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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 13, 15, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0112720 to Keep et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0126864 to Moustafa et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0307606 to Lellmann.
As per claim 1, Keep discloses a method for detecting conditions for vehicle driving (Keep; At least the abstract), comprising:
at a computer system associated with a fixed installation that includes a plurality of sensors, the computer system having one or more processors and memory (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 20 and 36):
Keep does not explicitly disclose the sensors elevated directly above a road surface of a road, the plurality of sensors including a camera
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Moustafa (Moustafa; At least paragraph(s) 167 and 168). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Moustafa into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The type and placement of the sensors would be within the skill of one in the art and obvious as a matter of design choice. Cameras could provide a great variety of information, such as weather conditions, presence of things on the road, visibility, etc. similar to that discussed in at least paragraph(s) 43 of Keep, thus reducing the number of sensors needed and reducing costs. Providing the sensors directly above the road, e.g., on a traffic light, would provide a good view of the road less likely to be blocked by a large truck, for example, than one on the side of the road.
obtaining, via the plurality of sensors, weather information and road surface information for a segment of the road (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 20, 29, and 41);
Keep discloses reciving any type of data that may be utilized to determine a roadway condition (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 17), but does not explicitly disclose receiving, from vehicles that are traveling on the segment of the road, vehicle operational conditions indicating potential loss of control by a respective vehicle due to road and weather conditions, the vehicle operational conditions including activation of an electronic stability control (ESC) system by a first vehicle of the vehicles and activation of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) by a second vehicle of the vehicles;
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Lellmann (Lellmann; At least paragraph(s) 62; vehicle stability system, e.g., ABS and ESP, are received from multiple vehicles as input to determine roadway condition, e.g., coefficient of friction). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Lellmann into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Using one type of information that describes the roadway condition in place of another would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art. Using activation of vehicle control system, which activate in response of loss of control, would provide a valuable source of information about roadway conditions that may not be noticeable via other means, such as black ice.
generating a road and weather condition estimation based on the weather information, the road surface information, and the vehicle operational conditions (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 17, 37, and 54, in view of Lellmann above); and
transmitting the road and weather condition estimation to one or more first vehicles in a vicinity of the fixed installation (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 55 and 56)
Keep discloses transmitting the road and weather condition to a vehicle, which could be used to at least partially drive the vehicle; however, Keep does not explicitly disclose that the vehicles are autonomous, i.e., including causing the road and weather condition estimation is configured to be used by the one or more first vehicles to at least partially autonomously drive in a first trajectory in accordance with the road and weather condition estimation by adjusting a respective steering model of the one or more first vehicles.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Moustafa (Moustafa; At least paragraph(s) 169 and 200). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Moustafa into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Replacing a human driver with an autonomous driver, or portion thereof, is well-known in the art and would be obvious to one in the art. Adjusting models of the vehicles provides the latest information and most accurate models in order to provide the optimal driving responses.
As per claim 5, Keep discloses outputting road and weather condition estimations, but does not explicitly disclose all of the various information that can be output, i.e., wherein the road and weather condition estimation includes an estimated road friction coefficient for the segment of the road.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Lellmann (Lellmann; At least paragraph(s) 11). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Lellmann into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Outputting one type of road and weather information or another would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art. Outputting a friction coefficient would provide valuable information about the road surface that could prevent dangerous situations (e.g., collisions due to loss of traction) or where a need for de-icing measures are.
As per claim 10, Keep does not explicitly disclose wherein the fixed installation is located at a section of the road that is in a vicinity of a tunnel or a merge zone. However, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed the fixed installations as needed. Tunnels are locations of quickly changing road surface conditions, which would be beneficial to know in order to appropriately handle the diverse conditions, such as amount of de-icing solution to apply as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 23. Likewise, merge zones are prone to higher lateral and longitudinal accelerations as vehicles adjust that would benefit by knowing the road condition. Lastly, location of the fixed installation would not significantly alter the scope of the claim.
As per claim 13, Keep discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes one or more of: a global positioning system (GPS), a thermal sensor, a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanner, one or more cameras, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and one or more ultrasonic sensors (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 43; a thermal sensor would be need to sense temperature).
As per claims 15 and 19, Keep discloses a computer system and storage medium (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 36) for performing the method of claims 1. Therefore, claims 15 and 19 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1 above.
As per claim 21, Keep discloses wherein the road and weather condition estimation is transmitted to the one or more first vehicles in a format that consists of text only, and no images (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 55, 56, and 71; further the examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art that many communication formats use binary).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6, 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keep, in view of Moustafa and Lellmann as applied to claim 1, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0062725 to Maston.
As per claims 6 and 17, Keep discloses outputting road and weather condition estimations, but does not explicitly disclose all of the various information that can be output, i.e., wherein the road and weather condition estimation includes a pavement roughness level.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Maston (Maston; At least paragraph(s) 37). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Maston into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Outputting one type of road and weather information or another would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art. Outputting holes, wear, or general roughness level would allow the vehicle or driver to avoid the area or adjust accordingly in order to prevent or reduce damage or wear on the vehicle.
As per claim 8, Keep discloses outputting road and weather condition estimations, but does not explicitly disclose all of the various information that can be output, i.e., wherein the road and weather condition estimation includes identification of one or more potholes on the segment of the road and respective locations of the one or more potholes.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Maston (Maston; At least paragraph(s) 40). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Maston into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Outputting one type of road and weather information or another would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art. Outputting pot holes and location would allow the vehicle or driver to avoid the area in order to prevent damage on the vehicle or would allow transportation departments to identify and fix the potholes, similar to identifying unsafe travel conditions as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 21 and 22 of Keep.
As per claim 9, Keep discloses outputting road and weather condition estimations, but does not explicitly disclose all of the various information that can be output, i.e., wherein the road and weather condition estimation includes an estimated wind speed and an estimated wind direction.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Maston (Maston; At least paragraph(s) 45). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Maston into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Outputting one type of road and weather information or another would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art. Wind speed and direction could affect the temperature (i.e., wind chill factor), how road treatments (such as in paragraph(s) 6 of Keep) are applied or will lay, or other aspects of driving.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keep, in view of Moustafa and Lellmann as applied to claim 1, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0232098 to Kuehnle et al.
As per claims 7 and 18, Keep discloses obtaining environmental data and generating a recommendation for vehicle control, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: obtaining a stream of image data captured by a camera associated with the fixed installation; based on the stream of image data: detecting a vehicle vibration level of one or more second vehicles that are traveling on the segment of the road; and determining the pavement roughness level based on the vehicle vibration level; wherein the one or more first vehicles are configured to receive the pavement: roughness level and operate an electrical stability control (ESC) system based at least partially on the pavement roughness level.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kuehnle (Kuehnle; At least paragraph(s) 30-34, 37, and 103). Kuehnle teaches obtaining environmental and vehicle data to adjust systems of a vehicle to compensate for the obtained data. For example, Kuehnle teaches controlling the engine control unit and differential braking (i.e., ESC) based on the obtained data. Kuehnle also teaches that the obtained information on vehicle vibrations for road condition analysis can come from comparison of movement of the vehicle to a fixed object in images. This analysis would be equivalent whether the camera was fixed or on the moving component and would be well-understood to one in the art. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kuehnle into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Adjusting the stability control based on the vibration would provide a safer and more comfortable ride.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keep, in view of Moustafa and Lellmann as applied to claim 1, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0332402 to Rakshit.
As per claim 12, Keep does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes one or more anemometers.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Rakshit (Rakshit; At least paragraph(s) 16). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Rakshit into the invention of Keep with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Use of one known type of sensor for another would be within the skill of one in the art and obvious to use as a matter of design choice. Anemometers would be an obvious choice of a sensor to detect atmospheric conditions sensed in Keep in at least paragraph(s) 43.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 08/19/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 21 has been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that any Official Notice, such as that related to claim 12, is taken as admitted prior art since Applicant did not specifically traverse the assertion in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 08/19/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that Lellmann teaches the use of ABS/ESP (ESC) as inputs to a regression model and, thus, does not teach the claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lellmann teaches receiving and using intervention of ABS or ESP in determining roadway conditions (Lellmann; At least paragraph(s) 62) and Keep discloses receiving various sensor data, including vehicle sensor data, to determine road conditions (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 20). Therefore, it would be obvious to one in the art to incorporate the ABS/ESP intervention of Lellmann into the sensor data gathered in the invention of Keep.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that Lellmann teaches ABS/ESP data from the same vehicle to control that vehicles functions, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lellmann teaches that data from multiple vehicles can be obtained (Keep; At least paragraph(s) 35 and 54). Therefore, ABS data from one vehicle and ESP data from another vehicle is taught.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that Lellmann does not teach “by adjusting a respective steering model of the one or more first vehicles”, the Examiner notes that Lellmann is not relied on for teaching this limitation in the rejection.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that there is no motivation to combine Lellmann into the invention of Keep, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Keep and Lellmann are directed to determine road conditions based on data received from multiple vehicles. Therefore, using one type of sensor data from Lellmann as one of the types of sensor data used in Keep would be an obvious substitution and within the skill of one in the art.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependencies, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the arguments for allowability of the independent claims are not persuasive, thus, neither are the dependent claim based on dependency.
Conclusion
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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached on 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665