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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the basic concept of: receiving sensor data indicating a potentially destructive or destructive vehicle condition, determining that a response is warranted, sending notification data to another entity, and receiving or sending action data so that a responsive action is taken.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, this is an abstract idea because it amounts to collecting information, analyzing that information, communicating the information to another entity, and receiving responsive instructions. The specification itself describes the invention at that level. It explains that the smart communications hub communicates with providers, vehicle management, law enforcement, and smart cities, processes requests, and manages vehicle-related information and responses. See Spec. [0032]-[0036].
The specification also describes the core embodiments as information-routing workflows. It states that sensor data is received, sent to another network device or entity, notification data or action data is received in response, and the resulting data is then sent onward to the vehicle or another entity. See Spec. [0037]-[0039], [0054]-[0057].
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are generic computer and network components used only as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims recite network equipment, a processor, memory, sensors, a government entity, an image capture device, and smart-city infrastructure, but they do not recite any specific technical improvement in sensor operation, network communication, or vehicle control. Instead, they recite desired results such as sending notification data, activating additional sensors, collecting additional data, decommissioning a vehicle, or adjusting gas flow.
The specification confirms that these components are conventional. It broadly defines components as generic computer-related entities and describes ordinary processors, memories, communications components, and standard networked systems. See Spec. [0020]-[0026]. It also describes conventional vehicle sensors such as temperature sensors, gas sensors, fire sensors, brake sensors, window break sensors, and collision sensors. See Spec. [0041]-[0043].
The dependent claims do not change the analysis. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 merely specify particular sensors or particular conditions, such as brake sensors, gas sensors, burglary, collision, overheating, or fire. Claims 4, 5, 7, 14, 18, 19, and 20 merely add further data gathering or reporting features, such as image capture, zooming, smart-city cameras, police or fire entities, or collection of additional data. Claims 6 and 11-13 merely recite a desired response, such as decommissioning the vehicle, sending action data, adjusting gas flow, or closing a gas shutoff valve. These limitations narrow the context or state the intended result, but they do not recite a specific technological improvement. See Spec. [0048]-[0051].
Under Step 2B, the claims also fail to recite an inventive concept. Individually, the additional elements are conventional. As an ordered combination, the claims merely use generic computer and network components in their ordinary manner to receive data, route data, send notifications, and relay action instructions. That is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Spec. [0020]-[0026], [0045]-[0049].
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (US 20160139594 A1) , in view of Ruiz (US 20040143602 A1), and in view of Sukumaran (US-20130173137-A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura teaches:
A method, comprising:See at least: “In another implementation, a computer-implemented method for an autonomous passenger vehicle is disclosed...” ( [0005])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches a computer-implemented method for an autonomous vehicle. This satisfies the claimed method preamble.
receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor,See at least: “A processing unit 102 in the computing device 100 can be a conventional central processing unit (CPU)...” ( [0011]) “The computing device 100 can also include a communications interface 140 through which the computing device 100 can communicate with external sources over a network 142...” ( [0016])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches a vehicle-side computing device having a processor and network communication capability. Under BRI, that computing device is “network equipment comprising a processor.”
sensor data representative of a sensor measurementSee at least: “The computing device 100 can also be in direct or indirect communication with one or more sensors 130 that can capture data indicative of performance of the vehicle 200 and vehicle systems 116.” ( [0015])Rationale: The captured data from sensors 130 is data representative of sensor measurements.
of one or more sensorsSee at least: “Example sensors 130 can include accelerometers, gyroscopes, and/or magnetometers... Location sensors 134... Optical sensors 136... Radar sensors 138 and/or lidar sensors 139...” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches multiple vehicle sensors.
that measure one or more physical conditionsSee at least: “The sensors 130 can be used to measure movement of the vehicle 200, such as direction, speed, acceleration, yaw, etc.” ( [0015]) “Other example sensors 130... can detect changes in the climate... and can include internal sensors to monitor... engine temperature... tire pressure...” ( [0015])Rationale: Speed, acceleration, yaw, climate, temperature, and tire pressure are physical conditions, and Okumura expressly teaches sensors measuring them.
of an autonomous vehicle,See at least: “Disclosed herein are computer devices, systems, and methods for remotely operating an autonomous vehicle.” ( [0010])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches an autonomous vehicle.
wherein the sensor data indicates a potentially destructive condition associated with the autonomous vehicle;See at least: “...the vehicle 200 may from time to time encounter unexpected driving environments in which autonomous operation is inappropriate, for example, a construction zone, an obstruction in the middle of the road, heavy traffic, or inclement weather.” ( [0024]) “The computing device 100 can detect that the vehicle 200 is in such a driving environment based on data received from the sensors 130...” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura does not use the exact phrase “potentially destructive condition.” However, it expressly teaches sensor-detected obstructions, heavy traffic, and inclement weather. A PHOSITA would have understood those to be hazardous conditions that pose a risk of collision, loss of control, or damage, and thus to be potentially destructive conditions associated with the autonomous vehicle.
In response to determining that the sensor measurement is indicative of the potentially destructive condition,See at least: “If an unexpected driving environment is identified, operation of the vehicle 200 can switch to remote operation mode.” ( [0025]) “At step 302, the computing device 100, based on data captured by the sensors 130, identifies an unexpected driving environment. At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator...” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches the causal sequence of sensor-based identification followed by a response directed to remote operation.
sending, by the network equipment,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches sending by the vehicle-side computing device.
notification data to equipment of a second entity,See at least: “...send information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0004]) “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator...” ( [0040])Rationale: The remote operator / remote server is equipment of a second entity external to the autonomous vehicle. The transmitted sensor-based information is notification data because it alerts that second entity to the detected hazardous condition and prompts response.
receiving, by the network equipment,See at least: “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches receiving by the same networked vehicle-side computing device.
action data responsive to the notification data,See at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems...” ( [0004]) “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: The returned command data is responsive to the earlier transmitted sensor-based notification data.
the action data causing an action to be taken by the autonomous vehicle,See at least: “At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040]) “...the remote operator can manually operate the vehicle remotely or issue commands to the autonomous vehicle to be executed by various vehicle systems.” ( [0003])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches returned command data that causes vehicle-side execution and therefore causes action to be taken by the autonomous vehicle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein the notification data causes the second entity to activate additional sensors
to monitor the potentially destructive condition; and
wherein action comprises a precautionary action
taken by the one or more sensors
to mitigate the potentially destructive condition.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz teaches:
wherein the notification data causes the second entity to activate additional sensorsSee at least: “...change of settings for the physical layer 101 as in change in FOV for the cameras 108, change in camera mode to image intensification (II), change of threshold for sensors 110, and activating previously unused sensors 110...” ( [0133]) “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches event/data-driven activation of additional cameras and sensors, including activating previously unused sensors. Applied to Okumura’s remote-operator architecture, this supports the still-unmapped concept that the notified second entity causes activation of additional sensors after hazardous-condition notification.
to monitor the potentially destructive condition; andSee at least: “...the PTZ controls can be run automatically by the system in response to a new configuration parameter. Similarly, the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067]) “...if a dirty bomb is exploded... [the system] results in an alert and perhaps an automatic response that... activates video surveillance cameras...” ( [0167])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches additional sensors/cameras being activated and reconfigured to observe an evolving threat condition. In the Okumura combination, the corresponding purpose of the additional sensors would be to monitor the hazardous autonomous-vehicle condition that triggered the remote notification.
taken by the one or more sensorsSee at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline...” ( [0066]) “...the PTZ controls can be run automatically by the system in response to a new configuration parameter. Similarly, the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067]) “...change of settings for the physical layer 101 as in change in FOV for the cameras 108, change in camera mode to image intensification (II), change of threshold for sensors 110...” ( [0133])Rationale: Ruiz does not expressly use the exact claim phrase. However, under BRI, Ruiz teaches sensor/camera subsystem operations in which the sensors themselves are turned on, placed online/offline, have their modes changed, have their field settings adjusted, and have their thresholds changed in response to detected conditions. A PHOSITA would have understood those sensor-level operational changes as actions carried out at and through the sensors/sensing subsystem, i.e., actions “taken by the one or more sensors,” rather than merely passive data reporting. This is stronger than the prior Breed-based data-retrieval theory because it is tied to actual sensor-state changes.
Motivation to Combine Okumura and Ruiz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura and Ruiz before them, to modify the remote-operated autonomous-vehicle system of Okumura so that, after the vehicle-side network equipment notifies the remote operator/server of the hazardous condition, the second entity can activate additional sensors and perform sensor-level reconfiguration operations to better monitor the condition, because Ruiz teaches the known technique of automatically activating and reconfiguring sensors in response to detected conditions, and applying that known technique to Okumura would have predictably improved situational awareness, monitoring accuracy, and remote-operation reliability in hazardous autonomous-driving scenarios.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz
After combining the teachings of Okumura and Ruiz, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
wherein action comprises a precautionary action
to mitigate the potentially destructive condition.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran teaches:
wherein action comprises a precautionary actionSee at least: “...the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0069]) “...the engine operation may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0075])Rationale: Sukumaran is correctly identified as Sukumaran et al., an engine-protection reference. It expressly teaches protective actions such as warning, slowdown request, disable, and shutdown in response to harmful sensed conditions. Those are precautionary actions because they are taken to protect the vehicle system before or during a harmful condition.
to mitigate the potentially destructive condition.See at least: “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine (for example, an engine shutdown) if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ( [0012]) “...the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature at which a slowdown may generally be appropriate... the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate.” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the protective action is used when harmful conditions are sensed and that slowdown/shutdown are employed to protect the engine from those conditions. That is mitigation of a potentially destructive condition.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to further modify the combined system so that the returned action data includes a precautionary action used to mitigate the hazardous condition, because Sukumaran teaches the known use of protective actions such as warning, slowdown, disable, and shutdown in response to harmful sensed conditions, while Okumura already teaches remote return commands to an autonomous vehicle in response to a detected hazardous environment, and Ruiz teaches adaptive sensor-level control in response to detected events. A PHOSITA would have recognized that combining those teachings predictably improves safety, remote response quality, and system reliability by enabling the notified remote system not only to observe the hazard with additional/reconfigured sensors, but also to direct protective action intended to reduce harm from the hazardous condition.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura teaches:
wherein the notification dataSee at least: “sending information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using a remote server” ( [0004]) “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches the notification-data portion of Claim 4. After the hazardous condition is identified, the vehicle-side computing device contacts the remote operator and sends sensor data. That transmitted sensor information is the notification data carried forward from Claim 1 into Claim 4.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose/teach the following claim limitations:
facilitates initiation
of an image capture device.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz teaches:
facilitates initiation
of an image capture device.See at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches that cameras can be turned on or placed online based on sensor data. A PHOSITA would have understood turning the cameras on or placing them online to be initiation of an image capture device. When combined with Okumura’s transmitted notification data, Ruiz teaches the remaining concept that the notification data facilitates initiation of the image capture device.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to configure the hazardous-condition response method established by the combination for Claim 1 so that the notification data facilitates initiation of an image capture device, because Okumura teaches sending notification data to a remote operator when a dangerous vehicle condition is detected, Ruiz teaches the known responsive technique of turning cameras on or placing them online based on sensor data, and incorporating that camera-initiation capability into the established Claim 1 framework would have predictably improved situational awareness, monitoring accuracy, and remote-response effectiveness during hazardous autonomous-vehicle conditions.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran teaches:
wherein the precautionary actionSee at least: “In still another aspect, the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0069]) “For example, the element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the responsive protective action may be a disable action, warning action, slowdown request action, or shutdown action. Those disclosed protective responses correspond to the claimed “precautionary action.”
comprisesSee at least: “In still another aspect, the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ([0069])Rationale: The disclosed action in Sukumaran includes identified constituent forms, namely disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown. That disclosure teaches that the precautionary action comprises one or more such protective measures.
decommissioning the autonomous vehicle.See at least: “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine (for example, an engine shutdown) if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ([0012]) “In still another aspect, the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ([0069]) “...the engine operation may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ([0075])Rationale: Sukumaran does not expressly use the exact term “decommissioning.” However, it expressly teaches disable and shutdown actions in response to harmful sensed conditions. A PHOSITA would have understood disabling or shutting down the vehicle’s propulsion function to take the vehicle out of service. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, taking the autonomous vehicle out of service for safety reasons teaches decommissioning the autonomous vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to implement the precautionary action of the hazardous-condition response method established for Claim 1 as disabling or shutting down the autonomous vehicle in response to a harmful sensed condition, because Okumura teaches a remote hazardous-condition response framework for an autonomous vehicle, Ruiz teaches responsive sensor/camera control in reaction to detected conditions, and Sukumaran teaches the known protective technique of disable/shutdown when sensed conditions become harmful, such that using that known safety technique in the established Claim 1 framework would have predictably improved safety and reduced the risk of continued operation under dangerous conditions.
Regarding Claim 8,
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
Network equipment, comprising:See at least: “a computing device for an autonomous passenger vehicle is disclosed...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura discloses a computing device associated with the vehicle, which is reasonably read as the claimed network equipment in view of its processor, memory, and network communication functionality.
a processor; andSee at least: “the computing device including: one or more processors for controlling operations of the computing device...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses one or more processors. This teaches the claimed processor.
a memory that stores executable instructionsSee at least: “...and a memory for storing data and program instructions used by the one or more processors...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses a memory that stores program instructions. This teaches the claimed memory that stores executable instructions.
that, when executed by the processor,See at least: “...wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that the processors execute the instructions stored in memory. This teaches the recited execution relationship between the processor and the stored instructions.
facilitate performance of operations, comprising:See at least: “...wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: identify an unexpected driving environment; send information... receive a command... and send the command...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses stored instructions that cause the computing device to perform a defined set of operations. This teaches the claimed “facilitate performance of operations, comprising:” language.
receiving sensor data representative of a measurementSee at least: “The computing device 100 can also be in direct or indirect communication with one or more sensors 130 that can capture data indicative of performance of the vehicle 200 and vehicle systems 116.” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura discloses the computing device receiving data captured by sensors. That captured data is data representative of sensor measurement.
of one or more sensorsSee at least: “The computing device 100 can also be in direct or indirect communication with one or more sensors 130...” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses one or more sensors. This teaches the claimed source of the measurement data.
that measure one or more physical conditionsSee at least: “The sensors 130 can be used to measure movement of the vehicle 200, such as direction, speed, acceleration, yaw, etc.” ( [0015]) “Other example sensors 130 that may be employed can detect changes in the climate... and can include internal sensors to monitor the statuses of the vehicle systems 116 (e.g., monitoring the fuel or energy level, engine temperature, oxygen level, tire pressure, etc.).” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses sensors measuring movement, climate, engine temperature, tire pressure, and related operating states. These are physical conditions.
of a vehicle,See at least: “The sensors 130 can be used to measure movement of the vehicle 200...” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the measured conditions are conditions of the vehicle and its environment. This teaches the claimed “of a vehicle.”
wherein the sensor data indicatesSee at least: “The computing device 100 can detect that the vehicle 200 is in such a driving environment based on data received from the sensors 130...” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that sensor data is used to indicate and detect the relevant condition confronting the vehicle.
a destructive condition occurring at the autonomous vehicle; andSee at least: “...the vehicle 200 may from time to time encounter unexpected driving environments in which autonomous operation is inappropriate, for example, a construction zone, an obstruction in the middle of the road, heavy traffic, or inclement weather.” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura does not use the exact phrase “destructive condition.” However, Okumura expressly discloses hazardous conditions such as obstructions, heavy traffic, and inclement weather confronting the autonomous vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such hazardous conditions to be destructive or potentially destructive conditions occurring at the vehicle because they present risk of collision, loss of control, or comparable harm.
in response to determiningSee at least: “If an unexpected driving environment is identified, operation of the vehicle 200 can switch to remote operation mode.” ( [0025])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses a response that follows from the system’s determination of the hazardous condition.
that the measurement is indicative ofSee at least: “At step 302, the computing device 100, based on data captured by the sensors 130, identifies an unexpected driving environment.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the determination is made based on data captured by the sensors, i.e., on the sensor measurement information.
the destructive condition of the vehicle,See at least: “At step 302, the computing device 100, based on data captured by the sensors 130, identifies an unexpected driving environment.” ( [0040])Rationale: For the reasons stated above with respect to [0024], Okumura’s identified unexpected driving environment is reasonably understood as the destructive condition of the vehicle under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
sending,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches sending by the computing device after the condition has been identified.
by the network equipment,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator...” ( [0040])Rationale: The sending is performed by the computing device previously mapped to the claimed network equipment.
notification dataSee at least: “...send information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses sensor-based information sent to the remote operator after the hazardous condition is identified. That transmitted information constitutes notification data.
to equipment of a remote entity,See at least: “...send information... to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0004]) “The computing device 100 can also include a communications interface 140 through which the computing device 100 can communicate with external sources over a network 142... These external sources can include one or more remote servers 144.” ( [0016])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses a remote operator and remote server external to the vehicle-side computing device. That remote operator/server arrangement teaches equipment of a remote entity.
sending,See at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems; and send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches a second sending operation, namely sending the command onward to the vehicle systems.
responsive to the sending the notification data,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator.” “At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that the command-sending operation follows the prior notification-data transmission and is responsive to it. The disclosed sequence is notification at step 304, receipt of command at step 308, and sending the command for execution at step 310.
action dataSee at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems...” ( [0004])Rationale: The command received from the remote operator and forwarded for execution is action data because it directs vehicle action.
provided by the remote entity,See at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator...” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that the command originates from the remote operator. Thus, the action data is provided by the remote entity.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose/teach the following claim limitations:
wherein the notification data causes
the second entity
to activate additional sensors
to identify
the destructive condition; and
that causes
a mitigation action
to be taken by the one or more sensors
to facilitate a response
to the destructive condition of the vehicle.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz discloses:
wherein the notification data causes the second entity to activate additional sensorsSee at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066]) “...the PTZ controls can be run automatically by the system in response to a new configuration parameter. Similarly, the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses that sensor data and system parameters cause the system to turn cameras on, place them online, and adjust sensor modes. This teaches a remote/system-side response in which additional sensors are activated.
to identify the destructive condition; andSee at least: “Utility layer 102 also contains recognition and identification algorithms 162... to detect activity related to humans, vehicles... human/vehicle interactions... and any other activity or basic events...” ( [0097]) “...configured VEPs 170 that, when activated by that information, results in alerts and information 172 from specific identifications...” ( [0098])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses recognition, identification, alerting, and event determination based on information gathered from multiple sensors and cameras. This teaches using the activated additional sensors to identify the relevant event or condition.
that causes to be taken by the one or more sensors to facilitate a responseSee at least: “...the cameras can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066]) “...the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067]) “...if a dirty bomb is exploded... [the system] results in an alert and perhaps an automatic response that sounds an evacuation notice, activates video surveillance cameras, and automatically calls hazardous materials responders.” ( [0167])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses sensor and camera operational changes taken in response to detected conditions, including activation, online/offline control, and mode adjustments, and further discloses that these form part of an automatic response to the detected event. This teaches responsive actions taken by the sensors/camera subsystem to facilitate a response to the detected destructive condition.
Motivation to Combine Okumura and Ruiz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura and Ruiz before them, to modify the remote-entity hazardous-condition architecture of Okumura so that the notification data causes the remote side to activate additional sensors and use them to identify the destructive condition and carry out sensor-level response operations, because Okumura already teaches notifying a remote operator/server upon detection of a dangerous vehicle condition, while Ruiz teaches the known technique of activating and automatically controlling additional sensors and cameras, including recognition/identification processing and automated response operations, in reaction to detected events, such that combining these teachings would have predictably improved condition identification, situational awareness, and response effectiveness.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz
After combining the teachings of Okumura and Ruiz, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
a mitigation action
to the destructive condition of the vehicle.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran discloses:
a mitigation actionSee at least: “The interface element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059]) “...the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature at which a slowdown may generally be appropriate, and the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate.” ( [0061]) “...the engine operation may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0075])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly discloses disable, slowdown, warning, and shutdown actions selected in response to harmful sensed conditions. Those are mitigation actions because they are directed toward reducing harm and protecting the vehicle system once the harmful condition is recognized.
to the destructive condition of the vehicle.See at least: “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine (for example, an engine shutdown) if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ( [0012]) “...the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature at which a slowdown may generally be appropriate, and the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate.” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the disable/slowdown/shutdown actions are used when harmful conditions are present and are intended to protect the engine. This teaches mitigation directed to the destructive condition affecting the vehicle system.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to further configure the remote-entity hazardous-condition system established by Okumura and Ruiz so that the action data provided by the remote entity causes a mitigation action directed to the destructive condition of the vehicle, because Okumura teaches the remote-entity command architecture, Ruiz teaches sensor-level identification and response operations triggered by detected events, and Sukumaran teaches the known use of disable, slowdown, warning, and shutdown actions in response to harmful sensed conditions, such that combining these teachings would have predictably improved the vehicle’s ability to respond safely and effectively to destructive operating conditions.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the network equipment of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
wherein the one or more sensorsSee at least: “The computing device 100 can also be in direct or indirect communication with one or more sensors 130 that can capture data indicative of performance of the vehicle 200 and vehicle systems 116.” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses one or more sensors 130 associated with the vehicle and in communication with the computing device. This teaches the claimed “wherein the one or more sensors.”
is one ofSee at least: “Other example sensors 130 that may be employed can detect changes in the climate (e.g., thermometers or barometers) ... and can include internal sensors to monitor the statuses of the vehicle systems 116 (e.g., monitoring the fuel or energy level, engine temperature, oxygen level, tire pressure, etc.).” ( [0015])Rationale: Claim 9 is written in the alternative. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied if the prior art teaches any one of the listed alternatives. Okumura expressly discloses particular species of sensors within the broader set of vehicle sensors 130, which teaches selection of one listed sensor type from among the available sensor types, corresponding to the claimed “is one of.”
a temperature sensor, a gas sensor or bothSee at least: “Other example sensors 130 that may be employed can detect changes in the climate (e.g., thermometers or barometers) ... and can include internal sensors to monitor the statuses of the vehicle systems 116 (e.g., monitoring the fuel or energy level, engine temperature, oxygen level, tire pressure, etc.).” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses thermometers and internal sensors that monitor engine temperature. A thermometer is a temperature sensor, and a sensor monitoring engine temperature is likewise a temperature sensor. Accordingly, Okumura expressly teaches the recited “temperature sensor.” Because Claim 9 is satisfied by one listed alternative, this disclosure is sufficient to meet the added limitation.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to implement the one or more sensors of the network equipment established for Claim 8 as including a temperature sensor, because Okumura expressly teaches thermometers and engine-temperature-monitoring sensors as part of the vehicle sensor suite, and using that known sensor type in the established Claim 8 hazardous-condition and mitigation framework would have been a predictable use of a known element to monitor harmful vehicle conditions and improve detection specificity and response reliability.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the network equipment of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran discloses:
wherein the destructive conditionSee at least: “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine (for example, an engine shutdown) if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ( [0012])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the relevant condition is a harmful engine condition detected from operating parameters. That teaches the claimed destructive condition in the context of engine-related danger.
is an engine overheating.See at least: “For instance, the threshold A0 may correspond to an engine temperature (or other measured parameter) at which a warning may be appropriate ... the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature at which a slowdown may generally be appropriate, and the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate. In an example scenario, as an engine in use begins to heat, information from a temperature sensor is provided to an engine protection module...” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran does not use the exact phrase “engine overheating.” However, it expressly teaches an engine that begins to heat, reaches higher engine-temperature thresholds, and ultimately reaches a still higher temperature at which shutdown is appropriate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this disclosure to teach engine overheating, because the reference describes rising engine temperature to harmful levels requiring protective action. Accordingly, Sukumaran teaches, or at minimum renders obvious, the recited “engine overheating.”
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to implement the destructive condition of the network-equipment architecture established for Claims 8 and 9 as engine overheating, because Okumura teaches vehicle sensors including thermometers and internal sensors that monitor engine temperature, Ruiz teaches additional-sensor activation and identification/response processing for detected conditions, and Sukumaran teaches that rising engine temperature to harmful levels warrants warning, slowdown, and shutdown actions, such that applying the known overheating condition to the established Claim 8/9 framework would have been a predictable use of a known harmful vehicle condition to improve condition specificity, response appropriateness, and vehicle protection.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the network equipment of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran discloses:
where the operations further comprise,See at least: “The interface element 326 may be configured to present an action (or a plurality of actions) associated with a threshold of an engine protection.” ( [0059])Rationale: Sukumaran discloses additional protective operations that are performed when the sensed condition reaches a threshold. Thus, the reference teaches further operations beyond the base network-equipment functionality already established in Claim 10.
in response to the condition being associated withSee at least: “For instance, the threshold A0 may correspond to an engine temperature (or other measured parameter) at which a warning may be appropriate ... the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature at which a slowdown may generally be appropriate, and the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate. In an example scenario, as an engine in use begins to heat...” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the protective action is taken in response to the condition of rising engine temperature reaching harmful levels. Accordingly, the reference teaches that the additional operation is performed in response to the condition’s association with a dangerous engine state.
a vehicle fire,See at least: “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine (for example, an engine shutdown) if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ( [0012]) “For instance, the threshold A0 may correspond to an engine temperature ... the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature ... and the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate. In an example scenario, as an engine in use begins to heat...” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran does not expressly use the phrase “vehicle fire.” However, the reference expressly teaches harmful engine-temperature escalation requiring slowdown and shutdown protection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such severe overheating conditions to be associated with the risk of a vehicle fire because dangerous engine overheating is a recognized fire-associated vehicle condition. Accordingly, the cited disclosure renders obvious the recited association with “a vehicle fire.”
to initiateSee at least: “...the action A0 may include a slowdown option that will slow the engine down if selected or otherwise authorized by the operator.” ( [0061]) “In some embodiments, the proposed action may be performed as a default action if the operator does not over-ride the proposed action...” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches initiation of a protective action when the relevant threshold condition is reached and the action is selected, authorized, or performed by default. Thus, the reference teaches initiating the precautionary response.
a precautionary actionSee at least: “The interface element 326 may be configured to present an action ... In some embodiments, the element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches disable, warning, slowdown, and shutdown actions taken to protect the engine when harmful conditions are present. Those are precautionary actions.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Sukumaran
Sukumaran does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
sending action data
to the vehicle
by the one or more sensors.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
sending action dataSee at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems; and send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004]) “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator. At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches sending command data that directs subsequent vehicle operation. That command data is action data.
to the vehicleSee at least: “...send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004]) “At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the command is sent to vehicle systems for execution. Sending to the vehicle systems is sending to the vehicle for purposes of initiating the response.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Sukumaran and Okumura
After combining the teachings of Sukumaran and Okumura, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
by the one or more sensors.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz discloses:
by the one or more sensors.See at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066]) “...the PTZ controls can be run automatically by the system in response to a new configuration parameter. Similarly, the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches sensor/camera-level operational changes, including activation, online/offline placement, and sensor mode adjustment. Thus, the cited disclosure teaches the response being carried out at the sensor subsystem level, i.e., “by the one or more sensors.”
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to further configure the network-equipment architecture established for Claim 10 so that, when the destructive condition is associated with a vehicle fire, action data is sent to the vehicle to initiate a precautionary action by the one or more sensors, because Okumura teaches sending remote-entity command data to vehicle systems for execution, Ruiz teaches sensor-level operational response by activated and automatically controlled sensors/cameras, and Sukumaran teaches initiating protective disable/slowdown/shutdown actions when dangerous engine-temperature conditions arise. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining these teachings would have been a predictable use of known vehicle-control, sensor-response, and protective-action techniques to improve response speed, safety, and effectiveness when overheating conditions become associated with vehicle-fire risk.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the network equipment of Claim 11, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran discloses:
wherein the precautionary actionSee at least: “In some embodiments, the element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059]) “In still another aspect, the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0069])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly discloses protective actions, including disable, warning, slowdown request, and shutdown, performed in response to harmful engine-related conditions. Those disclosed protective responses correspond to the claimed “precautionary action.”
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Sukumaran
Sukumaran does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
adjusts
a flow of gas
of the vehicle
by the one or more sensors.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
adjustsSee at least: “The vehicle systems 116 can be in communication with various actuators that can be used to implement the functions controlled by a particular vehicle system 116. For example, the propulsion system 120 can cause an actuator to move the position of a throttle plate...” ( [0014]) “Based on the data received from the sensors 130, the computing device 100 can control the vehicle systems 116.” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses actuator-based control of vehicle systems, including throttle-related control, and further discloses that such vehicle-system control is based on data received from the sensors. Accordingly, Okumura teaches adjustment of a vehicle operating parameter as part of the responsive control framework.
a flow of gasSee at least: “The energy system 128 can control the vehicle's energy usage and storage, which energy source may be in the form of gasoline, natural gas, diesel oil, batteries, fuel cells, or the like.” ( [0014]) “The vehicle systems 116 can be in communication with various actuators... For example, the propulsion system 120 can cause an actuator to move the position of a throttle plate...” ( [0014])Rationale: Okumura does not recite the exact phrase “flow of gas.” However, Okumura expressly teaches that the vehicle may use natural gas as an energy source and that the propulsion / energy system is controlled through actuators, including throttle-related actuation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in a natural-gas-fueled vehicle, actuator-based propulsion/energy control includes adjustment of gas flow as a predictable implementation of controlling fuel delivery.
of the vehicleSee at least: “The energy system 128 can control the vehicle's energy usage and storage, which energy source may be in the form of gasoline, natural gas, diesel oil, batteries, fuel cells, or the like.” ( [0014])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the relevant energy system and propulsion control belong to the vehicle. Thus, the adjusted gas flow is gas flow of the vehicle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Sukumaran and Okumura
After combining the teachings of Sukumaran and Okumura, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
by the one or more sensors.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz discloses:
by the one or more sensors.See at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066]) “...the PTZ controls can be run automatically by the system in response to a new configuration parameter. Similarly, the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067])Rationale:Ruiz expressly discloses response operations carried out at the sensor/camera subsystem level, including online/offline control and sensor-mode adjustments based on sensor data and system parameters. These disclosures teach that the responsive action is carried out by the one or more sensors or sensor subsystem.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to implement the precautionary action established for Claim 11 as adjusting a flow of gas of the vehicle by the one or more sensors, because Okumura teaches a vehicle energy/propulsion system that may use natural gas and that is controlled through actuators based on sensor data, Ruiz teaches sensor-level response operations, and Sukumaran teaches that protective actions are initiated when harmful engine conditions are present. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, in a natural-gas-fueled vehicle experiencing overheating or fire-associated risk, reducing or otherwise adjusting gas flow is a predictable protective response, and implementing that response through the established sensor-driven control framework would have predictably improved vehicle protection and response effectiveness.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the network equipment of Claim 11, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
wherein the operations further compriseSee at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems; and send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches an additional operation in which command data is received from a remote source and then sent onward for execution by the vehicle systems. This teaches “wherein the operations further comprise.”
sending a commandSee at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems; and send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004]) “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator. At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches sending command data that directs subsequent vehicle operation. This teaches the claimed “sending a command.”
to the vehicleSee at least: “...send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004]) “At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the command is sent to vehicle systems for execution. Sending the command to the vehicle systems teaches sending the command to the vehicle.
that causesSee at least: “At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the sent command causes subsequent execution by the vehicle systems. This teaches the causal relationship recited in “that causes.”
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose/teach the following claim limitations:
a gas shutoff valve
of the vehicle
to close.
Disclosure by Okumura and Sukumaran
Okumura and Sukumaran disclose:
a gas shutoff valve of the vehicle to close.See at least: “The energy system 128 can control the vehicle's energy usage and storage, which energy source may be in the form of gasoline, natural gas, diesel oil, batteries, fuel cells, or the like.” ( [0014]) “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine (for example, an engine shutdown) if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ( [0012]) “In some embodiments, the element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059]) “In still another aspect, the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0069])Rationale: Neither reference expressly recites the exact phrase “gas shutoff valve.” However, Okumura expressly teaches that the vehicle may use natural gas as an energy source, and Sukumaran expressly teaches shutdown-type protective actions in response to harmful engine conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in a natural-gas-fueled vehicle, implementing a shutdown protective action would predictably include closing the vehicle’s gas shutoff valve to stop gas delivery to the engine and reduce the danger associated with the harmful condition. Accordingly, the combined teachings render obvious a gas shutoff valve of the vehicle that is caused to close by the sent command.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to further configure the fire-associated response method established for Claim 11 so that the operations further comprise sending a command to the vehicle that causes a gas shutoff valve of the vehicle to close, because Okumura teaches sending remote-originated command data to vehicle systems and teaches that the vehicle may use natural gas as an energy source, while Sukumaran teaches shutdown-type protective actions in response to harmful engine conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that closing the gas shutoff valve is a predictable implementation of shutdown in a natural-gas-fueled vehicle and would have employed that protective measure to improve safety and reduce fire-associated risk.
Claims 2,3, 5, 7, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (US 20160139594 A1) , in view of Ruiz (US 20040143602 A1), in view of Sukumaran (US-20130173137-A1), and in view of Breed (US 20130267194 A1)
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran do not explicitly disclose/teach the following claim limitation:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a brake sensor, a window break sensor, or a combination thereof.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a brake sensor, a window break sensor, or a combination thereof.See at least:“SAW sensors for chassis applications include gear-tooth Hall effect sensors, variable reluctance sensors, digital speed and position sensors, rotary position sensors, non-contact steering position sensors, and digital ABS (anti-lock braking system) sensors.” ( [0039])Rationale:Breed expressly teaches digital ABS sensors. Although Breed does not use the exact phrase “brake sensor,” a PHOSITA would have understood a digital ABS sensor to be a brake-related sensor because anti-lock braking systems monitor and support braking operation. Claim 2 is drafted in the alternative — “a brake sensor, a window break sensor, or a combination thereof.” Because one listed alternative is sufficient, the express disclosure of a brake-related ABS sensor teaches the limitation without requiring a separate disclosure of a window break sensor.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to implement the one or more sensors of the Claim 1 hazardous-condition response method using a brake-related sensor such as the digital ABS sensor taught by Breed, because brake-related sensing is technically compatible with autonomous-vehicle safety systems, represents a known vehicle-sensor type for detecting vehicle operating conditions, and its incorporation into a system that detects dangerous conditions and initiates remote notification and responsive action would have been a predictable use of a known element to improve safety monitoring and response reliability.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran do not explicitly disclose/teach the following claim limitation:
wherein the potentially destructive condition is one of a vehicle accident or a vehicle burglary.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed teaches:
wherein the potentially destructive condition is one of a vehicle accident or a vehicle burglary.See at least:“A method for notifying a remote facility of an accident involving a vehicle in accordance with the invention includes obtaining information about the accident using a crash sensor system on the vehicle...” ( [0017])“For example, the communications system 594 may be designed to transmit information to an emergency response facility 595 in the event of an accident involving the vehicle. The transmission of the information could be triggered by a signal from a crash sensor system 591 that the vehicle was experiencing a crash or experienced a crash.” ( [0059])Rationale:Breed expressly teaches accident/crash conditions as the dangerous vehicle condition detected by the vehicle-side system and used to trigger communication to a remote facility. Claim 3 is drafted in the alternative — “a vehicle accident or a vehicle burglary.” Because disclosure of one listed alternative is sufficient to satisfy an alternative limitation, the express disclosure of a vehicle accident teaches the added limitation without requiring a separate disclosure of vehicle burglary.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to implement the potentially destructive condition of the Claim 1 hazardous-condition response method as a vehicle accident, as taught by Breed, because accident detection is a known and technically compatible species of dangerous vehicle condition, and incorporating that known accident-triggered condition into an autonomous-vehicle remote-notification and response framework would have been a predictable use of a known element to improve emergency-response capability, condition detection specificity, and vehicle-safety handling.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura teaches:
wherein the second entitySee at least: “sending information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using a remote server” ( [0004]) “The computing device 100 can also include a communications interface 140 through which the computing device 100 can communicate with external sources over a network 142 such as the internet. These external sources can include one or more remote servers 144.” ( [0016])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the vehicle-side computing device sends information to a remote operator using a remote server external to the vehicle. That remote operator / remote server corresponds to “the second entity.”
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose/teach the following claim limitations:
is a government entity,
and wherein the image capture device
is part of an infrastructure of a smart city
associated with the government entity.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz teaches:
and wherein the image capture deviceSee at least: “...a functional set of sensors 110 and cameras 108...” ( [0166])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches cameras 108 as part of the deployed surveillance system. Cameras are image capture devices, and thus this reference teaches “the image capture device.”
is part of an infrastructure of a smart citySee at least: “Protecting large campus environments with public government buildings from terrorist threats ... [uses] massively and pervasively deployed systems of integrated sensors.” ( [0166]) “The communications network can include a plurality of wireless access points 455 ... one or more routers 457 for the integrated surveillance network...” ( [0166]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173])Rationale: Ruiz does not expressly use the phrase “smart city.” However, it expressly teaches a city-scale, networked surveillance infrastructure with integrated cameras, sensors, wireless access points, routers, and city-street deployment. A PHOSITA would have understood this type of integrated municipal camera/sensor/network deployment to be infrastructure of a smart city under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
associated with the government entity.See at least: “Protecting large campus environments with public government buildings from terrorist threats ... [uses] massively and pervasively deployed systems of integrated sensors.” ( [0166]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173])Rationale: Ruiz expressly ties the integrated surveillance infrastructure to public government buildings and city-street surveillance. A PHOSITA would have understood such municipal/public-government surveillance infrastructure to be associated with a government entity.
Motivation to Combine Okumura and Ruiz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura and Ruiz before them, to implement the second entity / image-capture portions of the hazardous-condition response method so that the remote-response architecture of Okumura uses the integrated camera-and-sensor infrastructure taught by Ruiz, because Okumura already teaches a remote second-entity architecture for responding to dangerous vehicle conditions, and Ruiz teaches the known municipal technique of using integrated cameras, sensors, and networking across city environments, such that combining those teachings would have predictably improved monitoring coverage, situational awareness, and remote-response effectiveness.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz
After combining the teachings of Okumura and Ruiz, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
is a government entity,
Disclosure by Breed
Breed teaches:
is a government entity,See at least: “The remote facility is a facility that determines response personnel and equipment to dispatch to the site of the accident and that dispatches the appropriate personnel and equipment, e.g., an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site.” ( [0018]) “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches a municipal emergency dispatch center. A municipality is a government entity. Thus, Breed teaches the remaining limitation that the second entity is a government entity.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to implement the second entity of the hazardous-condition response method established for Claims 1 and 4 as a municipal government emergency-dispatch entity and to use a citywide integrated camera/sensor infrastructure associated with that entity for image capture, because Breed teaches a government-operated municipal dispatch facility and Ruiz teaches integrated city and public-government-building camera/sensor infrastructure, and combining those teachings with the remote hazardous-condition framework of Okumura and the protective-response framework of Sukumaran would have predictably improved public-safety response, monitoring coverage, and coordination between vehicle-generated alerts and municipal surveillance resources.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the method of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura teaches:
further comprising:See at least: “In one example implementation, the sensors 130 can be remotely controlled by the remote operator, for example, to cause the optical sensors 136 to rotate, pan, or Zoom in or out.” ( [0029])Rationale: Okumura teaches an additional operational step beyond the base hazardous-condition notification sequence, namely remote control of the optical sensors. Accordingly, the cited disclosure teaches the claimed “further comprising” language because it adds a further operation to the underlying method of Claim 4.
facilitating, by the network equipment,See at least: “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator. At step 310, the computing device 100 sends these commands to the vehicle systems 116 for execution.” ( [0040]) “...send information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server, receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems; and send the command to the one or more vehicle systems for execution.” ( [0004])Rationale: Okumura teaches that the vehicle-side computing device receives commands from the remote operator and forwards those commands to the vehicle systems for execution. Thus, the network equipment affirmatively enables and causes the requested sensor operation to occur. Accordingly, the cited disclosure teaches “facilitating, by the network equipment.”
zooming the image capture deviceSee at least: “In one example implementation, the sensors 130 can be remotely controlled by the remote operator, for example, to cause the optical sensors 136 to rotate, pan, or Zoom in or out.” ( [0029])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches causing the optical sensors to zoom in or out. Since the optical sensors are used to capture image data, they constitute image capture devices. Therefore, the cited disclosure teaches “zooming the image capture device.”
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
on a burglar
who is determined to have potentially committed
a vehicle burglary.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz teaches:
on a burglarSee at least: “...critical event importance, Such as: human activity, vehicle activity, Vessel activity, human/vehicle interaction activity, human/vessel interaction activity, and the like. Furthermore, the abstraction layer also performs the operations of Learning, Categorizing, Comparing, Discarding, Alerting, Non-Alerting, and Requesting Manual Operation and Response.” ( [0017]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173]) “...camera control typically comes in the form or pan, tilt, Zoom...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz teaches a crime-surveillance system that recognizes human/vehicle interaction activity as a critical event type, performs alerting and response operations, and employs pan-tilt-zoom camera control. Although Ruiz does not expressly use the term “burglar,” one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in a crime-surveillance context involving suspicious human interaction with a vehicle, the person who becomes the subject of the surveillance response is the suspected offender. Accordingly, Ruiz teaches, or at minimum renders obvious, directing the zoom operation onto the person suspected of committing the vehicle-related offense, i.e., “on a burglar.”
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz
After combining the teachings of Okumura and Ruiz, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
who is determined to have potentially committed
a vehicle burglary.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed teaches:
who is determined to have potentially committedSee at least: “Monitoring of the status of the vehicle can determine whether there has been unauthorized entry and warn the owner before he or she approached the vehicle.” ( [0150])Rationale: Breed teaches that the vehicle-monitoring system determines whether unauthorized entry has occurred. This is a determination based on vehicle status monitoring that a vehicle-security intrusion event has potentially taken place. Accordingly, the cited disclosure teaches the claimed determination language, namely that a person is determined to have potentially committed the vehicle-related intrusion event.
a vehicle burglary.See at least: “Monitoring of the status of the vehicle can determine whether there has been unauthorized entry and warn the owner before he or she approached the vehicle.” ( [0150])Rationale: Breed does not expressly use the exact phrase “vehicle burglary.” However, unauthorized entry into a vehicle is a recognized vehicle-security intrusion and would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to correspond, at minimum, to a potential vehicle break-in or vehicle burglary event. In view of the claim language “potentially committed,” the cited disclosure teaches, or at least renders obvious, the recited “vehicle burglary” condition.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to further configure the hazardous-condition response method established for Claims 1 and 4 so that the network equipment facilitates zooming the image capture device onto a person determined to have potentially committed a vehicle-security intrusion, because Okumura teaches network-equipment-facilitated zoom control of optical sensors, Ruiz teaches crime surveillance, human/vehicle interaction event recognition, alert/response processing, and zoom-capable camera control, and Breed teaches determining unauthorized entry into a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining these teachings would have been a predictable use of known surveillance and vehicle-security techniques to improve suspect identification, monitoring precision, and security-response effectiveness in vehicle-burglary scenarios.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran establishes the network equipment of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
wherein the remote entitySee at least: “...send information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0004]) “The computing device 100 can also include a communications interface 140 through which the computing device 100 can communicate with external sources over a network 142 such as the internet. These external sources can include one or more remote servers 144.” ( [0016])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses a remote operator and remote server external to the vehicle-side computing device. That external operator/server arrangement corresponds to the claimed remote entity.
wherein the notification dataSee at least: “...send information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0004]) “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that, after the dangerous condition is identified, information based on the sensor data is sent to the remote operator. That transmitted information is the notification data recited in Claim 14.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
is a government entity,
facilitates initiation
of an image capture device,
and wherein the image capture device
is part of an infrastructure of a smart city
associated with the government entity.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz discloses:
facilitates initiationSee at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses that cameras can be turned on or placed online based on sensor data and related system inputs. Turning the cameras on or placing them online teaches initiation, and therefore teaches that the notification data facilitates initiation.
of an image capture device,See at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline...” ( [0066]) “...a functional set of sensors 110 and cameras 108...” ( [0166])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses cameras 108 that are activated and controlled by the system. Cameras are image capture devices. Accordingly, Ruiz teaches the recited image capture device.
and wherein the image capture deviceSee at least: “...a functional set of sensors 110 and cameras 108...” ( [0166])Rationale: Ruiz expressly identifies the cameras as a component of the deployed surveillance system. Thus, the cited disclosure teaches “and wherein the image capture device.”
is part of an infrastructure of a smart citySee at least: “Protecting large campus environments with public government buildings from terrorist threats ... [uses] massively and pervasively deployed systems of integrated sensors.” ( [0166]) “The communications network can include a plurality of wireless access points 455 ... one or more routers 457 for the integrated surveillance network...” ( [0166]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173])Rationale: Ruiz does not expressly use the phrase “smart city.” However, Ruiz expressly teaches an integrated city-scale surveillance infrastructure including cameras, sensors, access points, routers, and deployment on city streets and around public government buildings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this type of integrated municipal camera/sensor/network deployment to be infrastructure of a smart city under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
associated with the government entity.See at least: “Protecting large campus environments with public government buildings from terrorist threats ... [uses] massively and pervasively deployed systems of integrated sensors.” ( [0166]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173])Rationale: Ruiz expressly ties the integrated surveillance infrastructure to public government buildings and city-street surveillance. Accordingly, the disclosed infrastructure is associated with a government entity.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz
After combining the teachings of Okumura and Ruiz, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
is a government entity,
Disclosure by Breed
Breed discloses:
is a government entity,See at least: “The remote facility is a facility that determines response personnel and equipment to dispatch to the site of the accident and that dispatches the appropriate personnel and equipment, e.g., an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site.” ( [0018]) “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly discloses a municipal emergency dispatch center. A municipality is a government entity. Accordingly, Breed teaches the remaining limitation that the remote entity is a government entity.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to implement the remote entity of the network-equipment architecture established for Claim 8 as a government entity and to configure the notification data so that it facilitates initiation of an image capture device that is part of an integrated city/government camera-and-sensor infrastructure, because Okumura teaches remote-entity notification in response to dangerous vehicle conditions, Ruiz teaches activation of camera devices and integrated municipal/city surveillance infrastructure, and Breed teaches a municipal emergency dispatch center as the remote entity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining these teachings would have predictably improved public-safety response, monitoring coverage, and coordination between vehicle-generated alerts and government-operated surveillance resources.
Regarding Claim 15,
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
that, when executed by a processorSee at least: “...a memory for storing data and program instructions used by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to...” ( [0006])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses instructions executed by one or more processors. Accordingly, Okumura teaches the recited processor-execution relationship.
of network equipment,See at least: “...a computing device in communication with the one or more sensors, the computing device including: one or more processors... a communications interface configured to communicate with a remote server over a network...” ( [0006])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses a computing device having processors and a network communication interface. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that computing device is network equipment.
facilitate performance of operations, comprising:See at least: “...the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: identify an unexpected driving environment; send information... receive a command... and execute the command...” ( [0006])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses instructions that cause the device to carry out an operational sequence. This teaches the recited “facilitate performance of operations, comprising:”.
receiving sensor data representative of a measurementSee at least: “The computing device 100 can also be in direct or indirect communication with one or more sensors 130 that can capture data indicative of performance of the vehicle 200 and vehicle systems 116.” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses receipt of data captured by sensors. That captured data is representative of sensor measurement.
of one or more sensorsSee at least: “The computing device 100 can also be in direct or indirect communication with one or more sensors 130...” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses one or more sensors as the source of the received data.
that measure one or more physical conditionsSee at least: “The sensors 130 can be used to measure movement of the vehicle 200, such as direction, speed, acceleration, yaw, etc.” ( [0015]) “Other example sensors 130 ... can include internal sensors to monitor... engine temperature, oxygen level, tire pressure, etc.” ( [0015])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses sensors that measure vehicle movement, engine temperature, oxygen level, tire pressure, and related physical conditions.
of an autonomous vehicle,See at least: “Disclosed herein are computer devices, systems, and methods for remotely operating an autonomous vehicle.” ( [0010])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses the vehicle as an autonomous vehicle.
wherein the sensor data indicatesSee at least: “The computing device 100 can detect that the vehicle 200 is in such a driving environment based on data received from the sensors 130...” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that sensor data indicates the relevant condition confronting the autonomous vehicle.
a potentially destructive conditionSee at least: “...the vehicle 200 may from time to time encounter unexpected driving environments in which autonomous operation is inappropriate, for example, a construction zone, an obstruction in the middle of the road, heavy traffic, or inclement weather.” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura does not use the exact phrase “potentially destructive condition.” However, obstructions, heavy traffic, and inclement weather are expressly disclosed hazardous conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such hazardous driving conditions to be potentially destructive because they present risk of collision, loss of control, or similar harm.
associated with the autonomous vehicle;See at least: “The computing device 100 can detect that the vehicle 200 is in such a driving environment based on data received from the sensors 130...” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the condition is detected as a condition confronting vehicle 200. Thus, the hazardous condition is associated with the autonomous vehicle.
in response to determiningSee at least: “If an unexpected driving environment is identified, operation of the vehicle 200 can switch to remote operation mode.” ( [0025])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches a system response that follows from the determination of the hazardous condition.
that the measurement is indicative ofSee at least: “...the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: identify an unexpected driving environment...” ( [0006]) “The computing device 100 can detect that the vehicle 200 is in such a driving environment based on data received from the sensors 130...” ( [0024])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the identified hazardous condition is determined from data received from the sensors. Thus, the sensor measurement is indicative of the condition.
the potentially destructive condition,See at least: “The computing device 100 can detect that the vehicle 200 is in such a driving environment based on data received from the sensors 130...” ( [0024])Rationale: For the reasons stated above, Okumura’s identified hazardous driving environment is reasonably understood as the potentially destructive condition.
sending,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches a sending operation following identification of the hazardous condition.
by the network equipment,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator...” ( [0040])Rationale: The sending is performed by computing device 100, previously mapped to the claimed network equipment.
notification dataSee at least: “...send information received from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0006])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses sensor-based information sent to the remote operator/server after the hazardous condition is identified. That transmitted information is notification data.
receiving,See at least: “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches a receiving operation after the notification-data transmission.
by the network equipment,See at least: “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: The receiving is performed by computing device 100, previously mapped to the claimed network equipment.
action dataSee at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems...” ( [0006])Rationale: The command received from the remote operator is action data because it directs subsequent vehicle action.
responsive to the notification data,See at least: “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” “At step 308, the computing device 100 receives commands sent by the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly discloses that the command is received only after the prior transmission of the sensor-based information. Thus, the received action data is responsive to the notification data.
the action data causingSee at least: “...receive a command sent by the remote operator relating to one or more vehicle systems; and execute the command on the one or more vehicle systems.” ( [0006])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the received command causes execution by vehicle systems. Thus, the action data causes the subsequent action.
an action to be takenSee at least: “...execute the command on the one or more vehicle systems.” ( [0006])Rationale: Execution of the command on vehicle systems teaches that an action is taken.
regarding the autonomous vehicle,See at least: “The remote operator can manually operate the vehicle remotely or issue commands to the autonomous vehicle to be executed by various vehicle systems.” ( [0010])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that the action concerns operation of the autonomous vehicle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions
to equipment of a government entity,
wherein the notification data causes
the government entity
to activate additional sensors
to monitor
the potentially destructive condition; and
wherein action comprises
a precautionary action
taken by the one or more sensors
to mitigate
the potentially destructive condition.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz discloses:
wherein the notification data causesSee at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses that sensor/event data causes subsequent camera/sensor activation and control. This teaches the claimed causal relationship recited in “wherein the notification data causes”.
to activate additional sensorsSee at least: “...the cameras can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066]) “...the automated control also extends to... sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches activating cameras/sensors and controlling them automatically based on sensor/event data. This teaches activation of additional sensors.
to monitorSee at least: “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173]) “...the cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches surveillance and camera operation in response to detected events. Such activation and operation is for monitoring the relevant condition or event.
the potentially destructive condition; andSee at least: “...critical event importance, such as: human activity, vehicle activity, ... human/vehicle interaction activity...” ( [0017]) “...configured VEPs 170 that, when activated by that information, results in alerts and information 172 from specific identifications...” ( [0098])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches event recognition, alerting, and surveillance response to significant conditions or events. In the Okumura combination, those activated monitoring operations are directed to the previously identified potentially destructive condition.
taken by the one or more sensorsSee at least: “...the automated control also extends to field adjustments, imaging modes, sensor mode adjustments...” ( [0067])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches sensor-level operational changes, including sensor mode adjustments, as part of the system’s response. This teaches the action being carried out by the one or more sensors or sensor subsystem.
Motivation to Combine Okumura and Ruiz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura and Ruiz before them, to modify the remote-entity autonomous-vehicle architecture of Okumura so that notification data causes activation of additional sensors to monitor the potentially destructive condition and so that responsive operations are carried out at the sensor level, because Okumura already teaches notifying a remote operator/server when a dangerous vehicle condition is detected, while Ruiz teaches the known technique of activating and automatically controlling additional sensors and cameras in response to event-related data, such that combining these teachings would have predictably improved monitoring coverage, condition assessment, and response effectiveness.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz
After combining the teachings of Okumura and Ruiz, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions
to equipment of a government entity,
the government entity
wherein action comprises
a precautionary action
to mitigate
the potentially destructive condition.
Disclosure by Sukumaran
Sukumaran discloses:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructionsSee at least: “In another embodiment, a tangible and non-transitory computer readable medium includes one or more computer software modules...” ( [0007]) “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium...” ( [0022])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly discloses a tangible and non-transitory computer readable medium containing software modules / program instructions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions.
wherein action comprisesSee at least: “In some embodiments, the element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the action includes particular protective forms. This teaches the recited “wherein action comprises”.
a precautionary actionSee at least: “In some embodiments, the element 326 may present a disable action, a warning action, a slowdown request action, and/or a shutdown action.” ( [0059]) “In still another aspect, the action may be at least one of a disable, warning, slowdown request, or shutdown.” ( [0069])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly discloses disable, warning, slowdown request, and shutdown actions in response to harmful sensed conditions. These are precautionary actions.
to mitigateSee at least: “Safety functionality may be used to refer to the protection of the engine...” ( [0012])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches that the protective action is used to protect the engine from harmful conditions. This teaches mitigation.
the potentially destructive condition.See at least: “...if one or more operating parameters indicate conditions sufficiently harmful to the engine.” ( [0012]) “...the threshold B3 may correspond to a higher engine temperature... and the threshold C2 may correspond to a still higher engine temperature at which shutdown may generally be appropriate.” ( [0061])Rationale: Sukumaran expressly teaches harmful conditions and rising engine temperature that warrant slowdown or shutdown. These disclosures teach mitigation of the potentially destructive condition.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran before them, to embody the autonomous-vehicle hazardous-condition functionality in a non-transitory machine-readable medium with executable instructions and to configure the responsive action as a precautionary action that mitigates the dangerous condition, because Okumura teaches the processor-executed autonomous-vehicle operational sequence, Ruiz teaches additional-sensor monitoring and sensor-level response operations, and Sukumaran teaches a non-transitory computer-readable-medium implementation and the known use of protective actions to mitigate harmful vehicle conditions, such that combining these teachings would have predictably improved deployability of the control logic and safety responsiveness of the system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Okumura and Ruiz and Sukumaran
After combining the teachings of Okumura, Ruiz, and Sukumaran, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
to equipment of a government entity,
the government entity
Disclosure by Breed
Breed discloses:
to equipment of a government entity,See at least: “The remote facility is a facility that determines response personnel and equipment to dispatch to the site of the accident and that dispatches the appropriate personnel and equipment, e.g., an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality...” ( [0018])Rationale: Breed expressly discloses a remote facility that is an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality. Because a municipality is a government entity, this teaches transmission to equipment of a government entity.
the government entitySee at least: “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the responding remote facility is municipal. Accordingly, Breed teaches the recited government entity.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to configure the remote entity in the established machine-readable-medium implementation as a government entity, because Okumura teaches the remote-operator/server architecture, Ruiz teaches condition-driven activation of additional monitoring sensors, Sukumaran teaches a non-transitory executable-instructions implementation and precautionary mitigation logic, and Breed teaches a municipal emergency-dispatch remote facility as the responding entity, such that combining these teachings would have predictably improved public-safety response coordination and remote handling of dangerous vehicle conditions.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed establishes the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed discloses:
wherein the one or more sensorsSee at least: “A method for notifying a remote facility of an accident involving a vehicle in accordance with the invention includes obtaining information about the accident using a crash sensor system on the vehicle...” ( [0017]) “At least one and maybe all of the received data packets includes information from one or more of the crash sensor system 591, vehicle sensors 592, environmental sensors 593 and occupant sensing system 600.” ( [0063])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches multiple sensors and sensor systems on the vehicle, including a crash sensor system. Accordingly, Breed teaches the claimed “wherein the one or more sensors.”
compriseSee at least: “At least one and maybe all of the received data packets includes information from one or more of the crash sensor system 591, vehicle sensors 592, environmental sensors 593 and occupant sensing system 600.” ( [0063])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the relevant sensor set includes identified constituent sensor systems, including the crash sensor system. This teaches that the one or more sensors comprise a recited sensor type.
a collision sensor,See at least: “A method for notifying a remote facility of an accident involving a vehicle in accordance with the invention includes obtaining information about the accident using a crash sensor system on the vehicle...” ( [0017]) “The transmission of the information could be triggered by a signal from a crash sensor system 591 that the vehicle was experiencing a crash or experienced a crash.” ( [0059])Rationale: Breed does not use the exact phrase “collision sensor.” However, Breed expressly teaches a crash sensor system that detects when the vehicle is experiencing or has experienced a crash. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a crash sensor system to be a collision sensor, because a vehicle crash is a collision event and the disclosed sensor system is specifically used to detect that event. Claim 16 is drafted in the alternative — “a collision sensor, a window break sensor, or a combination thereof.” Therefore, the express disclosure of a crash/collision sensor is sufficient to satisfy the added limitation without requiring a separate disclosure of a window break sensor.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to implement the one or more sensors of the non-transitory machine-readable-medium architecture established for Claim 15 as comprising a collision sensor, because Breed teaches a crash sensor system that detects vehicle crash events, and incorporating that known collision-detection sensor type into the established Claim 15 government-entity notification and precautionary-response framework would have been a predictable use of a known vehicle-safety sensor to improve destructive-condition detection specificity and response effectiveness.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed establishes the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed discloses:
wherein the potentially destructive conditionSee at least: “A method for notifying a remote facility of an accident involving a vehicle in accordance with the invention includes obtaining information about the accident using a crash sensor system on the vehicle...” ( [0017])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the relevant dangerous vehicle condition is an accident involving the vehicle. In the context of Claim 17, that disclosed accident/crash condition corresponds to the claimed potentially destructive condition.
relates toSee at least: “The transmission of the information could be triggered by a signal from a crash sensor system 591 that the vehicle was experiencing a crash or experienced a crash.” ( [0059])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the sensed and reported condition is tied to, and triggered by, the vehicle experiencing a crash. Thus, the disclosed potentially destructive condition relates to the collision event.
one ofSee at least: “A method for notifying a remote facility of an accident involving a vehicle...” ( [0017])Rationale: Claim 17 is drafted in the alternative. Accordingly, the limitation is satisfied if the prior art teaches any one of the listed alternatives. Breed expressly teaches the vehicle-accident / crash alternative, which is sufficient.
a vehicle collisionSee at least: “A method for notifying a remote facility of an accident involving a vehicle in accordance with the invention includes obtaining information about the accident using a crash sensor system on the vehicle...” ( [0017]) “The transmission of the information could be triggered by a signal from a crash sensor system 591 that the vehicle was experiencing a crash or experienced a crash.” ( [0059])Rationale: Breed does not use the exact phrase “vehicle collision.” However, the reference expressly teaches an accident involving the vehicle and a crash sensor system that detects when the vehicle is experiencing or has experienced a crash. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a vehicle crash/accident to be a vehicle collision. Accordingly, Breed teaches, or at minimum renders obvious, the recited vehicle collision alternative.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to implement the potentially destructive condition of the non-transitory machine-readable-medium architecture established for Claims 15 and 16 as relating to a vehicle collision, because Breed expressly teaches accident/crash detection using a crash sensor system, and incorporating that known collision-related destructive condition into the established government-entity notification and precautionary-response framework would have been a predictable use of a known vehicle-safety condition to improve event specificity, emergency responsiveness, and destructive-condition handling.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed establishes the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed discloses:
wherein the action dataSee at least: “A provision may also be made to enable the operator at the remote facility 595 to initiate a request for specific information from one or more of the crash sensor system 591, vehicle sensor 592, environmental sensors 593 and occupant sensing system 600 if such information was not included in the received data packet(s).” ( [0065])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches a request initiated by the remote facility for specific information not previously included in the received data packet(s). In the context of the established parent claim, that request from the remote facility corresponds to the recited action data.
causesSee at least: “To this end, a computer program may reside in the communications system 594 and interpret a command from the remote facility for such information into a request to seek out the requested information from the appropriate sensor or sensing system or from memory in which the requested information is stored.” ( [0065])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the command from the remote facility is interpreted into a request to seek out the requested information. Thus, the action data causes the subsequent data-gathering operation.
collection of additional dataSee at least: “A provision may also be made to enable the operator at the remote facility 595 to initiate a request for specific information ... if such information was not included in the received data packet(s).” ( [0065]) “...interpret a command from the remote facility for such information into a request to seek out the requested information from the appropriate sensor or sensing system or from memory in which the requested information is stored.” ( [0065])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches obtaining specific information that was not included in the previously received data packet(s). This is collection of additional data beyond the data already transmitted.
related to the potentially destructive condition.See at least: “If the vehicle occupants are unable to, or do not, initiate communications with the remote facility 595, the operator at the remote facility would be able to receive information from the occupant sensing system 600, as well as the vehicle sensors 592 and environmental sensors 593, by processing the received data packets. The operator could then direct the appropriate emergency response personnel to the vehicle. The communications system 594 could thus be designed to automatically establish the communications channel with the remote facility when the crash sensor system 591 determines that the vehicle has experienced a crash.” ( [0064]) “A provision may also be made to enable the operator at the remote facility 595 to initiate a request for specific information from one or more of the crash sensor system 591, vehicle sensor 592, environmental sensors 593 and occupant sensing system 600 if such information was not included in the received data packet(s).” ( [0065])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the additional requested information comes from the crash sensor system, vehicle sensors, environmental sensors, and occupant sensing system after the vehicle has experienced a crash. Accordingly, the additional data is related to the destructive or potentially destructive condition previously identified in the parent claim framework.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to further configure the non-transitory machine-readable-medium architecture established for Claim 17 so that the action data causes collection of additional data related to the potentially destructive condition, because Breed expressly teaches a remote-facility command requesting specific additional information not previously included in transmitted data packets and teaches that the command is interpreted into a request to seek out that information from relevant vehicle-side sensor systems after the crash condition is identified. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating that known additional-data-collection mechanism into the established Claim 17 framework would have predictably improved condition assessment, response accuracy, and remote handling of destructive vehicle events.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed establishes the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Breed
Breed discloses:
wherein the government entitySee at least: “The remote facility is a facility that determines response personnel and equipment to dispatch to the site of the accident and that dispatches the appropriate personnel and equipment, e.g., an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality...” ( [0018])Rationale: Breed expressly discloses that the remote facility may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality. As previously set forth in Claim 15, a municipality is a government entity. Thus, Breed teaches the recited government entity.
comprisesSee at least: “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly discloses that the government-operated remote facility includes, at minimum, emergency-response functions directed to police and fire personnel. Accordingly, the cited disclosure teaches that the government entity comprises the recited response components.
one or more police,See at least: “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the municipal emergency dispatch center directly commands police. This teaches the recited “one or more police.”
fireSee at least: “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the municipal emergency dispatch center directly commands fire personnel. This teaches the recited “fire.”
or a combination thereof.See at least: “The remote facility is a facility that determines response personnel and equipment to dispatch to the site of the accident and that dispatches the appropriate personnel and equipment, e.g., an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site.” ( [0018]) “For example, the remote facility 595 may be an emergency dispatch center operated by a municipality and that directly commands police, fire and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to the accident site...” ( [0068])Rationale: Breed expressly teaches that the municipal emergency dispatch center directly commands both police and fire personnel. Accordingly, Breed teaches the alternative “or a combination thereof.”
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to further define the government entity in the non-transitory machine-readable-medium architecture established for Claim 15 as comprising one or more police, fire, or a combination thereof, because Breed expressly teaches a municipal emergency dispatch center that directly commands police and fire personnel, and incorporating that known public-safety-response structure into the established Claim 15 government-entity framework would have predictably improved emergency coordination, response specificity, and governmental handling of dangerous autonomous-vehicle conditions.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed establishes the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Claim 19, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Okumura
Okumura discloses:
wherein the notification dataSee at least: “...send information based on the unexpected driving environment received from one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle to a remote operator using the remote server...” ( [0006]) “At step 304, the computing device 100 contacts the remote operator, which includes sending sensor data to the remote operator.” ( [0040])Rationale: Okumura expressly teaches that, after the hazardous condition is identified, sensor-based information is sent from the vehicle-side computing device to the remote operator / remote server. That transmitted sensor-based information is the notification data carried forward into Claim 20.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Okumura
Okumura does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
facilitates initiation
of an image capture device,
and wherein the image capture device
is part of an infrastructure of a smart city
associated with the government entity.
Disclosure by Ruiz
Ruiz discloses:
facilitates initiationSee at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically, and then can be turned on and off or be placed online or offline based on side data such as sensor data...” ( [0066])Rationale: Ruiz expressly teaches that cameras can be turned on or placed online based on sensor data and related system inputs. Turning cameras on or placing them online teaches initiation, and therefore teaches that the notification data facilitates initiation.
of an image capture device,See at least: “The cameras can be operated manually, locally, remotely, automatically...” ( [0066]) “...a functional set of sensors 110 and cameras 108...” ( [0166])Rationale: Ruiz expressly discloses cameras 108 that are activated and controlled by the system. Cameras are image capture devices. Accordingly, Ruiz teaches the recited image capture device.
and wherein the image capture deviceSee at least: “...a functional set of sensors 110 and cameras 108...” ( [0166])Rationale: Ruiz expressly identifies the cameras as components of the deployed surveillance system. Thus, Ruiz teaches “and wherein the image capture device.”
is part of an infrastructure of a smart citySee at least: “Protecting large campus environments with public government buildings from terrorist threats ... [uses] massively and pervasively deployed systems of integrated sensors.” ( [0166]) “The communications network can include a plurality of wireless access points 455 ... one or more routers 457 for the integrated surveillance network...” ( [0166]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173])Rationale: Ruiz does not expressly use the phrase “smart city.” However, Ruiz expressly teaches an integrated city-scale surveillance infrastructure including cameras, sensors, access points, routers, and deployment on city streets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this type of integrated municipal camera/sensor/network deployment to be infrastructure of a smart city under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
associated with the government entity.See at least: “Protecting large campus environments with public government buildings from terrorist threats ... [uses] massively and pervasively deployed systems of integrated sensors.” ( [0166]) “Crime Surveillance application on the Streets of a city...” ( [0173])Rationale: Ruiz expressly ties the integrated surveillance infrastructure to public government buildings and city-street surveillance. In view of the government-entity teaching already established in Claim 19 through Breed’s municipal emergency-dispatch center, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the Ruiz infrastructure to be associated with the government entity.
Motivation to Combine Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Okumura, Ruiz, Sukumaran, and Breed before them, to further configure the non-transitory machine-readable-medium architecture established for Claim 19 so that the notification data facilitates initiation of an image capture device that is part of an integrated smart-city infrastructure associated with the government entity, because Okumura teaches sending notification data to a remote entity in response to a dangerous vehicle condition, Ruiz teaches activating cameras and using integrated city/government surveillance infrastructure, Sukumaran carries forward the established executable-instructions medium and protective-response framework, and Breed teaches the remote entity as a municipal government emergency-dispatch center. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining these teachings would have predictably improved public-safety monitoring, condition assessment, and coordination between vehicle-generated alerts and government-operated urban surveillance resources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered:
Objection to Claim 2
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 has been considered and is persuasive. Claim 2 has been amended to replace “braking sensor” with “brake sensor,” thereby resolving the terminology inconsistency previously identified.
Accordingly, the objection to claim 2 is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but not are persuasive as indicated in the earlier 101 rejection section.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 11–14, and 20 have been considered and are persuasive. Applicant has sufficiently explained that the Specification enables the claimed subject matter without requiring undue experimentation.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 11–14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–18, and 20 have been considered and are persuasive. The amended claims clarify the previously identified language sufficiently to inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. Applicant argues, in substance, that Mansell does not disclose the amended limitations directed to: (i) notification data causing a second/remote/government entity to activate additional sensors; (ii) monitoring/identifying the destructive or potentially destructive condition using those additional sensors; (iii) precautionary sensor-related mitigation actions; and (iv) the government-entity /smart-city/image-capture recitations. Applicant further argues that Fairfield and Lagassey do not cure those asserted deficiencies.
Those remarks do not overcome the presently maintained rejections because they are directed to a different factual predicate than the one on which the current rejections rest. In particular, the present rejections are not maintained on the theory that Mansell alone, or Mansell in view of Fairfield and/or Lagassey, teaches the amended limitations now at issue. Rather, the amended claims prompted the Office to rely on updated references that more directly address the newly emphasized claim language. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks regarding what Mansell, Fairfield, or Lagassey allegedly do or do not disclose are moot as to the present grounds of rejection.
More specifically, the amended independent claims now require, among other things, that notification data cause a second, remote, or government entity to activate additional sensors; that the additional sensors monitor or identify the relevant destructive or potentially destructive condition; that responsive action data lead to a precautionary action taken by the one or more sensors to mitigate that condition; and, for certain claims, that the remote entity be governmental and that the image capture device be part of smart-city-associated infrastructure. Those are not the limitations on which the earlier Mansell/Fairfield/Lagassey analysis turned. In response to the amendments, the Office applied a materially different set of references directed to those precise issues.
For example, the presently applied references were selected because they collectively address the amended claim language as follows:
Okumura is relied upon for the autonomous-vehicle network-equipment / processor/memory / instruction-driven operational framework, including receipt of sensor data, identification of a hazardous vehicle condition, transmission of notification data to a remote entity, and receipt/transmission of responsive command data.
Ruiz is relied upon for the teachings that event- or sensor-driven information can cause activation of additional cameras/sensors, automatic control of those sensors, monitoring/identification operations using those additional sensing resources, and, where applicable, integrated city/government surveillance infrastructure and camera initiation.
Sukumaran is relied upon for non-transitory computer-readable medium / executable instruction teachings where applicable, and for precautionary mitigation actions responsive to harmful sensed conditions, including disable/warning/slowdown/shutdown-type protective responses and engine-overheating-related protection logic.
Breed is relied upon, where applicable, for the governmental remote-facility teaching, including a municipal emergency-dispatch center, police/fire response structure, crash/collision-related sensors and conditions, unauthorized-entry/vehicle-security determinations, and remote requests for additional condition-related data.
Thus, the present rejections do not depend on the proposition that Mansell itself discloses activation of additional sensors, nor do they depend on the proposition that Fairfield or Lagassey cures the exact deficiencies identified by Applicant. Instead, those amended limitations are addressed by the updated references cited above. Because Applicant’s remarks are directed to prior rejections that are no longer the basis of the present action, the remarks are not commensurate with, and therefore do not traverse, the current grounds.
Stated differently, even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that Applicant is correct that
Mansell does not teach “sending ... notification data ... wherein the notification data causes the second entity to activate additional sensors,” and further assuming that Fairfield and Lagassey do not remedy that specific deficiency, such a showing would not be dispositive of the present rejections. The Office has already accounted for the amended claim scope by relying on Ruiz for additional-sensor activation / monitoring / camera initiation; Breed for governmental-entity and public-safety-response teachings; and Sukumaran for protective-mitigation aspects. Applicant’s remarks do not address those teachings, their articulated combinations, or the rational underpinnings presently set forth for combining them. Accordingly, the arguments do not rebut the current rejections.
With respect to the prior § 102 discussion of claims 8 and 9 over Mansell, Applicant’s remarks are likewise moot for the same reason. The present action does not rely on Mansell anticipation as the operative basis for rejecting the amended claims. Instead, the Office has issued updated grounds responsive to the amended recitations. Therefore, Applicant’s showing that Mansell allegedly fails to disclose every element of amended claim 8 does not compel withdrawal of the presently maintained rejections.
Similarly, with respect to Applicant’s remarks directed to prior § 103 rejections of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–12, and 15–19 over Mansell in view of Fairfield, and claims 5, 14, and 20 over Mansell in view of Fairfield and Lagassey, those remarks are not persuasive against the current Office position because the Office no longer relies on those combinations to meet the amended limitations now at issue. The present rejection posture is based on updated combinations necessitated by the amended claims, and Applicant’s arguments do not show error in the teachings or reasoning presently applied.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are moot as to the current rejections. No admission is made that the earlier references were otherwise sufficient or insufficient for the amended claim language. Rather, in light of the amendments and in order to address the claims as presently presented, the Office has relied on updated references that more directly correspond to the amended limitations. For that reason, the present rejections are not overcome by arguments directed only to Mansell, Fairfield, and Lagassey.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cohen (US 2013/0113936 A1)
Cohen is cited of record because it discloses integrated cameras, processors, image-based classification, remote/manual review of image determinations, and control of environmental or facility functions based on image-derived information. These teachings are relevant to image-capture, distributed sensor infrastructure, and monitoring/control concepts.
Daniel (US 2011/0130636 A1)
Daniel is cited of record because it discloses rapid detection, qualified assessment, monitoring, communication, alerting, modular sensing solutions, and remote deployment of aid or sensing resources in response to dangerous conditions. These teachings are relevant to distributed sensing and emergency-response architectures.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights