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 .
The Amendment, filed on 06/22/2026, has been received and made ofrecord. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated 03/19/2026, Claims 1-5, 10-14, 17 and 20 are amended, Claims 6-7 are cancelled, Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are pending in current application.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Claim Objection
Claim objections have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) and 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)
Rejections made under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments and the applicant’s remarks.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/22/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,187,282 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding Claims 1-15, Applicant's arguments filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as used in the current rejection. Regarding claims 16-20, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to independent claims 16 and 19, the Applicant argues on pages 14-15 of the Applicant’s Remarks that the cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose, teach, or suggest a vehicle a vehicle system including one or more processing circuits configured to "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 "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," as recited in Claim 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim Language is examined and analyzed according to its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure without reading the Specification into the claim language. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The cited prior art, Durie teaches the argued claimed feature, such as 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”).
The applicant further argues that Independent Claim 19 recites "dynamically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system based on the location of the response vehicle" and the cited reference Durie does not disclose, teach, or suggest "dynamically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system based on the location of the response vehicle," as recited in Claim 19.
The examiner respective disagrees. Claim Language is examined and analyzed according to its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure without reading the Specification into the claim language. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The cited prior art, Durie teaches the claimed feature, dynamically control operation of at least one of the siren or the light system based on the location of the response vehicle (See Durie, Para. [0215], [0234], “activate emergency lights 504 and sirens 514 based on vehicle data record and certain conditions have been satisfied” same as claimed, and 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”).
Based on the above explanation, the cited prior art, Durie teaches the features to those of argued above for independent claim 16 and 19. Therefore, the above discussion and same rejections are applied.
The same reasoning as applied to the independent claims above also apply to their corresponding dependent claims.
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 1-5, 8-15 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.
Specifically, claim 1 recites limitations of “one or more processing circuits configured to: force the vehicle to pull over in response to the operator failing to comply with the notification”. These limitations are a new matter. Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification the Examiner can find support for this limitation if Applicant believes otherwise.
Claims 2-5 and 8-15 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck).
Claim 1. Buck teaches a vehicle system comprising:
one or more processing circuits (See Fig. 2, system 100 comprising controller, processing unit, transceiver etc.”) configured to:
monitor for an approaching response vehicle condition regarding a response vehicle approaching a vehicle in a response mode of operation (See Para. [0082]-[0085], “detecting an emergency vehicle and/or emergency siren, and/or an emergency vehicle is approaching”);
limit a speed at which a driveline of the vehicle drives the vehicle based on the approaching response vehicle condition (See Para. [0003], “Automated vehicles that are capable of sensing their environment, and provide full or partly automated control features that regulate speed of the vehicle and engage vehicle brakes”, and see Para. [0011], “based on the detection results, i.e., emergency vehicle approaching, reduce speed of the vehicle, and/or see Para. [0083], “when an emergency vehicle approaching, drive less aggressively”);
provide a notification to an operator of the vehicle to pull over based on the approaching response vehicle condition (See Para. [0010], “presentation of an indicator to an operator of a vehicle based on the detection result, the indicator alerting the operator to the presence of the multi-tone siren type. The indicator may include a visual indicator. The indicator may include an audio indicator. The indicator may include an indication of the type of multi-tone siren detected”, and/or see Para. [0083], “alerting the driver of the vehicle with a light, sign or other alert signifying that an emergency vehicle is approaching”, and see Para. [0084], “instruct the vehicle to pull over”); and
force the vehicle to pull over in response to the operator failing to comply with the notification (See Para. [0083], “response to detection of an emergency vehicle can include having the safety module instruct the vehicle to pull over”).
Claim 8. Buck teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor a location of the vehicle (See Para. [0085], “information about the location of each car, the actual location of the emergency vehicle relative to each car in a surrounding area could be determined”);
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. [0093]-[0094], “multi-tone siren for different location”, and see Para. [0087][0088], “a siren generated by a medical emergency vehicle can be distinguished from a siren generated by a law enforcement vehicle. Different geographic regions (e.g., different countries, different states within a country, different towns or cities, or different continents) are associated with different multi-tone siren types. For examples, a police car siren in the United States may use a different multi-tone siren type than a police car siren in Germany. Similarly, an ambulance siren in the United States may use a different multi-tone siren type than an ambulance in Germany”); 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. [0088], “different geographic regions (e.g., different countries, different states within a country, different towns or cities, or different continents) are associated with different multi-tone siren types. For examples, a police car siren in the United States may use a different multi-tone siren type than a police car siren in Germany. Similarly, an ambulance siren in the United States may use a different multi-tone siren type than an ambulance in Germany”).
Claim 9. Buck teaches the vehicle system of Claim 8, further comprising the at least one of the siren or the light system (See Para. [0033]-[0034], “An emergency vehicle 40 having siren 42 that produces sound waves”).
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 at least one condition 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 at least one condition (See Para. [0051], “adjusting a speed limit based on the speed limit value”); and
the at least one condition includes one or more 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 optional claimed feature and no prior art citation is required and also is not given patentable weight”);
(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 (optional claimed feature and no prior art citation is required and also is not given patentable weight”);
(d) a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing optional claimed feature and no prior art citation is required and also is not given patentable weight”); or
(e) an approaching response vehicle condition indicated by a response vehicle approaching the vehicle in a response mode of operation (optional claimed feature and no prior art citation is required and also is not given patentable weight”).
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. [0215], [0234], “activate emergency lights 504 and sirens 514 based on vehicle data record and certain conditions have been satisfied” same as claimed, and 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 processors 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 Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Lyne, JR. (US 2003/0009874) (hereinafter Lyne).
Claim 2. Buck teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the condition (See Para. [0011], “causing a vehicle to reduce a speed of travel based on the detection result”). However, Buck fails to explicitly spell out where the detected result is referred to 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.
However, Lyne, JR. (US 2003/0009874) 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 Buck for monitoring a condition tire chain as taught by Lune in order for driving safety.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Gibson et al. (US 2017/0234689 A1) (hereinafter Gibson).
Claim 3. Buck teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor for a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active; and
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the hazard lights condition.
However, Gibson et al. (US 2017/0234689 A1) teaches, monitor for a hazard lights condition indicated by hazard lights of the vehicle being active (See Para. [0108], “if fog [i.e., hazard light condition] is detected an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may turn on fog lamps, and if black ice [i.e., hazard light condition] is detected, the an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may take action such as activate hazard light ”); and
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the hazard lights condition (See Para. [0108], “reduce vehicle speed, when black ice [i.e., hazard light condition] is detected ”).
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 Buck with limiting speed when back ice/Fog/rain [i.e., hazard light condition] is detected as taught by Gibson in order to improve safety of vehicles operating in semi-autonomous or autonomous modes.
Claim 4. Buck teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor for an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active; and
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the adverse weather condition.
However, Gibson teaches, monitor for an adverse weather condition indicated by windshield wipers of the vehicle being active (See Para. [0108], “activate windshield wipers, when rain is detected”); and
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the adverse weather condition (See Para. [0108], “reduced vehicle speed when rain is detected and windshield is activated”).
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 Buck with an activation of windshield wiper and limiting speed when rain is detected, i.e., adverse weather condition as taught by Gibson in order to improve safety of vehicles operating in semi-autonomous or autonomous modes.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Berry et al. (US 2020/0216114 A1) (hereinafter Berry).
Claim 5. Buck teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor for a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing; and
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the pre- operation check condition.
However, Berry teaches, monitor for a pre-operation check condition indicated by an operator of the vehicle failing to complete a vehicle inspection prior to departing (See Para. [0080], “observe vehicle and/or safety function F2, and it is noticed that the safety function F2 is no longer able to ensure safety in compliance with the desired ASIL level at the given actual longitudinal speed”); and
limit the speed at which the driveline drives the vehicle based on the pre- operation check condition (See Para. [0080], “a reduction value V_reduc retained for the reduction law LR is set, when it is noticed that the safety function F2 is no longer able to ensure safety in compliance with the desired ASIL level at the given actual longitudinal speed”).
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 Buck in view of the teaching of Barry to incorporate the above feature as taught by Barry to deploy the claimed invention for driving safety.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Durie, JR. et al. (US 2017/0263120) (hereinafter Durie).
Claim 10. Buck teaches vehicle system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
monitor for a driveline isolation condition regarding operation of the vehicle, the driveline isolation condition including at least one of (i) an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over or (ii) an accident condition indicating the vehicle has been involved in an accident; and at least one of isolate an energy storage or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the driveline isolation condition.
However, Durie teaches, monitor for a driveline isolation condition regarding operation of the vehicle, the driveline isolation condition including at least one of (i) an overturn condition indicating the vehicle has turned over or (ii) an accident condition indicating the vehicle has been involved in an accident; and at least one of isolate an energy storage or shut off a prime mover of the vehicle in response to the driveline isolation condition (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 over force 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 Buck 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 12. The teaching of Buck as modified by the teaching of Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 10, wherein the driveline isolation condition includes the overturn condition (See Durie, 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 over force limit”).
Claim 13. The teaching of Buck as modified by the teaching of Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 10, wherein the driveline isolation condition includes the accident condition (See Buck, Para. [0014], [0086], “The event may include a car accident.”. Additionally, see Durie, Para. [0329], “a vehicle accident”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Kerecsen (US 2020/0294401, this reference is from IDS).
Claim 11. Buck 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 driveline isolation condition.
However, Kerecsen teaches, 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 driveline isolation 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 Buck 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Durie, JR. et al. (US 2017/0263120) (hereinafter Durie) and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2014/0156157) (hereinafter Johnson).
Claim 14. The teaching of Buck as modified by the teaching of Durie teaches the vehicle system of Claim 13, 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 Buck et al. (US 2022/0363261 A1) (hereinafter Buck) in view of Magolan et al. (US2020/0307578) (hereinafter Magolan).
Claim 15. Buck 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 et al. (US2020/0307578) 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, english translated document attached with previous office action 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 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 citation is needed, and is not given a patentable weight).
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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights