DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/9/2024 (7), 1/16/2025 (1) , 2/6/2026 (1) , 6/4/2026 (1), and 9/8/2026 (1) have been received however only a cursory review over the references was conducted due to the extremely large number of references included on the IDS’s.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38, and 40 are pending.
Claims 25, 32, and 29 have been cancelled.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended.
Claims 26-27, 33-34, and 40 have been withdrawn from consideration due to an “Election of Species” received on 6/4/2026, yet these claims may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 9/8/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 9/8/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 25, 32, and 29 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 21-24, 28-31, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (United States Patent Publication 2015/0348337) in view of Gupta (United States Patent Publication 2017/0200330) and in further view of Herbach et al. (United States Patent 9,523,984)
With respect to Claim 21: While Choi discloses “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
“the computer system comprising: one or more processors” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“one or more transceivers adapted to communicate with a plurality of components associated with a plurality of autonomous operation features of the vehicle” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“identify an operating condition from collected operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features of the vehicle” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
“determine that a collision has occurred based upon a portion of the collected operating data and additional operating data received from the one or more transceivers” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
“and determine a response to the collision based upon the operating data and the additional operating data” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
Choi does not say that this vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or that there is a determination step of a likelihood of a collision.
Gupta, which is in the same field of invention of using vehicle data for analysis and vehicle control and teaches “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision of an autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0003-0004 (an on-board computing system of an autonomous vehicle assesses the criticality of a situation)];
“the computer system comprising: one or more processors” [Gupta, ¶ 0024-0025 (The on-board computing system 200 may include the controller 202 having a processor 204, first memory 208, and a second memory 206)];
“one or more transceivers adapted to communicate with a plurality of components associated with a plurality of autonomous operation features of the autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0024-0025 (The on-board computing system 200 may include the controller 202 having a processor 204, first memory 208, and a second memory 206)];
“and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to” [Gupta, ¶ 0024-0025 (The on-board computing system 200 may include the controller 202 having a processor 204, first memory 208, and a second memory 206)];
“identify an operating condition from collected operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features of the autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0044 with Figure 10 (the on-board computing system 200 may determine if there is a critical situation in which a predetermined threshold value has been exceeded. The assessment of the criticality of a situation may be based upon the number of objects in the vicinity of an autonomous vehicle 10 or a time to collision as described above)];
“the operating condition indicative of a likelihood of an incident occurring during operation of the autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0044 with Figure 10 (the on-board computing system 200 may determine if there is a critical situation in which a predetermined threshold value has been exceeded. The assessment of the criticality of a situation may be based upon the number of objects in the vicinity of an autonomous vehicle 10 or a time to collision as described above)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also do this for autonomous vehicles as well as manual vehicles and further predict times of possible collisions as taught by Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gupta into Choi to create a more robust system that not only react to accidents but predict accidents and can increase computing power [Gupta, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Again, Choi does not say that this vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or that the determined response is based on data.
Herbach, which is in the same field of invention of using vehicle data for analysis and vehicle control, teaches “initiate the determined response including causing the autonomous vehicle to autonomously move out of a traffic lane of a roadway without input from a vehicle operator” [Herbach, ¶ Col 3 line 11-Col 4 line 23 with Figure 5 (The execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Herbach into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also control the vehicle to pull over based on emergency scenarios as taught by Herbach with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Herbach into Choi to create a more robust system that not only react to accidents but can pull quickly over, thus saving time for searching for safe places [Herbach, Col 2 lines 61-67]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 22: While Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to: monitor operation of the vehicle by receiving, via the one or more transceivers, and processing the operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features while the vehicle is operating” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
Choi does not say that this vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
Gupta, which is in the same field of invention of using vehicle data for analysis and vehicle control and teaches “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision of an autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0003-0004 (an on-board computing system of an autonomous vehicle assesses the criticality of a situation)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also do this for autonomous vehicles as well as manual vehicles and further predict times of possible collisions as taught by Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gupta into Choi to create a more robust system that not only react to accidents but predict accidents. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 23: Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to: cause one or more sensors to collect the additional operating data” [Choi, ¶ 0079-0088 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 24: Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to: cause one or more sensors to collect the additional operating data” [Choi, ¶ 0079-0088 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 24: Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the operating data includes sensor data collected from a plurality of sensors associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features and control data generated by the plurality of autonomous operation features” [Choi, ¶ 0079-0088 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claims 28-31: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 21-24. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 28-31 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 21-24. Therefore Claims 28-31 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 35-38: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 21-24. The medium taught/disclosed in Claims 35-38 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 21-24. Therefore Claims 35-38 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (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 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights