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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitation is disclosed by at least Li, as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-15, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0304898) in view of Powers et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0166072), and further in view of Li et al. (Chinese Patent Publication # 103413441).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Yoshikawa discloses a system for determining road slipperiness, the system comprising:
a vehicle-mounted image sensor for a vehicle, the image sensor directed to a road surface of a first road (fig. 8, blk 12 and 13); and
a controller configured to:
receive an image of the road surface from the vehicle-mounted image sensor (fig. 8, blk 16);
estimate a level of slipperiness of the road surface by inputting the image of the road surface into an algorithm (figs. 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B; fig. 8, blk 32; fig. 9, blk S242 and S245; [0038], [0042], [0074]-[0075], [0100]-[0101]; [0086], [0049], [0051], [0053], [0055-0057], [0065-0071], [0085-0086], [0090-0094]: determines if road surface is frozen, wet, or dry, i.e. a level of slipperiness of the road surface, based on at least the smoothness/unevenness of the road surface); and
further in response to determining that the estimated level of slipperiness exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0004], [0005], [0049], [0051], [0053], [0055-0057], [0065-0071], [0085-0086], [0090-0094]: frozen, wet, and dry represent different predetermined thresholds for level of slipperiness; alternatively, the claimed level of slipperiness could also be mapped to one or more of the parameters used to determine if the road surface is frozen, wet, or dry, wherein the predetermined thresholds are applied to these parameters to determine if the road surface is frozen, wet, or dry), cause the vehicle to decelerate by actuating a braking system of the vehicle ([0003]-[0004]: brake vehicle based on whether the road surface is frozen, wet, or dry).
Yoshikawa does not teach that in response to determining that the estimated level of slipperiness exceeds a predetermined threshold, re-route the vehicle onto a different road having a lower level of estimated slipperiness.
In the same field of endeavor, Powers teaches that in response to determining that the estimated level of slipperiness exceeds a predetermined threshold, re-route the vehicle onto a different road having a lower level of estimated slipperiness (figs. 14-15, [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshikawa to re-route the vehicle, as taught by Powers, in order to improve the safety of the vehicle and driver by avoiding dangerous routes (figs. 14-15, [0105]).
Yoshikawa also does not teach estimating a level of slipperiness of the road surface by inputting the image of the road surface into a machine learning algorithm.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches estimating a level of slipperiness of the road surface by inputting the image of the road surface into a machine learning algorithm ([0014], [0034], claim 10, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshikawa to estimate the slipperiness by inputting the image of the road surface into a machine learning algorithm, as taught by Li, in order to improve the safety of the vehicle and driver by more accurately detecting slippery routes ([0014], [0034], claim 10, etc).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Yoshikawa further discloses that the controller is further configured to transmit a command to the image sensor to cause the image sensor to capture the image ([0008]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Yoshikawa further discloses that the controller is further configured to: evaluate, using the image, a color feature of the road surface; and
estimate the level of slipperiness based upon the evaluation of the color feature ([0100]-[0101] color feature, i.e. lane markings).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Yoshikawa further discloses that the color feature comprises a color feature of snow (figs. 14-15, [0079], [0084]).
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 20, Yoshikawa further discloses that the controller is further configured to: evaluate, using the image, a reflectiveness feature; and
estimate the level of slipperiness based upon the evaluation of the reflectiveness feature ([0038], [0042], [0074]-[0075], [0005], [0032]).
4. Claims 3-5, 11, and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0304898) in view of Powers et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0166072) and of Li et al. (Chinese Patent Publication # 103413441), and further in view of Breed et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2007/0152804).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17, Yoshikawa fails to disclose that the controller is further configured to: further in response to the determining that the estimated level of slipperiness exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause the vehicle to decelerate by reducing a throttle.
However, in a related invention Breed teaches causing the vehicle to decelerate by reducing a throttle (fig. 5, blk 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshikawa with the teachings of Breed, as a way to avoid accidents (accident avoidance system for a host vehicle – Breed, abstract).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Yoshikawa fails to disclose that the image sensor is a laser camera.
However, in a related invention Breed teaches that the image sensor is a laser camera (fig. 17; [0232]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshikawa with the teachings of Breed, as a way to improve the resolution of the camera and/or additionally acquire range data from the environment.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Yoshikawa fails to disclose that the image sensor is configured to capture video.
However, in a related invention Breed teaches that the image sensor is configured to capture video (fig. 17; [0232]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshikawa with the teachings of Breed, as a way to improve the accuracy of the evaluation and estimate by analyzing data from multiple frames over time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights