DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicants argued that the prior art on record, Avedisov in view of Teller, failed to teach or suggest some of the claimed subject matter filed 12/23/2025, Pages 1-4. The examiner would like to steer the applicants’ attention to the following:
Concerning the claimed subject matter, “receiving a sensor message from a first vehicle”, Avedisov teaches “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612.
The “determining that the indicated obstruction is caused by a second vehicle is at least partially in conflict with the second vehicle” is equated to “…The ego vehicle E may receive messages 510 from the remote connected vehicle R. The messages 510 may include an MM indicating the future movement of the remote connected vehicle R and a BSM indicating current information about the remote connected vehicle R. For example, the messages 510 from the remote connected vehicle R may identify the remote connected vehicle R and provide its speed, trajectory, position, size, and/or any other attribute of the remote connected vehicle R…”, of Abstract, ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612.
The ”determining a maneuver for the second vehicle that reduces or eliminates the second vehicle’s in conflict with the second vehicle” is equated to “…After receiving sensor information and receiving messages 510 from the remote connected vehicle R, the ego vehicle E may identify one or more critical scenarios involving the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E and/or the unconnected vehicle U at a future time based on the sensor information and the messages 510. In the scenario 500, the ego vehicle E identifies a critical scenario 512 wherein the unconnected vehicle U continues to decelerate and remote connected vehicle R continues on its current trajectory as determined by the motion model created by the ego vehicle E. The critical scenario 512 identifies that the remote connected vehicle R may come into conflict with the ego vehicle E because the remote connected vehicle R may not respond to the deceleration of the unconnected vehicle U because it is occluded by the ego vehicle E…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612.
The “and causing the second vehicle to perform the determined maneuver” is equated to “…wherein the ego vehicle E shares information with the remote connected vehicle R is depicted. The ego vehicle E may transmit to the remote connected vehicle R a message 514 in response to identifying the critical scenario 512 wherein the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E at the future time. The message 514 may be an SDOM including information about the unconnected vehicle U to the remote connected vehicle R. The information may be the sensor information gathered by ego vehicle E and/or information determined by ego vehicle E. For example, the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612.
Avedisov further teaches “The awareness estimation module of the ego vehicle E may use the three sets of input data estimate occlusions of the remote connected vehicle R. That is, the awareness estimation module may estimate areas likely to be occluded from the sensors of the remote connected vehicle R. The messages 510 may indicate that the remote connected vehicle R is aware of the ego vehicle E. Because the sensor information of the ego vehicle E indicates the presence of the unconnected vehicle U, the ego vehicle E may determine that the unconnected vehicle U is in an occluded area and that the remote connected vehicle R is unaware of the unconnected vehicle U. The ego vehicle E may conclude that it has a view 508 and the remote connected vehicle R has a view 506 with an awareness gap wherein the ego vehicle E is occluding the unconnected vehicle U from the remote connected vehicle R” of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612. On the other hand, Teller is relied upon to teach the first vehicle’s sensor view is at least partially obstructed “…determining, by a computing system and based on sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to a first vehicle, a second vehicle is at least partially blocking a field of view of a first sensor coupled to the first vehicle; determining a control action for the first vehicle to perform based on determining the second vehicle is at least partially blocking the field of view of the first sensor...” of Abstract, ¶ [0005]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0086], Claim 1, 17, 20, and Figs. 6-7 steps 602-710). The motivation is to “The vehicle may use the sensed information to navigate through the environment. For example, if the sensors sense that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle, the vehicle may navigate around the obstacle...,”.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained with some elucidations to clarify the examiner’s position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as -being unpatentable over Avedisov in view of Teller.
Consider claims 1, 11, and 17:
Avedisov teaches a vehicle (Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612), a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor (Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122), cause the processor to, a method comprising: receiving a sensor message from a first vehicle (e.g., “…The direct connection may be a vehicle-to-vehicle connection (“V2V connection”) or a vehicle-to-everything connection (“V2X connection”)…” of Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612) indicating that “the scenario of the another connected vehicle being in conflict” (See Avedisov, e.g., “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612); determining that the indicated obstruction is caused by a second vehicle is at least partially in conflict with the second vehicle (See Avedisov, e.g., “…The ego vehicle E may receive messages 510 from the remote connected vehicle R. The messages 510 may include an MM indicating the future movement of the remote connected vehicle R and a BSM indicating current information about the remote connected vehicle R. For example, the messages 510 from the remote connected vehicle R may identify the remote connected vehicle R and provide its speed, trajectory, position, size, and/or any other attribute of the remote connected vehicle R…”, of Abstract, ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612); determining a maneuver for the second vehicle that reduces or eliminates the second vehicle’s in conflict with the second vehicle (See Avedisov, e.g., “…After receiving sensor information and receiving messages 510 from the remote connected vehicle R, the ego vehicle E may identify one or more critical scenarios involving the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E and/or the unconnected vehicle U at a future time based on the sensor information and the messages 510. In the scenario 500, the ego vehicle E identifies a critical scenario 512 wherein the unconnected vehicle U continues to decelerate and remote connected vehicle R continues on its current trajectory as determined by the motion model created by the ego vehicle E. The critical scenario 512 identifies that the remote connected vehicle R may come into conflict with the ego vehicle E because the remote connected vehicle R may not respond to the deceleration of the unconnected vehicle U because it is occluded by the ego vehicle E…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612); and causing the second vehicle to perform the determined maneuver (See Avedisov, e.g., “…wherein the ego vehicle E shares information with the remote connected vehicle R is depicted. The ego vehicle E may transmit to the remote connected vehicle R a message 514 in response to identifying the critical scenario 512 wherein the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E at the future time. The message 514 may be an SDOM including information about the unconnected vehicle U to the remote connected vehicle R. The information may be the sensor information gathered by ego vehicle E and/or information determined by ego vehicle E. For example, the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612). However, Avedisov does not explicitly teach the first vehicle’s sensor view is obstructed.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Teller teaches the first vehicle’s sensor view is at least partially obstructed (See Teller, e.g., “…determining, by a computing system and based on sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to a first vehicle, a second vehicle is at least partially blocking a field of view of a first sensor coupled to the first vehicle; determining a control action for the first vehicle to perform based on determining the second vehicle is at least partially blocking the field of view of the first sensor...” of Abstract, ¶ [0005]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0086], Claim 1, 17, 20, and Figs. 6-7 steps 602-710).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…” disclosed in Avedisov with “the first vehicle’s sensor view is obstructed.”, as taught in Teller with a reasonable expectation of success to yield “The vehicle may use the sensed information to navigate through the environment. For example, if the sensors sense that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle, the vehicle may navigate around the obstacle...,” as disclosed, ¶ [0004].
Consider claims 2, 12:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 1, 11. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein determining the maneuver for the second vehicle comprises simulating a change in the first vehicle’s sensor view based on the maneuver (See Avedisov, e.g., “…wherein the ego vehicle E shares information with the remote connected vehicle R is depicted. The ego vehicle E may transmit to the remote connected vehicle R a message 514 in response to identifying the critical scenario 512 wherein the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E at the future time. The message 514 may be an SDOM including information about the unconnected vehicle U to the remote connected vehicle R. The information may be the sensor information gathered by ego vehicle E and/or information determined by ego vehicle E. For example, the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612).
Consider claim 3:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein a plurality of vehicles are responsible for the conflict (See Avedisov, e.g., “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612), the method further comprising maneuvering one or more of the plurality of vehicles to reduce or eliminate the conflict (See Avedisov, e.g., “…wherein the ego vehicle E shares information with the remote connected vehicle R is depicted. The ego vehicle E may transmit to the remote connected vehicle R a message 514 in response to identifying the critical scenario 512 wherein the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E at the future time. The message 514 may be an SDOM including information about the unconnected vehicle U to the remote connected vehicle R. The information may be the sensor information gathered by ego vehicle E and/or information determined by ego vehicle E. For example, the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612). On the other hands, Teller teaches the first vehicle’s sensor view is obstructed (See Teller, e.g., “…determining, by a computing system and based on sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to a first vehicle, a second vehicle is at least partially blocking a field of view of a first sensor coupled to the first vehicle; determining a control action for the first vehicle to perform based on determining the second vehicle is at least partially blocking the field of view of the first sensor...” of Abstract, ¶ [0005]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0086], Claim 1, 17, 20, and Figs. 6-7 steps 602-710). The motivation is to “The vehicle may use the sensed information to navigate through the environment. For example, if the sensors sense that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle, the vehicle may navigate around the obstacle...,” as disclosed, ¶ [0004].
Consider claims 4, 13:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 1, 11. In addition, Avedisov teaches further comprising determining that a maneuver for the first vehicle would reduce the obstruction and maneuvering the first vehicle accordingly (See Avedisov, e.g., “…wherein the ego vehicle E shares information with the remote connected vehicle R is depicted. The ego vehicle E may transmit to the remote connected vehicle R a message 514 in response to identifying the critical scenario 512 wherein the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E at the future time. The message 514 may be an SDOM including information about the unconnected vehicle U to the remote connected vehicle R. The information may be the sensor information gathered by ego vehicle E and/or information determined by ego vehicle E. For example, the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612). On the other hands, Teller teaches the first vehicle’s sensor view is obstructed (See Teller, e.g., “…determining, by a computing system and based on sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to a first vehicle, a second vehicle is at least partially blocking a field of view of a first sensor coupled to the first vehicle; determining a control action for the first vehicle to perform based on determining the second vehicle is at least partially blocking the field of view of the first sensor...” of Abstract, ¶ [0005]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0086], Claim 1, 17, 20, and Figs. 6-7 steps 602-710). The motivation is to “The vehicle may use the sensed information to navigate through the environment. For example, if the sensors sense that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle, the vehicle may navigate around the obstacle...,” as disclosed, ¶ [0004].
Consider claims 5, 18:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 1, 15. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein determining the maneuver for the second vehicle comprises determining whether the maneuver exceeds a threshold reduction to the obstruction (See Avedisov, e.g., “…the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612).
Consider claims 6, 14, and 19:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 5, 13, and 17. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein a threshold reduction of the obstruction is based on the first vehicle’s ability to sense an object in one vehicle’s of the plurality of the other vehicles sensor view (See Avedisov, e.g., “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612). On the other hands, Teller teaches the first vehicle’s sensor view is obstructed (See Teller, e.g., “…determining, by a computing system and based on sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to a first vehicle, a second vehicle is at least partially blocking a field of view of a first sensor coupled to the first vehicle; determining a control action for the first vehicle to perform based on determining the second vehicle is at least partially blocking the field of view of the first sensor...” of Abstract, ¶ [0005]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0086], Claim 1, 17, 20, and Figs. 6-7 steps 602-710). The motivation is to “The vehicle may use the sensed information to navigate through the environment. For example, if the sensors sense that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle, the vehicle may navigate around the obstacle...,” as disclosed, ¶ [0004].
Consider claims 7, 15:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 5, 13. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein the threshold reduction is based on a distance to which the first vehicle can sense objects (See Avedisov, e.g., “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612).
Consider claims 8, 16, and 20:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 5, 13, and 19. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein the threshold reduction is based on a percentage of the sensor view that is occluded (See Avedisov, e.g., “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612).
Consider claim 9:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein determining the maneuver for the second vehicle comprises determining whether the maneuver is performable by the second vehicle (See Avedisov, e.g., “…collect information about a second unconnected vehicle or a second object and determine whether the remote connected vehicle is likely going to be in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle…identify the one or more critical scenarios of the remote connected vehicle being in conflict with the second unconnected vehicle or the second object based on the received messages from the remote connected vehicle and the collected information about the one or more unconnected vehicles or objects…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612).
Consider claim 10:
The combination of Avedisov, Teller teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 9. In addition, Avedisov teaches wherein determining whether the maneuver is performable by the second vehicle comprises determining at least one of (i) whether the maneuver is within a performance envelope for the second vehicle; and (ii) whether the maneuver would violate a rule governing operation of the second vehicle (See Avedisov, e.g., “…wherein the ego vehicle E shares information with the remote connected vehicle R is depicted. The ego vehicle E may transmit to the remote connected vehicle R a message 514 in response to identifying the critical scenario 512 wherein the remote connected vehicle R being in conflict with the ego vehicle E at the future time. The message 514 may be an SDOM including information about the unconnected vehicle U to the remote connected vehicle R. The information may be the sensor information gathered by ego vehicle E and/or information determined by ego vehicle E. For example, the ego vehicle E may tell the remote connected vehicle R the rate of deceleration, the time of potential conflict with ego vehicle E, other vehicles in the awareness gap of the remote connected vehicle R, and/or any other information gathered and/or determined by the ego vehicle E for responding to the critical scenario 512…”, of ¶[0005]-¶[0007], ¶[0034], ¶[0039]-¶[0051], ¶[0052]-¶[0069], and Figs. 1-2 elements 100-122, Figs. 3-4 steps 300-406, Figs. 5-6 elements E, R, U, 500-612).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin (US Pub. No.: 2022/0107404 A1) teaches “Radar and LiDAR sensors play important roles in autonomous vehicles and ADAS (advanced driving assistance systems) in automobiles, however, they can only detect objects in view (line-of-sight). For example, when three vehicles are driving on road in a same lane, and if the first vehicle suddenly brakes, the third vehicle cannot detect it by regular radar and/or LiDAR because the second vehicle in front blocks the view. This invention discloses system and method to enable radar and/or LiDAR to detect vehicles on road that are blocked in view by another vehicle by specially configured active beacon transmitters, and reduce risks of rear-end collisions.”
Naserian et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021/0155245 A1) teaches “A process for sensor sharing for an autonomous lane change is provided. The process includes, within a dynamic controller of a host vehicle, monitoring sensors of the host vehicle, establishing communication between the host vehicle and a confederate vehicle on a same roadway as the host vehicle, monitoring sensors of the confederate vehicle, within the dynamic controller of the host vehicle, utilizing data from the sensors of the host vehicle and data from the sensors of the confederate vehicle to initiate a lane change maneuver for the host vehicle, and executing the lane change maneuver for the host vehicle.”
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 BABAR SARWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BABAR SARWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights