DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sim (US 2017/0124877).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Sim discloses an ego vehicle, CRM, and method (drivers vehicle 210 of figure 2) comprising:
at least one perception sensor coupled to the ego vehicle (see at least [0041] which teaches a camera in the vehicle); and
a system comprising one or more processors and logic encoded in one or more non- transitory computer-readable storage media for execution by the one or more processors and when executed operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
capturing data on an external environment using the at least one perception sensor; detecting at least one wheel of at least one object vehicle based on the data that is captured (see again at least [0041] which teaches camera used to measure front tire data of traffic ahead);
computing wheel movement information of the at least one wheel, wherein the wheel movement information indicates vehicle movement information of the at least one object vehicle (see at least [0047-0049] which teaches determining wheel movement data of both front and rear wheels of surrounding vehicles); and
detecting a predicted collision between the ego vehicle and the at least one object vehicle based on the wheel movement information (collision avoidance as disclosed in at least [0010, 0028-0030, etc.]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Sim discloses the wheel information comprises wheel rotation information (see at least [0028] which note multiple variables related to wheel rotation).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Sim discloses wherein the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising alerting a driver of the ego vehicle of the predicted collision based on the wheel information (see at least [0010, 0013] which discloses a warning to the driver based on wheel information).
Regarding claim 6, 13, and 20, Sim discloses the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising performing one or more evasive actions of the ego vehicle to avoid the predicted collision (see at least [0083] which teaches e.g. controlling steering and braking at the same time to avoid a collision).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim (US 2017/0124877) and further in view of Reichel et al. (US 2015/0210216).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Sim discloses alerting a driver of the ego vehicle of the predicted collision as noted above in the rejection to claim 3. However, Sim does not explicitly disclose alerting the driver via an infotainment system, per se, of the ego vehicle since Sim does not appear to delve into any specific detail about how the warning system is structured. Reichel teaches a similar motor vehicle collision monitoring system which also detects wheel/tire information of other vehicles, and also discloses an equivalent infotainment system (see at least [0035], although the term “infotainment” is not used, the examiner contends it is obvious that the described display system would be considered an infotainment system due to the description of various input buttons and the display screen and the general way in which modern day infotainment systems are integrated into selectable input controls and screens for drivers). Therefore, from the teaching of Reichel it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the time of the filing of the invention to provide the system of Sim with an appropriate display means to display vehicle surrounding risk information visually to a driver similar to that of the teaching of Reichel in order to help alert adverse situations as soon as possible.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim (US 2017/0124877) and further in view of Vyas et al. (US 2022/0185269)
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Sim discloses alerting at least one other driver of the at least one object vehicle of the predicted collision (as set forth in the rejection to claim 3 above) however, Sim does not appear to explicitly disclose alerting via crowdsourcing. Vyas describes a similar invention to that of Sim which also uses optical sensors to track tire information, and includes an equivalent means of “crowdsourcing” to that of the instant claim of by communicating information to drivers in the same vicinity of potential adverse driving conditions (see at least [0019, 0034, 0044] which teaches various examples of crowdsourcing information). Therefore, from the teaching of Vyas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the time of the filing of the invention to provide the system of Sim with shared collision risk information in a V2V shared road information system, similar to that of the teaching of Vyas, in order to help prevent accidents and warn other drivers in the vicinity of a potential accident or other adverse road conditions.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sim discloses the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising performing one or more evasive actions to avoid the predicted collision (see again at least [0083]). However, Sim does not explicitly disclose, the evasive action comprises alerting a traffic infrastructure system of the predicted collision.
Vyas describes a similar invention to that of Sim which also uses optical sensors to track tire information, and includes a traffic infrastructure system where a traffic data service, which is equivalent to a traffic infrastructure system, share traffic data between vehicles including sharing sensed data from said vehicles (see at least [0019, 0027, 0034, 0041, 0078] which teaches various examples of shared notification system information both over a network and NFC). Therefore, from the teaching of Vyas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the time of the filing of the invention to provide the system of Sim with shared collision risk information in a shared traffic infrastructure system, similar to that of the teaching of Vyas, in order to help prevent accidents and warn other drivers in the vicinity of a potential accident or other adverse road conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658