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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/953,855 filled on 11/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the cited limitation is also found in independent claim 1. When in claim 1, the feature (a) is selected, then the feature of claim 2 to be just duplicate claimed feature found in claim 1, and in this scenario, what is in the claim the applicant does further narrow down. Claim 3-6 are also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 17 cite “more conditions include at least one…”. It is not clear how does more conditions include only one of the conditions from the list”.
Claims 2 cites “more conditions include the tire chain condition. It is not clear how does more conditions include only one condition, i.e., tire chain condition. Claims 3-6 are also unclear for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 10 cites “first condition” and “second condition”, where the specification fails to define or limit which specific condition is referred to the first and second condition respectively.
Claims 8 and 16 cites the phrases “first manner” and “second manner”, where the specification fails to define or limit which specific manner is referred to the first and second manner respectively.
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 cites “first condition” and “second condition”, where the specification fails to define or limit which specific condition is referred to the first and second condition respectively. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 8 and 16 cites the phrases “first manner” and “second manner”, where the specification fails to define or limit which specific manner is referred to the first and second manner respectively. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13-15 and 19 of U.S. Patent: US12,187,282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of instant application is a subset of the claim of earlier issued patent and a person skilled in the art could view the claims of the instant application as an obvious variation of the claims of the issued patent, simply by removing additional language found in the issued patent. Please see below a comparison of claims between the instant application and issued patent, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 18/953,855 vs. U.S. Patent No. US12,187,282.
Claims of Instant Application: 18/953,855 (Difference Emphasis Added)
Claims of U.S. Patent: US12,187,282 (Difference Emphasis Added)
Claim 1. A vehicle system comprising:
one or more processing circuits configured to:
Claim 1. A vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a driveline coupled to the chassis;
a light system; a siren; and
a control system configured to:
monitor for one or more conditions regarding operation of a vehicle; and
monitor a condition of at least one of the vehicle, an area around the vehicle, or an operator of the vehicle; and
limit a speed at which a driveline of the vehicle drives the vehicle based on the one or more conditions;
wherein the one or more conditions include at least one of:
(a) a tire chain condition indicated by tire chains being installed on wheels of the vehicle or an automatic tire chain system of the vehicle being deployed;
(b) a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active;
(c) an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active;
(d) a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing; or
(e) an approaching response vehicle condition indicated by a response vehicle approaching the vehicle in a response mode of operation.
limit a speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the condition, wherein the condition includes at least one of:
(a) a tire chain condition indicated by tire chains being installed on wheels of the vehicle or an automatic tire chain system of the vehicle being deployed;
(b) a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active; or (c) an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active.
Claim 8. monitor a location of the vehicle;
monitor a location of the vehicle;
automatically control operation of at least one of a siren or a light system of the vehicle in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
Claim 2. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the tire chain condition.
Claim 1. wherein the condition includes
(a) a tire chain condition
Claim 3. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the hazard lights condition;
Claim1. Claim 1. wherein the condition includes
(b) a hazard lights condition;
Claim 4. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the adverse weather condition.
Claim 1. wherein the condition includes
(c) an adverse weather condition;
5. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the pre-operation check condition.
Claim 15. The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the condition includes a pre-operation check condition, and wherein the control system is configured to limit the speed in response to the pre-operation check condition indicating that the operator failed to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing.
6. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the approaching response vehicle condition.
Claim 13. The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the condition includes an approaching response vehicle condition, and wherein the control system is configured to limit the speed in response to the approaching response vehicle condition indicating that a response vehicle is approaching and in a response mode of operation.
7. The vehicle system of Claim 6, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: provide a notification to the operator to slow down or pull over in response to the approaching response vehicle condition; and limit the speed of the vehicle and force the vehicle to pull over in response to the operator failing to comply with the notification.
Claim 14. The vehicle of Claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to:
provide a notification to the operator of the vehicle to slow down or pull over in response to the approaching response vehicle condition; and limit the speed of the vehicle and force the vehicle to pull over in response to the operator failing to comply with the notification.
8. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor a location of the vehicle;
automatically control operation of at least one of a siren or a light system of the vehicle in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area
Claim 1 and/or Claim 18.
monitor a location of the vehicle;
automatically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
9. The vehicle system of Claim 8, further comprising the at least one of the siren or the light system.
Claim 1. The vehicle of Claim 1, further comprising a light system and a siren
10. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions are first conditions, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: monitor for a second condition regarding operation of the vehicle; and at least one of isolate an energy storage or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the second condition.
Claim 3. The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the condition is a first condition, further comprising a prime mover and an energy storage, and wherein the control system is configured to isolate the energy storage and shut off the prime mover in response to a second condition including at least one of an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over or an accident condition indicating that the vehicle has been involved in an accident.
11. The vehicle system of Claim 10, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to at least one of shift a transmission of the vehicle to neutral or engage a parking brake of the vehicle in response to the second condition.
Claim 4. The vehicle of Claim 3, wherein the control system is configured to at least one of shift a transmission of the vehicle to neutral or engage a parking brake of the vehicle in response to the overturn condition or the accident condition.
Claim 12. The vehicle system of Claim 10, wherein the second condition includes an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over.
Claim 13. The vehicle system of Claim 10, wherein the second condition includes an accident condition indicating that the vehicle has been involved in an accident.
Claim 3. second condition including at least one of an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over or an accident condition indicating that the vehicle has been involved in an accident.
14. The vehicle system of Claim 13, wherein the second condition includes the accident condition and an operator condition, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to identify whether the operator is capable of operating the vehicle following the accident and before permitting the vehicle to be driven following the accident condition.
Claim 5. The vehicle of Claim 3, wherein the condition includes the accident condition and an operator condition, and wherein the control system is configured to identify whether the operator is capable of operating the vehicle following the accident and before permitting the vehicle to be driven following the accident condition.
15. The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: receive override command to prevent such limiting of the speed; and at least one of log the override or provide a notification regarding the override to an external system.
Claim 7. The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle, further comprising an operator override configured to facilitate the operator with inputting an override command to override such limiting of the speed, and wherein the control system is configured to at least one of log the override or provide a notification regarding the override to an external system.
16. A vehicle system comprising: one or more processing circuits configured to:
Claim 19. (Currently Amended) A vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a light system;
a siren; and
a control system configured to:
monitor a location of a vehicle;
monitor a location of the vehicle; and
control operation of at least one of a siren or a light system of the vehicle in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
17. The vehicle system of Claim 16, wherein: the one or more processing circuits are configured to: monitor for one or more conditions regarding operation of the vehicle; and limit a speed at which a driveline of the vehicle drives the vehicle based on the one or more conditions; and the one or more conditions include at least one of: (a) a tire chain condition indicated by tire chains being installed on wheels of the vehicle or an automatic tire chain system of the vehicle being deployed; (b) a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active; (c) an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active; (d) a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing; or (e) an approaching response vehicle condition indicated by a response vehicle approaching the vehicle in a response mode of operation.
Claim1. monitor a condition of at least one of the vehicle;
limit a speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the condition, wherein the condition includes at least one of:
(a) a tire chain condition indicated by tire chains being installed on wheels of the vehicle or an automatic tire chain system of the vehicle being deployed;
(b) a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active; or (c) an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active.
18. The vehicle system of Claim 16, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: monitor for a condition regarding operation of the vehicle; and
at least one of isolate an energy storage or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the condition.
Claim 1.
monitor a condition of at least one of the vehicle;
Claim 3. The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the condition is a first condition, further comprising a prime mover and an energy storage, and
wherein the control system is configured to
isolate the energy storage and shut off the prime mover in response to a second condition including at least one of an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over or an accident condition indicating that the vehicle has been involved in an accident.
19. A vehicle system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
Claim 1. A vehicle comprising:….
monitor a location of a response vehicle as the response vehicle is responding to a scene with a siren and a light system thereof active; and
dynamically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system based on the location of the response vehicle.
monitor a location of the vehicle;
automatically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
20. The vehicle system of Claim 19, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to alter operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system when the location indicates that the response vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area.
Claim 1. …..automatically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area
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 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 claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw).
Claim 1. Czeslaw teaches a vehicle system (See Para. [0006], “driver assistance system”) comprising:
one or more processing circuits (See Para. [0006], “computing unit”) configured to:
monitor for one or more conditions regarding operation of a vehicle (See Para. [0006], “acquiring information about a current vehicle condition, a current or upcoming traffic situation, road situation and/or weather situation”); and
limit a speed at which a driveline of the vehicle drives the vehicle based on the one or more conditions (See Para. [0006], “limiting speed of the vehicle based on the acquired information”);
wherein the one or more conditions include at least one of:
(a) a tire chain condition indicated by tire chains being installed on wheels of the vehicle or an automatic tire chain system of the vehicle being deployed (Examiner Note: it is an optional claimed feature and the examiner consider other alternative claimed feature for prior art citation);
(b) a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active Examiner Note: it is an optional claimed feature and the examiner consider other alternative claimed feature for prior art citation);
(c) an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active (See [0006], and Para. [0017], “weather condition and active windshield wiper operation”, and in Para. [0016], discloses “the weather situation includes at least one of the following parameters: rain, snowfall”);
(d) a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing (Examiner Note: it is an optional claimed feature and the examiner consider other alternative claimed feature for prior art citation); or
(e) an approaching response vehicle condition indicated by a response vehicle approaching the vehicle in a response mode of operation (Examiner Note: it is an optional claimed feature and the examiner consider other alternative claimed feature for prior art citation”).
Claim 4. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the adverse weather condition (See Para. [0016], “the weather situation includes at least one of the following parameters: ambient air temperature of the vehicle, rain, snowfall, hail, night, fog, strong wind, low-lying sun, sandstorm, heavy cloud cover”).
Claim 6. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions include the approaching response vehicle condition (See Para. [0025], “emergency vehicle approaching”).
Claim 10. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions are first conditions (See Para. [0025], “The data interface 5 records information about the current and upcoming traffic situation, road situation, weather situation and the current vehicle condition”), and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: monitor for a second condition regarding operation of the vehicle (See Para. [0025], “The current vehicle condition includes the following potential parameters: vehicle skidding 10, vehicle beginning to skid 10, loss of pressure in at least one tire of the vehicle 10, low engine oil level, low brake fluid level, active windscreen wiper operation”); and at least one of isolate an energy storage (See Para. [0017], discloses “the current vehicle condition includes loss of drive power”) or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the second condition (This is an option claimed feature, therefore, no prior art citation is needed, and is not given a patentable weight).
Claim 13. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 10, wherein the second condition includes an accident condition indicating that the vehicle has been involved in an accident (see Para. [0014], [0025], discloses “the traffic situation [i.e., condition as claimed] includes an accident”).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durie, JR. et al. (US 2017/0263120) (hereinafter Durie).
Claim 16. Durie teaches a vehicle system comprising: one or more processing circuits (See Para. [0110], “the present disclosure includes system, where the system further comprising a location sensor configured to determine a location of the vehicle”) configured to:
monitor a location of a vehicle (See Para. [0110], “determine a location of the vehicle”);
control operation of at least one of a siren or a light system of the vehicle in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area (see Para. [0329], “the vehicle entered the intersection and sirens are engaged”, and/or see Para. [0374], [0377], “alerting the driver for hazardous conditions when the driver is entering an intersection or zone with a large history of previous accidents”); and
control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area (See Para. [0133], [0135], discloses “wherein each emergency response vehicle of the one or more emergency response vehicles includes a location sensing device configured to determine whether the corresponding emergency response vehicle is located at or is approaching a hazardous geographical zone [i.e., high risk area]”, and Para. [0055], [0215] “activating siren when determining certain conditions have been satisfied”).
Claim 17. Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 16, wherein:
the one or more processing circuits are configured to: monitor for one or more conditions regarding operation of the vehicle (See Para. [0257], “monitor vehicle speed”); and
limit a speed at which a driveline of the vehicle drives the vehicle based on the one or more conditions (See Para. [0051], “adjusting a speed limit based on the speed limit value”); and
the one or more conditions include at least one of:
(a) a tire chain condition indicated by tire chains being installed on wheels of the vehicle or an automatic tire chain system of the vehicle being deployed (Examiner’s Note: This is an option claimed feature, therefore, no prior art is cited as the examiner consider an alternative claimed feature”);
(b) a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active (See Para. [0215], [0328]-[0329], discloses “emergency light/flashing light are being used”);
(c) an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active (Examiner’s Note: This is an option claimed feature, therefore, no prior art is cited as the examiner consider an alternative claimed feature);
(d) a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing (Examiner’s Note: This is an option claimed feature, therefore, no prior art is cited as the examiner consider an alternative claimed feature); or
(e) an approaching response vehicle condition indicated by a response vehicle approaching the vehicle in a response mode of operation (Examiner’s Note: This is an option claimed feature, therefore, no prior art is cited as the examiner consider an alternative claimed feature).
Claim 19. Durie teaches a vehicle system (See Para. [0110], “the present disclosure includes system, where the system further comprising a location sensor configured to determine a location of the vehicle”) comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (See Para. [0101], [0127], [0139], “the system further comprising a memory, wherein the processor is configured to log the entry in the memory”), cause the one or more processors to:
monitor a location of a response vehicle as the response vehicle is responding to a scene with a siren and a light system thereof active (See Para. [0139], “monitor position of the vehicle”, and see Para. [0174], [0215], “emergency light activation, siren activation”); and dynamically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system based on the location of the response vehicle (See Para. [0374], “determine whether the vehicle is currently located in, is close to, or is approaching a geographical zone that has been designated as hazardous’, and see Para. [0377], [0257], [0265], [0329], discloses “vehicle's emergency siren or emergency lights have been turned on”).
Claim 20. Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 19, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to alter operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system when the location indicates that the response vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area (see Para. [0329], “the vehicle entered the intersection and sirens are engaged”, and/or see Para. [0374], [0377], “alerting the driver for hazardous conditions when the driver is entering an intersection or zone [i.e., high risk area] with a large history of previous accidents”, and see Para. [0215], “vehicle's emergency lights 504 (such as external flashing lights) and sirens 514 systems may also be communicably coupled to VDM 10, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. This permits the VDM 10 to know when emergency lights 504 and sirens 514 are being used, in order to note such data in the vehicle data record and/or use such data for determining whether certain conditions have been satisfied”, same as claimed).
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw) in view of Lyne, JR. (US 2003/0009874) (hereinafter Lyne).
Claim 2. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more conditions include the tire chain condition.
However, Lyne teaches, wherein the one or more conditions include the tire chain condition (see Abstract, “tire chain/snow chain is mounted to tire and see Para. [0126], “the chain slides over the surface of the tire””).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with monitoring a condition tire chain as taught by Lune in order for driving safety.
Claims 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw) and in view of Kerecsen (US 2020/0294401, this reference is from IDS).
Claim 5. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but the teaching of Czeslaw fails to teach wherein the one or more conditions include the pre-operation check condition.
However, Kerecsen teaches, wherein the one or more conditions include the pre-operation check condition (See Para. [0263], “vehicle safety inspection”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with a vehicle inspection as taught by the Karecsen before start the vehicle in order for driving safety.
Claim 7. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 6, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: provide a notification to the operator to slow down or pull over in response to the approaching response vehicle condition (See Para. [0008], “The extent to which the maximum permissible speed for the vehicle is reduced depends in particular on the severity of the circumstances in the traffic situation, road conditions, weather conditions and/or the current condition of the vehicle”); and limit the speed of the vehicle (See Para. [0006], “limiting vehicle speed”), but Czeslaw fails to teach, force the vehicle to pull over in response to the operator failing to comply with the notification.
However, Kerecsen teaches, force the vehicle to pull over in response to the operator failing to comply with the notification (See Para. [0087], [0263], “enforcement may be obtained by the system for pull-over commands”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with a feature of vehicle pulling commands as taught by Kerecsen in response to operator failing in order to yield an approaching emergency vehicle.
Claim 11. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to at least one of shift a transmission of the vehicle to neutral or engage a parking brake of the vehicle in response to the second condition.
However, Kerecsen teaches wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to engage a parking brake of the vehicle in response to the second condition (See Para. [0017], “The vehicle will handle situations that call for an immediate response, like emergency braking, ”and the vehicle must be able to safely abort the trip, i.e., park the car).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with an emergency braking and parking the vehicle as taught by Kerecsen in response to operator failing in order to yield an approaching emergency vehicle.
Claims 3, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw) in view of Durie Jr. et al. (US 2017/0263120) (hereinafter Durie).
Claim 3. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more conditions include the hazard lights condition.
However, Durie teaches, wherein the one or more conditions include the hazard lights condition (See Para. [0257], “detect that the emergency lights have been activated, and see Para. [0366], “warn drivers of vehicles that they are currently located within, and/or are approaching a geographic area with known hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions”, and see Para. [0374], “when the vehicle is located or approaching in a hazardous zone, the VDM 10 can alert the driver a visual indicator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with monitoring a condition of emergency light as taught by Durie in order to alert driver for hazardous conditions.
Claim 8. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: monitor a location of the vehicle; automatically control operation of at least one of a siren or a light system of the vehicle in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area; and automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area.
However, Durie teaches, monitor a location of the vehicle (See Para. [0110], “determine a location of the vehicle”);
automatically control operation of at least one of a siren or a light system of the vehicle in a first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through an intersection or a high-risk area (see Para. [0329], “the vehicle entered the intersection and sirens are engaged”, and/or see Para. [0374], [0377], “alerting the driver for hazardous conditions when the driver is entering an intersection or zone with a large history of previous accidents”); and
automatically control operation of the at least one of the siren or the light system in a second manner different than the first manner in response to the location indicating that the vehicle is at least one of approaching or driving through another location that is not the intersection or the high-risk area (See Para. [0133], [0135], discloses “wherein each emergency response vehicle of the one or more emergency response vehicles includes a location sensing device configured to determine whether the corresponding emergency response vehicle is located at or is approaching a hazardous geographical zone [i.e., high risk area]”, and Para. [0174], [0055], [0215], [0377], “activating siren and/or emergency light when determining certain conditions have been satisfied”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with monitoring location of the vehicle and control operation of siren and/or emergency light as taught by Durie in order for driving safety in hazardous zone.
Claim 9. The teaching of Czeslaw as modified by the teaching of Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 8, where the vehicle system further comprising the at least one of the siren or the light system (See Durie, Para. [0046], [0055], [0377] discloses “emergency siren or emergency light have been turn on”, and see Para. [0215], “A vehicle's emergency lights 504 (such as external flashing lights) and sirens 514 systems”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with a feature of lighting and/or siren system as taught by Durie in order for safety regulation.
Claim 12. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the second condition includes an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over.
However, Durie teaches, wherein the second condition includes an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over (See Para. [0329], “a vehicle accident showing various data, such as, vehicle being struck on the driver's side, the vehicle tipping [construed as tuned over] to the right on two wheels and returning to all four wheels, vehicle’s acceleration exceeds the overforce limit”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with monitoring a condition of vehicle tipping to the right wheel, i.e., vehicle tuned over as taught by Durie in order to alert driver for hazardous conditions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2014/0156157) (hereinafter Johnson).
Claim 14. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 13, wherein the second condition includes the accident condition (See Para. [0014], [0025], discloses “the traffic situation [i.e., conditions a s claimed] includes a vehicle accident”) and an operator condition (See Para. [0021], “detecting the driver fatigue”), but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to identify whether the operator is capable of operating the vehicle following the accident and before permitting the vehicle to be driven following the accident condition.
However, Johnson teaches, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to identify whether the operator is capable of operating the vehicle following the accident and before permitting the vehicle to be driven following the accident condition (See Para. [0004], [0017], [0024], “an emergency braking system that determine whether or not the driver's ability to drive or control the vehicle has been impaired or compromised when a collision has occurred”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with a determination that the driver is able to control the vehicle upon an accident as taught by Johnson in order to safely control the vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw) in view of Magolan et al. (US2020/0307578) (hereinafter Magolan).
Claim 15. Czeslaw teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: receive override command to prevent such limiting of the speed; and at least one of log the override or provide a notification regarding the override to an external system.
However, Magolan teaches, receive override command to prevent such limiting of the speed (See Para. [0023], [0081], [0084], discloses “an override request that enable the vehicle operator to desirably maneuver the vehicle at higher speeds than the second top speed during present conditions”); and at least one of log the override or provide a notification regarding the override to an external system (See Para. [0114]-[0115], discloses “a system comprises a controller to adjust magnitude of the speed limiter in response to an override request signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Czeslaw with override request/command to limit vehicle speed as taught by Magolan in order for vehicle smoothness and control may be enhanced, and delivering an improved driving experience to vehicle operator and allowing the vehicle operator to maintain their driving behavior.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durie, JR. et al. (US 2017/0263120) (hereinafter Durie) in view of Zajadacz Czeslaw (DE 102020005470, attached english translated document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Czeslaw).
Claim 18. Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 16, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor for a condition regarding operation of the vehicle (See Para. [0257], “monitor vehicle speed”); but Durie fails to teach at least one of isolate an energy storage or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the condition.
However, Czeslaw teaches at least one of isolate an energy storage (See Para. [0006], “acquiring information about vehicle condition”, and see Para. [0017], discloses “the current vehicle condition includes loss of drive power [i.e., isolate an energy storage]”) or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the second condition (This is an option claimed feature, therefore, no prior art is cited as the examiner consider an alternative claimed feature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Durie with monitoring whether drive power is lost/isolated as taught by Czeslaw in order to determine whether to set a low speed for driving safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657