CTFR 18/770,980 CTFR 93316 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The status of the claims is as follows: (a) Claims 1-3 and 5-21 remain pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendments The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 03/17/2026 (a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections. (b) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichelgauz et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0041184A1 (hereinafter, Raichelgauz), in view of Zhao et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0348224A1 (hereinafter, Zhao) . Regarding Claim 1 , Raichelgauz describes a vehicular avoidance computer system for detecting road hazards and causing vehicles to avoid the road hazards, the vehicular avoidance computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor programmed to (processor with memory for running desired operations, such as vehicular avoidance for detecting road hazards (i.e., obstacles) and instructing the vehicle to avoid said hazards, Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 00462, 0688-0690 and 01043) : -receive sensor data associated with a primary vehicle traveling on a roadway (receive sensor data associated with a primary vehicle traveling on a roadway (e.g., this can be either from the car itself or from another vehicle), Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0688-0690 and 0695) ; -detect an obstacle in the roadway based upon the sensor data (detect objects in the roadway (e.g., pothole or pedestrian), Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0688-0691) ; -determine a vehicular response to react to the obstacle in the roadway, the vehicular response comprising at least one of an autonomous vehicular action or a semi-autonomous vehicular action (vehicle system determines a response to react to the obstacle in the roadway (e.g., vehicle determines to avoid the object), Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0693 and 0701) ; - cause the primary vehicle to execute the vehicular response by electronically transmitting first customized instructions to the primary vehicle (vehicle control system instructs the vehicle to execute a response (i.e., avoid the object), Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0693) ; and … Raichelgauz does not specifically disclose the system to include electronically transmit second customized instructions associated with the obstacle in the roadway to one or more additional vehicles on the roadway, the second customized instructions being different from the first customized instructions and customized for the one or more additional vehicles based at least upon one or more distances between the obstacle and the one or more additional vehicles . Zhao discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Zhao describes the ability to transmit second customized instructions (e.g., updated commands 130-1 and 130-2) associated with the obstacle in the roadway wherein the secondary instructions transmitted can be different than the first command (i.e., 130) and based, in part due to the distances of the secondary vehicles (i.e., 210b and 210c) (Zhao, Paragraphs 0151-0153 and 0199 and Figures 5 and 6) . As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Zhao to include electronically transmit second customized instructions associated with the obstacle in the roadway to one or more additional vehicles on the roadway, the second customized instructions being different from the first customized instructions and customized for the one or more additional vehicles based at least upon one or more distances between the obstacle and the one or more additional vehicles, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Zhao. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because sending different instructions to vehicles allows for vehicles to better safely navigate toward destinations (Zhao, Paragraph 0002) . Regarding Claim 2 , Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more additional vehicles are configured to activate at least one alert action to notify one or more drives of the one or more additional vehicles of the obstacle in the roadway (the other vehicles can receive the obstacle information and alert the driver about the object information, Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0824 and 0728) . Regarding Claim 3 , Raichelgauz, as modified, describes vehicular avoidance the computer system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more additional vehicles are configured to activate at least one autonomous and/or semi-autonomous control system in the one or more additional vehicles to react to the obstacle in the roadway (the other vehicles are capable of activating either an autonomous or semi-autonomous control based on the received information and/or alert, Raichelgauz, Paragraph 0824) . Regarding Claim 5 , Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the vehicular avoidance computer system is a vehicle controller of the primary vehicle (controller, Raichelgauz, Paragraph 0469) . Regarding Claim 6 , Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit information associated with the obstacle in the roadway to a cloud-based server, wherein the cloud-based server is configured to notify other vehicles about the obstacle in the roadway (obstacle server (400) which is cloud based (i.e., internet access), Raichelgauz, Paragraph 0690) . Regarding Claim 7 , Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is associated with a cloud-based server that is further configured to notify other vehicles about the obstacle in the roadway (vehicle can upload information via the processor about obstacles, Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0694-0695) . Regarding Claim 9, Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit at least a portion of the sensor data to the one or more additional vehicles (vehicle can transmit information via the processor about sensor information to other vehicles, Raichelgauz, Paragraph 0694) . Regarding Claim 10, Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes internal data associated with items and/or operations located inside the primary vehicle (sensors located inside the vehicle, Raichelgauz, Paragraph 0691) . Regarding Claim 11, Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes external data associated with items and/or operations located outside of the primary vehicle (sensors located on the outside of the vehicle for items such as object detection, Raichelgauz, Paragraph 0691 and Figure 3a) . Regarding Claim 12, Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine that the one or more additional vehicles are positioned within a predetermined distance of the primary vehicle (capable of determining the distance of the object around the vehicle, wherein the object can be other vehicles, Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0702 and 0717) . Regarding Claim 13, Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine the predetermined distance of the primary vehicle relative to the one or more additional vehicles based upon the speed of the primary vehicle (capable of determining the distance of the object around the vehicle, wherein the object can be other vehicles and the distance is based in part on the primary vehicles speed, Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0702 and 0717) . Regarding Claim 14, Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine a relative location of each of the one or more additional vehicles relative to the primary vehicle (capable of determining the location of the object around the vehicle, wherein the object can be other vehicles, Raichelgauz, Paragraphs 0702 and 0717) . Regarding Claim 15 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 16 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 17 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 18 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 19 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 20 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 21 , the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichelgauz et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0041184A1 (hereinafter, Raichelgauz), in view of Zhao et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0348224A1 (hereinafter, Zhao), in further view of Hayward U.S. Patent 10,775,179B1 (hereinafter, Hayward) . Regarding Claim 8 , Raichelgauz, as modified, describes the vehicular avoidance computer system of Claim 1. Raichelgauz does not specifically disclose the system to include that the at least one processor is located on the primary vehicle and is further programmed to transmit information associated with the obstacle in the roadway to the one or more additional vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) wireless communications . Hayward discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Hayward describes a vehicle system that is capable of transmitting and receiving obstacle information in the roadway via a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication system (Hayward, Col. 12 Lines 14-18) . As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Raichelgauz to include that the at least one processor is located on the primary vehicle and is further programmed to transmit information associated with the obstacle in the roadway to the one or more additional vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) wireless communications, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Hayward. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because sending and receiving information between vehicles allows for vehicles to alert drivers or take action to avoid potential collisions or accidents, thus increasing the safety of vehicle operation (Hayward, Col. 2 Line 65 to Col. 3 Line 10) Conclusion 07-40-01 Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 03/17/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.. 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 Almatrahi can be reached at (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 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. /ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 2 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 3 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 4 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 5 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 6 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 7 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 8 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 9 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 10 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/770,980 Page 11 Art Unit: 3667
Prosecution Insights