61 during panic braking]. For the purpose of interpretation and explanation, “during”, “simultaneously” and “immediately after” are treated as referring to the same general timeframe – namely, events that occur within the continuous sequency of, or in direct connection with, a primary event such as panic braking. The combination of Johnson with MacArthur in view of Jung would show the alternative of activating the at least one light emitting apparatus to oscillate between the first state and the second state at the predetermined frequency [see rejection of claim 1 and 17]. Johnson also discloses diversity light which could implemented with the flashing feature of Jung). It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) collecting vehicle sensor data, analyzing the sensor data using predetermined collision-related rules and thresholds, determining whether a prescribed condition exists, and automatically generating a rear-end collision mitigation alert by activating one or more vehicle light emitting apparatuses. Such limitations constitute mental processes because the claims recite observation, evaluation, and decision-making operations that can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, including evaluating vehicle conditions, determining whether thresholds are met, and deciding whether to issue a warning indication. The claims additionally recite transmitting or displaying the resulting warning output through vehicle lighting systems.
More specifically, claim 1 recites receiving sensor data from vehicle sensors and automatically activating a light emitting apparatus based on determining that the sensor data indicates a prescribed condition for providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert. Claims 2–5 further recite evaluating collision-related thresholds including time-to-collision, deceleration rates, and braking-force conditions. Claims 6–7 further recite collecting and evaluating different categories of vehicle-related information including image data, location data, inertial data, and braking data. Claims 8–9 further recite controlling light states, flashing frequencies, and brightness levels for the warning indication. Collectively, these limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing information according to predetermined rules, and generating a notification output based on the analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims, including the plurality of sensors, electronic control unit (ECU), and light emitting apparatuses, are recited at a high level of generality and merely perform their ordinary and conventional functions of sensing data, processing data, and outputting warning indications. The claims do not recite any improvement to sensor technology, vehicle control architecture, computer functionality, network communications, or lighting hardware itself. The claims merely use generic vehicle components as tools to implement the abstract decision-making process in a vehicle environment.
The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, individually and in combination, merely apply routine and conventional vehicle sensing and signaling operations. The claims do not recite any specialized algorithm for improving vehicle processing capability, any unconventional sensor arrangement, any improvement to brake-light hardware, or any technological improvement to collision mitigation systems themselves. Instead, the claims merely automate the abstract process of evaluating vehicle-condition information and issuing a corresponding alert using generic electronic components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The present §101 rejection is based on the amended claim language itself and the revised scope introduced by amendment, including newly added sensor-specific processing limitations, threshold-based decision logic, and automated alert-generation functionality. The rejection does not rely upon newly cited prior art to define the abstract idea. The amended claims materially changed the character and scope of the invention relative to the originally presented claims by expressly reciting additional categories of vehicle sensor data processing and rule-based automated collision evaluation logic. Accordingly, the present §101 rejection is responsive to the amended claim scope and does not constitute an improper new ground of rejection.
Claims 10–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving activation signals relating to vehicle operating conditions, processing vehicle-related information using predetermined rules or thresholds, and automatically activating vehicle lighting systems to provide a rear-end collision mitigation alert. Such limitations constitute mental processes because they recite evaluating information, determining whether certain conditions are satisfied, and generating corresponding warning outputs based on predetermined criteria.
More specifically, claim 10 recites receiving an activation signal indicative of an instruction to activate at least one light emitting apparatus to oscillate between states at a predetermined frequency to provide a rear-end collision mitigation alert. Claims 11–16 further recite additional signal-processing and warning-control conditions including varying brightness levels, manufacturer-defined frequency settings, threshold flashing frequencies, and remote-server-based receipt of warning frequency data. These limitations collectively recite the abstract idea of receiving information, evaluating the information according to predetermined rules, and generating a corresponding alert output.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, including the controller, light emitting apparatuses, communication interfaces, and remote server communications, are recited generically and merely perform conventional electronic functions. The claims do not recite any improvement to communication protocols, controller operation, remote-network architecture, vehicle electronics, or lighting technologies. Instead, the claims merely use generic electronic vehicle components to carry out the abstract information-processing and notification functions.
The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited controllers, communication links, and lighting devices merely perform routine receiving, processing, transmitting, and signaling operations. The claims do not recite any unconventional technical solution or improvement to computer functionality. The additional elements simply automate conventional vehicle-warning decision logic using generic computing and vehicle-control hardware performing their expected functions.
The present §101 rejection is based on the amended claim language itself and the revised claim scope introduced during prosecution. The amended claims materially changed the scope of the invention by introducing additional automated signal-processing logic, remote-data functionality, and frequency-control features directed to vehicle warning operations. The rejection is therefore responsive to the amended claim scope and does not constitute an improper new ground of rejection.
Claims 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) collecting vehicle-condition information, evaluating collision-related conditions using predetermined rules, and automatically generating corresponding warning or braking actions based on the evaluated conditions. Such limitations constitute mental processes because they recite observing vehicle conditions, determining whether certain warning criteria are met, and initiating corresponding responses according to predetermined decision rules.
More specifically, claim 17 recites receiving sensor data and automatically activating at least one rear brake light to oscillate between states at a predetermined frequency based on determining that a prescribed condition exists for providing a rear-end collision mitigation alert. Claim 18 further recites activating panic braking, pre-brake assistance, or forward-collision warning systems in response to the evaluated conditions. Claims 19–20 further recite activating such braking or warning systems simultaneously with, or immediately after, activating the rear brake light. These limitations collectively recite the abstract idea of evaluating vehicle operating conditions and coordinating warning or braking responses according to predetermined rules.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, including vehicle sensors, ECUs, braking systems, warning systems, and brake lights, are recited generically and merely perform conventional sensing, control, and signaling operations. The claims do not recite any technological improvement to braking systems, warning systems, ECU architecture, or vehicle-control technology itself. Rather, the claims merely use existing vehicle components to implement the abstract decision-making process in a conventional automotive environment.
The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited components merely perform well-understood, routine, and conventional vehicle-control operations. The claims do not recite any unconventional coordination mechanism, specialized braking algorithm, or improved technological architecture. Instead, the claims merely automate rule-based evaluation and response operations using generic vehicle-control components performing their ordinary functions.
The present §101 rejection is based on the amended claim language itself and the materially revised claim scope introduced during amendment. The amended claims added additional rule-based coordination between collision evaluation, automated braking operations, and automated lighting responses, thereby materially altering the character of the claimed invention relative to the originally presented claims. Accordingly, the present §101 rejection is responsive to the amended claims and does not constitute an improper new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights