DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/13/2026 for application with number 18/614,132 filed on 03/22/2024, in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14 & 18 are currently amended, and claims 2 & 12 have been cancelled. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-11 & 13-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim this application to be CON of applications 17/175,132 filed on 02/12/2021, 16/891,535 filed on 06/03/2020 & 16/798,218 filed on 02/21/2020, which are now published as US-11,994,643-B2, US-10,921,487-B1 & US-10,684,390-B1, respectively).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2025 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claims 1 & 11. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811. Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 02/13/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Double Patenting: The non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims are maintained for the reasons recited in the Non-Final office action dated 11/13/2025. See applicant request in Remarks page 11.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b): The rejections of claims for lack of antecedent basis are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 02/13/2026 recite proper antecedent basis.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejections of claims for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, are maintained, as the amended claims filed on 02/13/2026 has/have failed to overcome the rejection as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/13/2025, and outlined below. In addition, Applicant's amendment(s) necessitated the new ground(s) of rejections under §101 presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s Amendments & Remarks regarding the rejections of the claims under the prior arts in records are persuasive in view of the currently amended base claims 1 & 11. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1) have been withdrawn. However, Applicant's amendment(s) necessitated the new ground(s) of rejections under §103 presented below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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.
Claims 1, 3-11 & 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A system configured for detecting a sitting duck scenario for a vehicle on or near a road and providing notifications based on the detection, the vehicle being operated by a vehicle operator, the system comprising:
a set of one or more sensors, wherein the set of one or more sensors is carried by the vehicle, and wherein at least one sensor in the set of one or more sensors is configured to generate an output signal that conveys information regarding a speed of the vehicle, wherein the output signal is an electronic signal [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle and configured by machine-readable instructions [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] to:
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], a current location of the vehicle in electronic format [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], road-specific information for one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, wherein the road-specific information includes one or more of:
(i) one or more speed limits pertaining to the one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle,
(ii) one or more road types for the one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, and/or
(iii) one or more types of geographical location information pertaining to the one or more roads; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]
receive, through electronic transfer, the output signal from the at least one sensor in the set of one or more sensors [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
determine a current speed of the vehicle based on the output signal as received through the electronic transfer [mental process/step];
make a first determination, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], that the current location of the vehicle is either (a) on a particular road that has a first speed limit matching or exceeding a predetermined speed limit, or (b) within a particular proximity of at least one road that has a second speed limit matching or exceeding the predetermined speed limit, wherein the first determination is based on the current location of the vehicle and the obtained road-specific information and wherein the predetermined speed limit is 40 miles per hour [mental process/step];
make a second determination, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle, that the vehicle has been stationary continuously for at least a specified duration, wherein the second determination is based on the current speed of the vehicle being determined as zero [mental process/step];
automatically detect, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], an occurrence of a sitting duck event for the vehicle responsive to a combination of at least two determinations, wherein the at least two determinations include the first determination and the second determination [mental process/step]; and
responsive to detection of the occurrence of the sitting duck event [mental process/step], perform at least one of the following:
(i) generate a first notification regarding the sitting duck event; and
(ii) provide the first notification to at least one of the vehicle operator and/or a remote user of a remote computing server that is separate and discrete from the vehicle, wherein providing the first notification includes presenting the first notification on one or more user interfaces associated with the vehicle operator and/or the remote user- [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Claim 1 is directed to a system configured [or a method of base claim 11] for detecting a sitting duck scenario for a vehicle on or near a road and providing notifications based on the detection. Therefore, the claim falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations to “make a first determination … that the current location of the vehicle is either (a) on a particular road that has a first speed limit matching or exceeding a predetermined speed limit, or (b) within a particular proximity of at least one road that has a second speed limit matching or exceeding the predetermined speed limit, wherein the first determination is based on the current location of the vehicle and the obtained road-specific information and wherein the predetermined speed limit is 40 miles per hour”, “make a second determination … that the vehicle has been stationary continuously for at least a specified duration, wherein the second determination is based on the current speed of the vehicle being determined as zero”, and “detect … an occurrence of a sitting duck event for the vehicle responsive to a combination of at least two determinations, wherein the at least two determinations include the first determination and the second determination”.
These limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle”. That is, other than reciting “one or more hardware processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more hardware processors” language, the claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor/ circuits does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “a set of one or more sensors, wherein the set of one or more sensors is carried by the vehicle, and wherein at least one sensor in the set of one or more sensors is configured to generate an output signal that conveys information regarding a speed of the vehicle, wherein the output signal is an electronic signal”, “one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle and configured by machine-readable instructions”, “obtain … a current location of the vehicle in electronic format”, “obtain … road-specific information for one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, wherein the road-specific information includes one or more of: (i) one or more speed limits pertaining to the one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, (ii) one or more road types for the one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, and/or (iii) one or more types of geographical location information pertaining to the one or more roads”, “receive, through electronic transfer, the output signal from the at least one sensor in the set of one or more sensors” and “responsive to detection of the occurrence of the sitting duck event, perform at least one of the following: (i) generate a first notification regarding the sitting duck event; and (ii) provide the first notification to at least one of the vehicle operator and/or a remote user of a remote computing server that is separate and discrete from the vehicle, wherein providing the first notification includes presenting the first notification on one or more user interfaces associated with the vehicle operator and/or the remote user”.
The “one or more hardware processors” merely describes how to generally and merely automates [i.e., “automatically”] the obtaining(s), determination(s), detection steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The processor(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determine(s), predict and compute steps.
The “one or more sensors” elements and the “receive” the output from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle and road data for use in the determining steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “obtain” of “current location of the vehicle”, and any of “road-specific information” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information for use in the determination and/pr detection step(s)), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “generate” and/or “provide” of “the first notification to at least one of the vehicle operator and/or a remote user” step(s) on “one or more user interfaces” also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying results from the detecting step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the using of sensor data and the applying of the positions of the machine and the agent to an already trained neural network steps and the processor/ circuits elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more hardware processors to perform the event detecting and providing notification(s) amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “one or more sensors”, obtain[ing] “vehicle-specific information”, and “road-specific information” then “provide one or more notifications” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The Specification recites that the said processor(s) is/are a general-purpose processor(s) ¶¶43-44, and the said user interface is a convolutional UI ¶36, and the specification does not provide any indication that the sensors are anything other than a conventional vehicle sensors ¶¶16-20, indicate that mere using of sensor data steps a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function(s) when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying the results of the mental steps is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Independent method claim 11 recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 3-10 & 13-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-10 & 13-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-11 & 13-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-11 & 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Patent No. US-9,557,736-B1 to Silver et al. (hereinafter “Silver”)
As per claim 1, Silver discloses a system configured for detecting a sitting duck scenario of a vehicle on or near a road and providing notifications based on the detection, the vehicle being operated by a vehicle operator (Silver, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 7, and Col(s). 1, 6 & 16, discloses making the distinction between parked and unparked vehicles, in the case of vehicles parked on the Street, e.g., not in parking spaces physically separated from a lane of travel [i.e., sitting duck scenario], to prevent treating a vehicle that is not going to move in the near future as part of moving traffic. Silver disclosed method(s) and/or system(s) is/are applied in a vehicle control system of a non-autonomous vehicle, e.g., as part of a driver assistance or safety system [i.e., providing notifications based on the detection, the vehicle being operated by a vehicle operator]), the system comprising:
a set of one or more sensors, wherein the set of one or more sensors is carried by the vehicle, and wherein at least one sensor in the set of one or more sensors is configured to generate an output signal that conveys information regarding a speed of the vehicle, wherein the output signal is an electronic signal (Silver, in at least Col(s). 6-8, discloses the positioning system 170 also include speed detection device in communication with computing device 110, to determine the direction and speed of the vehicle or changes thereto. Silver further discloses the detection devices is used to track the position, size, and velocity of external objects, such as other vehicles or pedestrians, in the vicinity of the vehicle 100);
one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle (Silver, in at least Fig. 1, and Col(s). 2 & 4-6, discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which instructions are stored, the instructions, when executed by one or more computing devices cause the one or more computing devices to perform the disclosed methods for identifying parked vehicles. Silver disclosed method(s) and/or system(s) is/are applied in a vehicle control system [i.e., included in the vehicle] of a non-autonomous vehicle, e.g., as part of a driver assistance or safety system) and configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle, a current location of the vehicle in electronic format (Silver, in at least Col(s). 6-8, discloses providing information to the vehicle hardware, i.e. navigation, positioning, and speed sensor. Silver further discloses the detection devices is used to track the position, size, and velocity of external objects, such as other vehicles or pedestrians, in the vicinity of the vehicle 100 [implies current location of the vehicle]);
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle, road-specific information for one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, wherein the road-specific information includes one or more of: (i) one or more speed limits pertaining to the one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, (ii) one or more road types for the one or more roads near the current location of the vehicle, and/or (iii) one or more types of geographical location information pertaining to the one or more roads (Silver, in at least Col(s). 3-9, discloses the navigation system 168 and/or data 132 stores map information, e.g., highly detailed maps identifying the shape and elevation of roadways, lane lines, intersections, crosswalks, speed limits, traffic signals, buildings, signs, real time traffic information, vegetation, or other such objects and information. Silver further discloses identifying one or more traffic control factors relating to the detected vehicles that includes location of a vehicle, type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern in which the vehicle is currently positioned);
receive, through electronic transfer, the output signal from the at least one sensor in the set of one or more sensors (Silver, in at least Col(s). 6-8, discloses the positioning system 170 also include speed detection device in communication with computing device 110, to determine the direction and speed of the vehicle or changes thereto. Silver further discloses the detection devices is used to track the position, size, and velocity of external objects, such as other vehicles or pedestrians, in the vicinity of the vehicle 100);
determine a current speed of the vehicle based on the output signal as received through the electronic transfer (Silver, in at least Col(s). 6-8, discloses the positioning system 170 also include speed detection device in communication with computing device 110, to determine the direction and speed of the vehicle or changes thereto. Silver further discloses the detection devices is used to track the position, size, and velocity of external objects, such as other vehicles or pedestrians, in the vicinity of the vehicle 100);
PNG
media_image1.png
828
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Silver’s Fig. 5 (emphasis addended)
make a first determination, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle, that the current location of the vehicle is either (a) on a particular road that has a first speed limit matching or exceeding a predetermined speed limit, or (b) within a particular proximity of at least one road that has a second speed limit matching or exceeding the predetermined speed limit, wherein the first determination is based on the current location of the vehicle and the obtained road-specific information and(Silver, in at least Col(s). 3-9 & 10-13, discloses the navigation system 168 and/or data 132 stores map information, e.g., highly detailed maps identifying the shape and elevation of roadways, lane lines, intersections, crosswalks, speed limits, traffic signals, buildings, signs, real time traffic information, vegetation, or other such objects and information. Silver further discloses identifying one or more traffic control factors relating to the detected vehicles, wherein these factors may include location of a vehicle, type of roadway [implies road that has a speed limit matching or exceeding a predetermined speed limit], type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern in which the vehicle is currently positioned, wherein type of roadway [i.e. highway, lanes etc.] is determined by taking location of vehicle in relation to map data into account and comparing the location of detected Stationary vehicles with map data such as type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern. Silver also discloses detected vehicles to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed [implies road that has a speed limit matching or exceeding a predetermined speed limit] may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more);
make a second determination, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle, that the vehicle has been stationary continuously for at least a specified duration, wherein the second determination is based on the current speed of the vehicle being determined as zero (Silver, in at least Col(s). 3-9 & 10-13, discloses the vehicle being stationary for a certain length of time. Silver also discloses detected vehicles to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more);
automatically detect, by the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle, an occurrence of a sitting duck event for the vehicle responsive to a combination of at least two determinations, wherein the at least two determinations include the first determination and the second determination (Silver, in at least Fig. 5 [reproduced here for convenience], Fig. 6, Fig. 7 & Col(s). 3-11, discloses various examples for determination of parked vehicle); and
responsive to detection of the occurrence of the sitting duck event, perform at least one of the following:
(i) generate a first notification regarding the sitting duck event; and
(ii) provide the first notification to at least one of the vehicle operator and/or a remote user of a remote computing server that is separate and discrete from the vehicle, wherein providing the first notification includes presenting the first notification on one or more user interfaces associated with the vehicle operator and/or the remote user- (Silver, in at least Fig. 1, and Col(s). 6 & 16, disclosed methods and systems is applied in a vehicle control system of a non-autonomous vehicle, e.g., as part of a driver assistance or safety system [i.e., notify vehicle operator], wherein elements may be external to vehicle, physically separated by large distance [i.e., remote computing server]).
While Silver discloses wherein the predetermined speed limit (Silver, in at least Col(s). 3-13, discloses the navigation system 168 and/or data 132 stores map information, e.g., highly detailed maps identifying the shape and elevation of roadways, lane lines, intersections, crosswalks, speed limits, traffic signals, buildings, signs, real time traffic information, vegetation, or other such objects and information. Silver further discloses identifying one or more traffic control factors relating to the detected vehicles, wherein these factors may include location of a vehicle, type of roadway [implies road that has predetermined speed limit is 40 miles per hour], type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern in which the vehicle is currently positioned, wherein type of roadway [i.e. highway, lanes etc.] is determined by taking location of vehicle in relation to map data into account and comparing the location of detected Stationary vehicles with map data such as type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern. Silver also discloses detected vehicles to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed [implies road that has predetermined speed limit is 40 miles per hour] may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more), however Silver is silent on being 40 miles per hour.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to “speed limit is 40 miles per hour”, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that speed limit being “40 miles per hour” solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different speed limit(s). Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. less than or equal 40 miles per hours, involves only routine skill in the art, See MPEP §2144.05.
As per claim 2, (Cancelled)
As per claim 3, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further discloses wherein the set of one or more sensors includes a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor, wherein the current location of the vehicle is based of GPS output generated by the GPS sensor, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
obtain vehicle-specific information pertaining to the vehicle; and wherein the second determination is based, at least in part, on the vehicle-specific information (Silver, in at least Col(s). 6-8 & 11, teaches the position system 170 includes a GPS receiver to determine the device's latitude, longitude and/or altitude position. Silver further teaches systems providing information to the vehicle hardware, i.e. navigation, positioning, and speed sensor, wherein the detection devices is used to track the position, size, and velocity of external objects, such as other vehicles or pedestrians, in the vicinity of the vehicle 100. Silver also teaches the vehicle being stationary for a certain length of time).
As per claim 4, Silver teaches the system of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the vehicle-specific information is related to the current speed of the vehicle (Silver, in at least Col(s). 6-8 & 11, teaches systems providing information to the vehicle hardware, i.e. navigation, positioning, and speed sensor, wherein the detection devices is used to track the position, size, and velocity of external objects, such as other vehicles or pedestrians, in the vicinity of the vehicle 100. Silver further teaches the vehicle being stationary for a certain length of time).
As per claim 5, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the vehicle operator is an autonomous driving algorithm (Silver, in at least Fig. 7, and Col(s). 1 & 16, teaches the autonomous vehicle determines the proper control strategy [i.e., autonomous driving algorithm] based on the distinction, e.g., yielding to an unparked car, but navigating around a parked car. Silver further teaches vehicle 100 is being autonomously controlled in accordance with a control strategy).
As per claim 6, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the vehicle operator forms a team with an autonomous driving algorithm, wherein the team controls operations of the vehicle (Silver, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 7, and Col(s). 1, 6 & 16, teaches the autonomous vehicle determines the proper control strategy based on the distinction, e.g., yielding to an unparked car, but navigating around a parked car [i.e., the vehicle operator forms a team with an autonomous driving algorithm]. Silver further discloses vehicle 100 is being autonomously controlled in accordance with a control strategy. Silver’s method(s) and system(s) are applied in a vehicle control system of a non-autonomous vehicle, e.g., as part of a driver assistance or safety system [implies the vehicle operator forms a team with an autonomous driving algorithm]).
As per claim 7, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the particular proximity is determined based on a distance threshold, and wherein the distance threshold is 100 feet or less, wherein the specified duration is at least 5 minutes, and wherein the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle are further configured by machine-readable instructions to:
make a third determination that the vehicle is in one of a set of designated areas for stopping vehicles;
wherein detection of the occurrence of the sitting duck event is further responsive to the third determination that the vehicle is not in one of the set of designated areas for stopping vehicles (Silver, in at least Col(s). 10-12, teaches designated parking spaces is parking spaces or parking lots delineated on the map data, and vehicles that are close to a curb and also outside a specific distance from an intersection is labeled as parked, wherein the acceptable distance away from an intersection to park ranges depending on the layout of the intersection or fall between 50 and 100 feet, but may also be shorter. Silver further teaches labeling one or more of the detected vehicles as being in a parked state after they display characteristics of a parked vehicle for a period of time, wherein to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more).
As per claim 8, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
make a fourth determination that the vehicle is stationary in an orientation parallel to a particular road;
wherein the detection of the occurrence of the sitting duck event is further responsive to the fourth determination that the vehicle is stationary in the orientation parallel to the particular road (Silver, in at least Fig(s). 5-6 & Col(s). 3-12, teaches if a car is stopped close to a curb, with a heading parallel to the Street, the system may determine that the car is parallel parked and label it as such. Silver further teaches that facing a certain angle in relation to the side of a road may indicate that a vehicle is parked in a parallel parking spot, an angled parking spot, or a head-in parking spot, even if it is not a delineated parking spot in the map data, wherein the headings of the stationary vehicles in relation to the street may be compared with the direction of the street and the position of the curb. If the car heading is parallel, orthogonal, or at a particular angle to the curb (e.g., approximately 30 degrees), the system may consider this condition satisfied because they correspond to parallel parking, head in parking, or angled parking, respectively).
As per claim 9, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the first determination includes a determination that any part of the vehicle is within a specified minimum distance of any part of a highway having one or more traffic lanes heading in opposite directions, wherein the specified minimum distance is at least 25 feet (Silver, in at least Col(s). 3-9 & 10-12, teaches identify one or more traffic control factors relating to the detected vehicles, wherein these factors may include location of a vehicle, type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, o2r other traffic pattern in which the vehicle is currently positioned, wherein type of roadway [i.e. highway] is determined by taking location of vehicle in relation to map data into account and comparing the location of detected Stationary vehicles with map data such as type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern. Silver further teaches detected vehicles to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed [implies a highway] may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more. Silver also discloses designated parking spaces is parking spaces or parking lots delineated on the map data, and vehicles that are close to a curb and also outside a specific distance from an intersection is labeled as parked, wherein the acceptable distance away from an intersection to park ranges depending on the layout of the intersection or fall between 50 and 100 feet [i.e., the specified minimum distance is at least 25 feet], but may also be shorter).
As per claim 10, Silver teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Silver further teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors included in the vehicle are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
determine that the vehicle was traveling at least 50 mph for at least 5 minutes in a particular time frame, wherein the particular time frame includes a duration of at least 10 minutes immediately preceding the specified duration for the second determination that the vehicle has been stationary (Silver, in at least Col(s). 1-13, teaches the first length of time is determined according to an estimated speed of each vehicle prior to having zero velocity, wherein the second length of time is determined according to an estimated speed of a vehicle prior to having zero velocity. Silver further teaches detected vehicles to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more [implies traveling at least 50 mph for at least 5 minutes in a particular time frame]. Silver also discloses the threshold length of time required to satisfy this condition may vary depending on the speed the vehicle was traveling prior to stopping. Silver further teaches identify one or more traffic control factors relating to the detected vehicles, wherein these factors may include location of a vehicle, type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, o2r other traffic pattern in which the vehicle is currently positioned, wherein type of roadway [i.e. highway] is determined by taking location of vehicle in relation to map data into account and comparing the location of detected Stationary vehicles with map data such as type of roadway, type of intersection, lane of travel, location of parking spaces, or other traffic pattern. Silver further discloses detected vehicles to be considered likely parked, cars previously traveling at high speed [implies the vehicle was traveling at least 50 mph for at least 5 minutes in a particular time frame] may need to be stationary for between 10 and 30 seconds or more. Silver also teaches designated parking spaces is parking spaces or parking lots delineated on the map data, and vehicles that are close to a curb and also outside a specific distance from an intersection is labeled as parked, wherein the acceptable distance away from an intersection to park ranges depending on the layout of the intersection or fall between 50 and 100 feet [i.e., the specified minimum distance is at least 25 feet], but may also be shorter).
As per claims 11 & 13-20, the claims are directed towards method(s) for detecting a sitting duck scenario of a vehicle on or near a road and providing notifications based on the detection that recite(s) similar limitations performed by the system(s) for detecting a sitting duck scenario of a vehicle on or near a road and providing notifications based on the detection of claim(s) 1 & 3-10. The cited portions of Silver used in the rejection of claim(s) 1 & 3-10 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 11 & 13-20. Therefore, claim(s) 11 & 13-20 is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1 & 3-10 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See previously mailed PTO-892 form(s).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
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.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661