DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of election of Group C corresponding to claims 26-28 and 30-35 for prosecution on merits filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 1-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/09/2026. Claims 29 and 36-40 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 26-28 and 30-35 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 26, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh et al. ( USP 2017/0017734) in view of Joodaki et al. ( USP 2017/0337753) in view of Shin et al. (USP 2014/0049406).
As Per Claim 26, Groh et al. (Groh) discloses, a system for providing real time indication of a hazardous vehicle condition ( via automotive crowdsourced event reporting and reconstruction system 10, [0022], Fig.1) comprising: a server (crowdsourcing server 12 , Fig.1, [0022]) in communication with a first vehicle (vehicle 16a), operative to receive a first communication from the first vehicle (16a) that it sends from the first vehicle to the server indicating the first vehicle is in a hazardous condition and a location of the first vehicle;([0022-0030]); wherein the server receives a second communication sent from a second vehicle ( via vehicle 16b, 16c, 16d) to the server indicative of a location of the second vehicle; (“in response to receiving the alert flag and being within the vicinity of the collision at the time of the collision, second, third, and fourth vehicles 16b, 16c, and 16d upload their respective sensor data at the time of the collision (again, just prior to, during, and just after the collision) to crowdsourcing server 12.” [0032]) and it is determined that the locations of the first and second vehicle lie on a common roadway path and within a predetermined travel time of one another ( via in Fig.1, vehicle 16a, 16b, 16c and 16d being on common path , also see [0031-0033]).
However, Groh does not explicitly teach, a server in communication with a first microprocessor of a first vehicle and wherein, the server provides a third communication to the second vehicle.
In an analogous art, Joodaki et al. (Joodaki) discloses, a vehicle accident reporting system, wherein, a server in communication with a first microprocessor of a first vehicle (via system comprising a vehicle 110 includes a sudden event detection processor 300 (Fig.3) being wirelessly connected with an accident management hub130 (server), and ERC server 160 via network 120, Fiog.1) and vehicle is reporting accident to API 255 on AMH 130 , See [0033], [0039],[0047], [0019-0021], Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Groh and Joodaki before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Groh, and include the accident management hub 130 and vehicle processor 300 of Joodaki and configure with the system of Groh in order to the first vehicle’s (sudden event detection processing unit) microprocessor communicating wirelessly with the crowdsourcing server and reporting hazard condition (accident). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to inform accident occurrence to get necessary help to handle the situation (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the drivers and others vehicles in the road).
However, Groh in view of Joodaki does not explicitly teach, wherein the server provides a third communication to the second vehicle.
In an analogous art, Shin et al. (Shin) teaches, accident alert system for preventing secondary collision, wherein, the server provides a third communication to the second vehicle( via vehicle 110 being equipped with terminal device 200 and reporting accident to server platform 130. Server platform 130 processing accident information and sending alert to the user ( other vehicle, 160) to prevent a secondary accident, [0028-0032], also see [0034-007],, Tables 1-2, Figs.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Groh, Joodaki and Shin before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Groh, to include the preventing secondary collision teachings ( software of server platform 130) of Shin and configure with the system of Groh, in order to server upon receiving accident report from an accident involved vehicle, sending alert to other accident vicinity vehicles to decrease the speed of nearby vehicles to prevent a secondary accident. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to inform accident occurrence to the nearby vehicles to decrease their speed to prevent a secondary accident (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the drivers and others vehicles in the road).
As per Claim 27, Groh as modified by Joodaki and Shin teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Groh in view of Joodaki and Shin teaches , wherein the second vehicle is equipped with a second microprocessor in communication with the server that receives the indication of the hazardous condition and provides an alert to an occupant of the second vehicle, (Groh : via vehicle 16b, 16 c or 16d, receiving alert flag , “upon receiving the alert flag, crowdsourcing server 12 can broadcast the alert flag for receipt by vehicles 16 within the vicinity of the collision at the time of the collision. Vehicles 16 receiving the alert flag can push the alert flag to other vehicles using vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication technology”, [0031]).
However, Groh does not explicitly teach, wherein the second vehicle is equipped with a second microprocessor.
However, Joodaki teaches, vehicle being equipped with microprocessor 300 and wirelessly connected with an accident management hub130 (server), and communicating with the server, See [0033], [0039],[0047], [0019-0021], Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Groh, Joodaki and Shin before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Groh, to include the microprocessor 300 of vehicle 110 of Joodaki into the second vehicle and configure with the server of Groh in order to second vehicle receiving hazard indication and providing alert to the second occupant. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to second vehicle occupant receiving accident occurrence ahead and taking necessary precaution (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the drivers and others vehicles in the road).
As per Claim 28, Groh as modified by Joodaki and Shin teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Groh in view of Joodaki and Shin teaches, wherein the first microprocessor is in communication with a global positioning system associated with the first vehicle and includes location data therefrom in the communication indicating the hazardous condition. (Groh : [0029]), Joodaki : [0039]).
6. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh et al. ( USP 2017/0017734) in view of Joodaki et al. ( USP 2017/0337753) in view of Shin et al. (USP 2014/0049406) in view of Bowers et al. (USP 2014/0012492).
As per Claim 30, Groh as modified by Joodaki and Shin teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Groh in view of Joodaki and Shin does not explicitly teach, wherein the alert to the occupant of the second vehicle is a visual indication.
In an analogous art, Bowers et al. ( Bowers) teaches, a vehicle collision detection system 101 of vehicle 102 coordinating with collision detection system of other vehicles, wherein vehciel102 being equipped with human-machine interface components 107 includes heads-up display and collision avoidance instructions received via visual indication (being displayed on the head-up display )[0037], [0057-0058], Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Groh, Joodaki, Shin and Bowers before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Groh, to include the teachings (collision detection system 101, human-machine interface 107) of Bowers and configure with the server of Groh in order to instruction received from server could be displayed on the heads-up display and warn the driver of the hazardous condition ahead. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to inform accident occurrence to the nearby vehicle to take necessary precaution and action (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the drivers and others vehicles in the road).
As per Claim 31, Groh as modified by Joodaki and Shin and Bowers teaches the limitation of Claim 30. However, Groh in view of Joodaki and Shin Bowers further teaches, wherein the visual indication is provided on a heads-up display. (via vehicle 102 being equipped with human-machine interface components 107 includes heads-up display and collision avoidance instructions are being displayed on the head-up display, [0037], [0057-0058], Fig.1). (See claim 30 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
7. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh et al. ( USP 2017/0017734) in view of Joodaki et al. ( USP 2017/0337753) in view of Shin et al. (USP 2014/0049406) in view of Fayyad (WO-2016/033007).
As per Claim 32, Groh as modified by Joodaki and Shin teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Groh in view of Joodaki and Shin does not explicitly teach, wherein the alert to the occupant of the second vehicle is an audio alert.
In a related field of art, Fayyad discloses, a server device 160 communicating with a user device 110 and upon authentication, “Application server 160 may send a communication (e.g., text message, audio message, alert, email, etc.) to user device 110”, [0167], Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Groh, Joodaki, Shin and Fayyad before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Groh, to include the teachings (software of server application 160, user device 110) of Fayyad and configure with the system of Groh, in order to server sending a communication (e.g., text message, audio message, alert, email, etc.) to user device of the occupant of second vehicle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to inform accident occurrence of the nearby vehicle to take necessary precaution and action (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the drivers and others vehicles in the road).
8. Claims 33, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh et al. ( USP 2017/0017734) in view of Joodaki et al. ( USP 2017/0337753) in view of Shin et al. (USP 2014/0049406) in view of Person (USP 2010/0052883).
As per Claim 33, Groh as modified by Joodaki and Shin teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Groh in view of Joodaki and Shin does not explicitly teach, wherein the second vehicle is equipped with a high conspicuity external visual indicator that is activated when the alert is provided.
In an analogous art, Person teaches, method and systems for controlling external visual indicator for vehicles, wherein, vehicle control system 100, controlling external visual indicators 102 (hazard lights 106, left turn and right urn indicators (104, 108) , And “program products, and systems modify a vehicle's hazard lights or turn signals by making them blink faster or brighter to notify or warn the occupants in approaching vehicles as appropriate”, [0044], also see [0011], [0012], [0018], [0031], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Groh, Joodaki, Shin and Person before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Groh, to include the teachings (external visual indicator 102 and controller 112 ) of Person with the second vehicle and configure with the system of Groh, in order to controller increases the blinking rate and intensity of external visual indicator (e.g., hazard light) when receiving accident activity alert from server. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to notify or warn the occupants in approaching vehicles to avoid any secondary accident (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the drivers and others vehicles in the road).
However, Groh, Joodaki and Shin and Person does not explicitly teach, second vehicle is equipped with a high conspicuity external visual indicator.
However, second vehicle having a high conspicuity external visual indicator, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 34, Groh as modified by Joodaki , Shin and Person teaches the limitation of Claim 33. However, Groh in view of Joodaki, Shin and Person teaches,
wherein the high conspicuity external visual indicator is activated (Person : via controller increasing the blinking rate and intensity of external visual indicator (hazard lights) [0044], also see [0011], [0012], [0018], [0031], Fig. 1), when the operator of the second vehicle decelerates as the second vehicle approaches the location of the first vehicle. (Joodaki : “The at least one sudden event detection processor is programmed to identify a sudden event when a measured acceleration of the vehicle sensed by the at least one accelerometer exceeds either a predefined maximum acceleration or a predefined maximum deceleration”, [0003]). (See claim 33 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 35, Groh as modified by Joodaki , Shin and Person teaches the limitation of Claim 34. However, Groh in view of Joodaki, Shin and Person teaches, wherein the high conspicuity external visual indicator is activated to strobe the lights at the rear of the second vehicle. ( (Person : controller increasing the blinking rate and intensity of external visual indicator (hazard lights) [0044], also see [0011], [0012], [0018], [0031], Fig. 1). (See claim 33 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights