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(s) Status
Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-2 respective flow or box diagrams fail to provide details of the subject matter for each of the box(es) and flow chart(s) as described in the specification. Any structural and/or functional detail that is essential for proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawings, MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, it is unclear how the processing circuitry is enabled to transmit and receive data when claim 1 is void of a transmitting/receiving device in communication with the processing circuitry to permit such functions. Applicant’s specification discloses, in ¶68 with reference to Figs. 2-3, that wireless transceiver transmit/receive data (e.g., elements 208, 210, 212 of Fig. 2) to and from remote computing devices. Therefore, claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. In particular, base claims 11 and 21 both have similar issues as addressed above in the rejections of claim 1. Subsequently their respective dependent claims 12- 20 and 22-30 have the same issues due to respective dependency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 18-25 & 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (“Gross”, US 20220089181 A1, IDS) in view of Schumacher et al. (“Schumacher”, US 20200327345 A1). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 11, Gross discloses a vehicle (¶67; Fig. 1: 101(a-b)), comprising: a memory (¶88; Fig. 4: memory 406) configured to store instructions (¶88); and processing circuitry (Fig. 4: processing device 400) that is part of an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) of the vehicle (¶68; Fig. 1: device 110a-b), the processing circuitry being configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory (¶¶88-89) to cause the vehicle to: transmit first data to a remote computing device (¶¶19, 68 discloses that the system (G-SRMCD) installed in the vehicle comprises wireless communication features and providing data to a remote device (Fig. 1: RMCC 130)) that identifies a location of the vehicle (¶31 discloses providing GPS reports to the RMCC ); receive second data from the remote computing device that indicates a sensitivity configuration to be used for the ADAS of the vehicle based upon the location of the vehicle (¶¶112-Fig. 6: steps 602-604 discloses determining the vehicle location based on the received sensor data. Steps 610 involves determining incident risk to the vehicle based on detection of determined object, the vehicle location and speed. ¶113 discloses that a operated incident risk may be determined not to be safe, which causes the RMCC to restore the vehicle to a safe incident risk (corresponding to adjusting a sensitivity configuration) which is provided as one or more safety measure and/or advisory recommendation); adjust a parameter of the ADAS based upon the received sensitivity configuration to thereby adjust an alert sensitivity of the ADAS (¶¶113-116). As per the limitation when an alert-based condition is met in accordance with the adjusted alert sensitivity of the ADAS, cause an ADAS alert to be displayed, wherein the parameter of the ADAS that is adjusted comprises an alert threshold time period. Gross discloses, in ¶¶113, 116, one or more safety measure and/or advisory recommendation and providing displayed indication of increase risk condition. While, Gross does explicitly disclose an adjustment of a time threshold. Schumacher discloses, in ¶¶11, 16-17, the concept of adjusting one or more predetermined time threshold and a predetermined alert driver area based on the geographical location of a vehicle.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of adjusting one or more predetermined time threshold and a predetermined alert driver area based on the geographical location of a vehicle, with the motivation to enhance the safety features of the system. 2) Regarding claims 2 and 12, wherein the first data further identifies ADAS alert events detected by the vehicle (Gross: ¶¶9, 23,-24, 27, 31, 39, 69, 78, 80-87, 100), a location of the ADAS alert events (Gross: ¶¶9, 23,-24, 27, 31, 39, 69, 78, 80-87, 100), and a current vehicle configuration (Gross: ¶¶35, 112-116; Fig. 6). 3) Regarding claims 3 and 13, wherein the second data transmitted to the vehicle is generated by the remote computing device by: aggregating first data received from a plurality of vehicles to generate an aggregated data set (Gross: Fig. 1, with regard to the vehicle location and session interconnect algorithm) that comprises (i) ADAS alert events detected by the plurality of vehicles (Gross: ¶¶9, 23,-24, 27, 31, 39, 69, 73-78, 80-87, 100), and (ii) a respective location of each one of the detected ADAS alert events (Gross: ¶¶9, 23,-24, 27, 31, 39, 69, 73-78, 80-87, 100); and using the aggregated data set (Gross: ¶¶73-78) in accordance with a set of predetermined rules to define corresponding sensitivity configurations for each one of the detected ADAS alert events (Gross: ¶¶73-88 with reference to Figs. 1-2, with regard to the artificial intelligent processing and learning features to predict incidents and provide incident prevention based on the plurality of vehicles’ data reporting of detected events and alarm conditions). 4) Regarding claims 4 and 14, wherein the second data further comprises a portion of the aggregated data set corresponding to ADAS alert events having location that is within a threshold distance from the vehicle (Gross: ¶¶74, 140, 148, with regard to the safe level risk threshold being related to detected distance of the vehicles to other objects near the vehicle). 5) Regarding claims 5 and 15, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the parameter of the ADAS by adjusting the sensitivity configuration of the ADAS of the vehicle for one of the detected ADAS alert events when a current route of the vehicle intersects with a location of the one of the detected ADAS alert events (Gross: ¶¶38, 78, 98). 6) Regarding claims 8 and 18, wherein the set of predetermined rules define corresponding sensitivity configurations for each one of the detected ADAS alert events are further based upon weather data and road data associated with each one of detected ADAS alert events (Gross: ¶98; Schumacher: ¶¶7, 16, 53, 66, claim 4). 7) Regarding claims 9 and 19, wherein: the second data indicates a sensitivity configuration to be used for the ADAS of the vehicle with respect to detected ADAS alert events that are included as part of the received second data (Gross: ¶¶113-116, with regard to the one or more safety measures or advisory recommendation in the autonomous unit having the incident risk level that is not safe). 8) Regarding claims 10 and 20, wherein the parameter of the ADAS is from among a plurality of parameters, each one of the plurality of the parameters (Gross: ¶¶19, 25, 27, 42, 46, 65, 68, 73, 80-89 with regard to the various sensor data being reported by the vehicles) being identified with a different respective one of the detected ADAS alert events (Gross: 39), and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the parameter of the ADAS by adjusting each one of the plurality of parameters of the ADAS to adjust the alert sensitivity of the ADAS for each one of the detected ADAS alert events (Gross: ¶¶112-116; Figs. 6-7). 9) Regarding claim 21, Gross and Schumacher with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Gross: Fig. 4: memory 406) having instructions stored thereon that (Gross: ¶¶88-89), when executed by processing circuitry associated with a vehicle, cause the vehicle to: transmit first data to a remote computing device that identifies a location of the vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 11); receive second data from the remote computing device that indicates a sensitivity configuration to be used for an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) of the vehicle based upon the location of the vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 11);
adjust a parameter of the ADAS based upon the received-sensitivity configuration to thereby adjust an alert sensitivity of the ADAS (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 11); and
when an alert-based condition is met in accordance with the adjusted alert sensitivity of the ADAS, cause an ADAS alert to be displayed wherein the parameter of the ADAS that is adjusted comprises an alert threshold time period (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 11). 10) Regarding claim 22, see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 12. 11) Regarding claim 23, see analysis of the rejection of claims 3 and 13. 12) Regarding claim 24, see analysis of the rejection of claims 4 and 14. 13) Regarding claim 25, see analysis of the rejection of claims 5 and 15. 14) Regarding claim 28, see analysis of the rejection of claims 8 and 18. 15) Regarding claim 29, see analysis of the rejection of claims 9 and 19. 16) Regarding claim 30, see analysis of the rejection of claims 10 and 20.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 & 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Schumacher, and in further view of Wu et al. (“Wu”, US 20210197804 A1). 1) Regarding claims 6 and 16, as per the limitation wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the parameter of the ADAS by adjusting the sensitivity configuration of the ADAS of the vehicle for one of the detected ADAS alert events when the vehicle will reach a location of the one of the detected ADAS alert events within a contact threshold time period. Gross discloses, in ¶¶4, 7, 9, 66, providing collision avoidance features. Wu discloses, in ¶23; Figs. 2, 4, the concept of tracking the current location of a vehicle and determining a time to collision value to evaluate to a threshold to provide collision avoidance features.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of tracking the current location of a vehicle and determining a time to collision value to evaluate to a threshold to provide collision avoidance features, with the motivation to enhance the safety features of the system. 3) Regarding claims 7 and 17, Gross and Wu with the same motivation to combine the teaching of Wu as presented in the rejection of claims 6 and 16, teach wherein the alert-based condition is met when a time required for the vehicle to reach a detected ADAS alert event is less than or equal to the alert threshold time period (with regard to Wu disclosing, in ¶23, that the time to collision value is used to determine a time to a potential collision with a forward object which is evaluated to a threshold to provide collision avoidance measures).
3) Regarding claim 26, with the same motivation to combine the teaching of Wu as presented in the rejection of claims 6 and 16, see analysis of the rejection of claims 6 and 16. 4) Regarding claim 27, with the same motivation to combine the teaching of Wu as presented in the rejection of claims 6 and 16, see analysis of the rejection of claims 7 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9280741 B2, system dynamically adjusting alert rules. US 20130311014 A1; US 20190141134 A1, system remotely adjusting vehicle parameter based on the location of a vehicle. US 20230278549 A1, system risk assessment of detected object near a current location of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685