DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 31, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 18 and 19 have been amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were added. Thus, claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0147744 A1 to Grimm et al. (herein after “Grimm et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0231978 A1 to Li et al. (herein after “Li et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 11,
the Grimm et al. publication discloses a system (12) of a vehicle (10)(see FIG. 2 and ¶27) comprising:
control circuitry (30) configured to:
receive an instruction to enter a watchdog state (see ¶3, where the Grimm et al. publication discloses that “it is desirable to provide . . . [a] vehicle safety systems that prevent collisions, when a vehicle is not in operation, such as in a parked position, in an ignition off state, or in any other detectable inoperative condition”; see also ¶4, where instructions are sent to the controller to “[perform] a stationary safety monitoring when the vehicle is in parked condition”, i.e. the vehicle receives instruction to enter a watchdog state once in a parked condition)(Emphasis added);
based on the received instruction, enter the watchdog state, wherein, while in the watchdog state, control circuitry (30) of the vehicle (10) is further configured to:
receive an indication of an anticipated collision associated with the
vehicle, wherein the indication comprises an evasive route associated with the anticipated collision (see ¶30 – ¶31, where “the active systems 12 may send the signals to an automated driving unit that performs the maneuvers to move the vehicle 10 to avoid the potential collision”; see also ¶52, where “the controller 30 autonomously starts the parked vehicle 10, and autonomously moves the vehicle 10 within the constraints to avoid the potential collision”);
activate, based at least in part on the received indication, a
powertrain of the vehicle (see ¶32, where “an automated driving unit . . . performs the maneuvers to move the vehicle 10 to avoid the potential collision”; see also ¶52, where “the controller 30 autonomously starts the parked vehicle 10, and autonomously moves the vehicle 10 within the constraints to avoid the potential collision”)(Emphasis added); and
enter an autonomous mode, wherein the vehicle executes the evasive route while in the autonomous mode (see ¶52, where “an automated driving unit . . . performs the maneuvers to move the vehicle 10 to avoid the potential collision”; see also ¶52, where “the controller 30 autonomously starts the parked vehicle 10, and autonomously moves the vehicle 10 within the constraints to avoid the potential collision”)(Emphasis added).
The Grimm et al. publication does not specifically disclose
determining, based on sensor data, that the vehicle is unoccupied; and based at least in part on (a) the received instruction and (b) determining that the vehicle is unoccupied, entering the watchdog state.
Determining, based on sensor data, that the vehicle is unoccupied and using that information to enter into a safe state is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Li et al. publication who discloses “server 102 [being] used to store driving control information of different unmanned vehicles. It may receive travel information, driving control information and a safety sign for indicating the unmanned vehicle being in a safe state sent by the unmanned vehicle 101, and push the travel information, the driving control information and the safety sign for indicating the unmanned vehicle being in the safe state to an unmanned vehicle in the travel state indicated by the travel information.” (See ¶29.)(Emphasis added.) “The electronic device (e.g., the unmanned vehicle as shown in FIG. 1) on which the information sharing method applicable to an unmanned vehicle operate may collect travel information of an unmanned vehicle through a sensor deployed inside or outside the vehicle in the unmanned vehicle. Here, the travel information is used to indicate the travel state of the unmanned vehicle.” (See ¶33.)(Emphasis added.) According to the Li et al. publication, sensors inside the vehicle can reveal the travel state of the vehicle and indicate whether the unmanned vehicle is occupied or not.
Such disclosure suggests determining, based on sensor data, that the vehicle is unoccupied and based at least in part on (a) the received instruction and (b) determining that the vehicle is unoccupied, entering the watchdog state, wherein, while in the watchdog state.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Grimm et al. publication to determine, based on sensor data, that the vehicle is unoccupied and based at least in part on (a) the received instruction and (b) determining that the vehicle is unoccupied, entering the watchdog state, wherein, while in the watchdog state, as suggested by the Ha et al. publication, in order to prevent losing location of the vehicle after evading an accident.
As to claims 2 and 12,
the Grimm et al. publication discloses the instruction to enter the watchdog state being received from one of: a remote device (see ¶40 – ¶41, where “the wakeup command may be received via a remote-controlling device of the vehicle 10, such as a key fob. Alternatively, or in addition, the remote-controlling device may be a mobile device, such as a smartphone, a smartwatch, a tablet computer, or any other computing device that sends the wakeup command via a communication network such as the Internet”); a vehicle relocation server (30)(see ¶52, where “the controller 30 autonomously starts the parked vehicle 10, and autonomously moves the vehicle 10 within the constraints to avoid the potential collision”); or a direct input to the vehicle. (See ¶30 – ¶31, where “the active systems 12 may send the signals to an automated driving unit that performs the maneuvers to move the vehicle 10 to avoid the potential collision”)(Emphasis added).
As to claims 3 and 13,
the Grimm et al. publication discloses the system further comprising at least one of a remote device and a vehicle relocation server (30). (See ¶40, where the Grimm et al. publication discloses “the controller 30 using the active safety system 12 and/or the sensors 20 [to wake] up the one or more components of the vehicle for performing the stationary safety monitor”; see also ¶41, where “the wakeup command may be received via a remote-controlling device of the vehicle 10, such as a key fob. Alternatively, or in addition, the remote-controlling device may be a mobile device, such as a smartphone, a smartwatch, a tablet computer, or any other computing device that sends the wakeup command via a communication network such as the Internet.”)
As to claims 4 and 14,
the Grimm et al. publication discloses the received indication of the anticipated collision comprising the evasive route being received from the vehicle relocation server (30). (See ¶30 – ¶52.)
As to claims 5 and 15,
the Grimm et al. publication discloses the remote device being associated with a user of the vehicle and wherein the control circuitry (30) being configured to activate the powertrain of the vehicle (10) further based at least in part on receiving an approval of the evasive route from the remote device. (See ¶30 – ¶52.)
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Grimm et al. publication in view of the Li et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0237725 A1 to Ha et al. (herein after “Ha et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 6 and 16,
the modified Grimm et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including the remote device being associated with a user of the vehicle (see ¶40 – ¶41) and wherein, while in the watchdog state (see ¶45, where “the SSM is activated (wakeup) if the vehicle 10 is in parked condition and not at one of the non-monitored locations, and if the vehicle 10 has been in the parked condition for at least a predetermined duration”).
The Grimm et al. publication, however, does not specifically disclose while in the watchdog state, the control circuitry being further configured to: identify a location of the vehicle following the executing of the evasive route; and send the location to the remote device.
Identifying a location of the vehicle following the executing of the evasive route; and sending the location to the remote device is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Ha et al. publication who discloses that “[w]hen the moving object escapes as . . . , the moving object may constantly transmit a broadcast message. Other infrastructures located on an escape route of the moving object may receive collision-related information from the moving object and confirm whether or not the moving object is an escaping vehicle based on the received information and the movement of the moving object.” (See ¶64.)(Emphasis added.) In the Ha et al. publication, the escaping vehicle constantly transmit a broadcast message that can identify a location of the vehicle following the executing of the evasive route and can be received by a remote device. Thus, such disclosure suggests the control circuitry being further configured to: identify a location of the vehicle following the executing of the evasive route; and send the location to the remote device.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Grimm et al. publication so that the control circuitry being further configured to: identify a location of the vehicle following the executing of the evasive route; and send the location to the remote device, as suggested by the Ha et al. publication, in order to prevent losing location of the vehicle after evading an accident.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Grimm et al. publication in view of the Li et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166956 A1 to Stoschek et al. (herein after “Stoschek et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 7 and 17,
the modified Grimm et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the control circuitry being further configured to: detect a change in an environment surrounding the vehicle; send an indication of the change in the environment to the vehicle relocation server; and receive a new evasive route associated with the anticipated collision from the vehicle relocation server.
The Stoschek et al. publication discloses that “as the aircraft 10 is following the escape path 35, the aircraft's environment and operating conditions may be reassessed and a new escape path 35 may be selected based on changing conditions, such as movements by the aircraft 10 and objects 15.” Such disclosure suggests the control circuitry being further configured to: detect a change in an environment surrounding the vehicle; send an indication of the change in the environment to the vehicle relocation server; and receive a new evasive route associated with the anticipated collision from the vehicle relocation server.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Grimm et al. publication so that the control circuitry being further configured to: detect a change in an environment surrounding the vehicle; send an indication of the change in the environment to the vehicle relocation server; and receive a new evasive route associated with the anticipated collision from the vehicle relocation server, as suggested by the Stoschek et al. publication, in order to prevent an accident based on changing conditions.
As to claims 10 and 20,
the Grimm et al. publication is considered to disclose entering the watchdog state is based at least in part on determining that the powertrain of the vehicle is inactive. (See ¶52, where “the controller 30 autonomously starts the parked vehicle 10, and autonomously moves the vehicle 10 within the constraints to avoid the potential collision”.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 is allowed.
Claims 9, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights