DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed June 23rd, 2026. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by previously cited of record Finelt et al. (US Pub. No. 20200180612 A1), herein after Finelt.
Regarding claim 1, Finelt teaches [a] driving system comprising: at least one vehicle, the at least one vehicle comprising (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching an autonomous vehicle): at least one processor in electronic communication with the at least one vehicle; and a memory having instructions thereon, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (Finelt: Para. 0085, teaching memory and a processor programmed to execute instructions stored on the memory): monitor the at least one vehicle's geographic location; obtain data corresponding with the at least one vehicle's geographic location (Finelt: Para. 0093, teaching the use of a position sensor to obtain and monitor the position of the vehicle); determine a predictive output indicative of a risk measure for the at least one vehicle's geographic location indicating that the geographic location is associated with a higher likelihood of accidents or poor driving conditions (examiner interprets that a risk of collision of a trajectory is an indication of a likelihood of an accident occurring in that trajectory) (Finelt: Para. 0452, teaching determining an expected risk of collision associated with the vehicle's current trajectory and another vehicle's trajectory); and in response to identifying an above-threshold predictive output for the at least one vehicle's geographic location, determine an optimal vehicle route, generate an alert, and/or trigger a corrective operation (Finelt: Para. 0454, teaching warning a driver of the risk of collision or taking corrective action in response to the collision).
Regarding claim 3, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the corrective operation comprises causing the at least one vehicle to modify its route and/or modify a vehicle driving mode (Finelt: Para. 0454, teaching warning a driver of the risk of collision or taking corrective action in response to the collision).
Regarding claim 4, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claims 1, wherein the predictive output is determined using a neural network model (Finelt: Para. 0403, teaching the use of a neural network as part of its determinations).
Regarding claim 8, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the predictive output is determined based, at least in part, on at least one of historical weather conditions, current weather conditions, time of year, historical accident data corresponding with the vehicle's geographic location and/or real-time or historical vehicle data (Finelt: Para. 0349, teaching the use of weather data as part of its determinations).
Regarding claim 9, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 8 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 8, wherein the real-time vehicle data comprises at least one of a vehicle speed, temperature, direction of travel, and vehicle path deviation/variance (Finelt: Para. 0436, teaching the use of the vehicle's speed and pose as part of the trajectory determination).
Regarding claim 10, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the predictive output is determined based, at least in part, on data obtained from one or more databases (Finelt: Para. 0159, teaching the use of a database to filter relevant objects of interest to the system from irrelevant objects that are detected).
Regarding claim 11, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the predictive output is determined based, at least in part, on historical vehicle data for a plurality of other vehicles (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching that the navigational data may incorporate historical data of past navigations).
Regarding claim 12, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle's geographic location comprises one or more public and/or private roads (Finelt: Para. 0082, teaching that the system monitors for various type of features of the road which are usually seen in public roads including lane markings, traffic signs, traffic lights, and pedestrians; and Para. 0349, teaching that the system includes a database on the locations the vehicle visits and it stores information such as the types of the roadways).
Regarding claim 13, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: update one or more existing maps and/or navigation systems based, at least in part, on the predictive output (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching that a sparse map is updated based on the processes of the invention).
Regarding claim 15, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the at least one vehicle is an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching that the vehicles are autonomous vehicles).
Regarding claim 16, Finelt teaches [a] cooperative driving system comprising: a plurality of vehicles in electronic communication with one another, each vehicle comprising (Finelt: Para. 0264, teaching that a system that aggregates data from multiple vehicles and determines the trajectories of each vehicle): at least one image sensor (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching an autonomous vehicle); a processor in electronic communication with the at least one image sensor; and a memory having instructions thereon, wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Finelt: Para. 0085, teaching memory and a processor programmed to execute instructions stored on the memory): monitor each vehicle's geographic location; obtain data corresponding with the vehicle's geographic location (Finelt: Para. 0093, teaching the use of a position sensor to obtain and monitor the position of the vehicle); determine a predictive output indicative of a risk measure for each vehicle's geographic location indicating that the geographic location is associated with a higher likelihood of accidents or poor driving conditions (examiner interprets that a risk of collision of a trajectory is an indication of a likelihood of an accident occurring in that trajectory) (Finelt: Para. 0452, teaching determining an expected risk of collision associated with the vehicle's current trajectory and another vehicle's trajectory); and in response to identifying an above-threshold predictive output for a particular vehicle's current geographic location, determine an optimal vehicle route, generate an alert, and/or trigger a corrective operation, wherein each of the plurality of vehicles is configured to transmit an indication of detected above-threshold predictive outputs to at least another vehicle and/or trigger corrective operations in relation to the at least another vehicle (Finelt: Para. 0455, teaching determining that the host vehicle and the other vehicle will take corrective actions in response to a potential collision will occur and updating the corrective action of the host vehicle accordingly).
Regarding claim 17, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 16 and goes on to further teach [t]he cooperative driving system of claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of vehicles is configured to transmit the indication of detected above-threshold predictive outputs to at least another vehicle and/or trigger corrective operations in relation to the at least another vehicle when it is within a predetermined range (Finelt: Para. 0455, teaching determining that the host vehicle and the other vehicle will take corrective actions in response to a potential collision will occur and updating the corrective action of the host vehicle accordingly).
Regarding claim 18, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 17 and goes on to further teach [t]he cooperative driving system of claim 17, wherein each vehicle is an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching that the vehicles are autonomous vehicles).
Regarding claim 19, Finelt teaches [a] method for determining a risk measure for a vehicle's geographic location, the method comprising (Finelt: Para. 0083, teaching an autonomous vehicle): monitoring the vehicle's geographic location (Finelt: Para. 0093, teaching the use of a position sensor to obtain and monitor the position of the vehicle); periodically determining a predictive output indicative of the risk measure for the vehicle's geographic location indicating that the geographic location is associated with a higher likelihood of accidents or poor driving conditions (examiner interprets that a risk of collision of a trajectory is an indication of a likelihood of an accident occurring in that trajectory) (Finelt: Para. 0452, teaching determining an expected risk of collision associated with the vehicle's current trajectory and another vehicle's trajectory); and in response to identifying an above-threshold predictive output for the vehicle's geographic location, determine an optimal vehicle route, generate an alert, and/or trigger a corrective operation (Finelt: Para. 0454, teaching warning a driver of the risk of collision or taking corrective action in response to the collision).
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Shuster et al. (US Pub. No. 20160363935 A1), herein after Shuster.
Regarding claim 2, Finlet remains as applied as in claim 1, however Finlet is silent to [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: provide a recommendation for a driver of the at least one vehicle to modify the at least one vehicle's route.
In a similar field, Shuster teaches [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: provide a recommendation for a driver of the at least one vehicle to modify the at least one vehicle's route (Shuster: Para. 0016, teaching presenting a recommended instruction for the driver to follow in relation to detected hazards) for the benefit of improving navigation by the driver in situations where they are not aware of potential traffic issues.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the corrective actions in response to a detected traffic situation from Finlet to recommend to the driver alternative routes they can take, as taught by Shuster, for the benefit of improving navigation by the driver in situations where they are not aware of potential traffic issues.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Funke et al. (US Pub. No. 20230182772 A1), herein after Funke.
Regarding claim 5, Finelt remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: determine a confidence measure in relation to the above-threshold predictive output (Finelt: Para. 0179, teaching determining a confidence level associated with determining the position and trajectories of objects in the road).
Finlet is silent to generate the alert or trigger the corrective operation in an instance in which the confidence measure meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold.
In a similar field, Funke teaches generate the alert or trigger the corrective operation in an instance in which the confidence measure meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold (Funke: Para. 0071 and 0076, teaching that when the confidence level associated with the distance between the vehicle and the object exceeds a threshold the driver is warned of the potential for collision) for the benefit of improving the detection and response to potential collisions.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the collision detection and warning from Finlet to warn if the confidence level in the detection is above a threshold, as taught by Funke, for the benefit of improving the detection and response to potential collisions.
Regarding claim 6, Finelt and Funke remain as applied as in claim 5, and Finlet goes on to further teach [t]he driving system of claim 5, wherein the confidence measure is determined based, at least in part, on real-time vehicle data obtained from one or more other vehicles (Finelt: Para. 0347, teaching that the detection and tracking of objects is performed in real time).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Woon et al. (US Pub. No. 20200346641 A1), herein after Woon.
Regarding claim 7, Finlet remains as applied as in claim 1, however Finlet is silent to [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: transmit an indication of the above-threshold predictive output to another apparatus that is within a predetermined range of the at least one vehicle or to a central server.
In a similar field, Woon teaches [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: transmit an indication of the above-threshold predictive output to another apparatus that is within a predetermined range of the at least one vehicle or to a central server (Woon: Para. 0033, teaching reporting to a server when a risk is above a threshold) for the benefit of processing the data for false positives, false negatives, or training systems to improve their detections of events.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the collision risk determination system from Finlet to upload the results of the determination and associated data to a server, as taught by Woon, for the benefit of processing the data for false positives, false negatives, or training systems to improve their detections of events.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Konrardy et al. (US Pub. No. 20200317216 A1), herein after Konrardy.
Regarding claim 14, Finlet remains as applied as in claim 1, however Finlet is silent to [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: determine a proportion of time spent by the at least one vehicle in geographic locations with corresponding above-threshold risk values; and determine an insurance premium for the at least one vehicle based, at least in part, on the determined proportion of time.
In a similar field, Konrardy teaches [t]he driving system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to further: determine a proportion of time spent by the at least one vehicle in geographic locations with corresponding above-threshold risk values; and determine an insurance premium for the at least one vehicle based, at least in part, on the determined proportion of time (Konrardy: Para. 0029, teaching adjusting insurance premiums based on data associated with a risk that is taken by a vehicle; and Para. 0087, teaching that the risk is related to a vehicle's telematics variables such as how long it is in an area) for the benefit of accurately updating the driver’s insurance premiums based on the amount of risk the driver takes.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the collision detection and warning system from Finlet to update the insurance premiums a driver has to pay based on how long they remain in an area that is at risk of a collision, as taught by Konrardy, for the benefit of accurately updating the driver’s insurance premiums based on the amount of risk the driver takes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 7 lines 12-19, filed June 23rd, 2026) that Finelt is deficient in teaching the amended limitation of determine a predictive output indicative of a risk measure for the at least one vehicle's geographic location indicating that the geographic location is associated with a higher likelihood of accidents or poor driving conditions in amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the BRI of a geographic location that is associated with a higher likelihood of accidents reads on a position that has a higher risk of collision which reads on the collision risk determination recited in paragraph 0452 of Finelt.
Applicant contends (see page 7 lines 21-23, filed June 23rd, 2026) that independent claims 16 and 19 are allowable over the prior art of record for the same reasons that independent claim 1 has been rendered allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that independent claims 16 and 19 have not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record for the same reasons that independent claim 1 has not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record.
Applicant contends (see page 7 lines 24-26, filed June 23rd, 2026) that the dependent claims are allowable over the prior art of record as they depend upon claims that have been rendered allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as the independent claims have not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record the dependent claims stand to fall with the claims they depend upon.
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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights