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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 07/20/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akotkar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0049989) in view of Aoude et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0287402).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on 07/20/2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Aoude et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0287402).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akotkar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0049989) in view of Aoude et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0287402).
Regarding claim 1, Akotkar discloses the vehicle safety system (VSS) for autonomous driving, comprising:
an onboard unit (OBU) (Akotkar in at least ¶ 18 “onboard computer 218”), wherein an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprises said OBU; and (Akotkar ¶ 18 discloses an “onboard computer 218 ... located in a forward portion of vehicle 102”), wherein the OBU comprises:
a communication module configured to communicate with one or more of- (a) a roadside unit (RSU) network; (b) another OBU;(c) a cloud platform; (d) a traffic control center/traffic control unit (TCC/TCU); or (e) a traffic operations center (TOC); (Akotkar ¶ 50 discloses that the onboard computer operates using communication circuitry of the vehicle, wherein the “communications circuitry of the vehicle 702 may communicate with the cloud 705 via wireless access node 703,” the wireless access node being an RSU, see ¶ 51)
a vehicle sensing module configured to collect and/or provide information describing the driving environment; (Akotkar ¶ 49 discloses that “vehicle 702 may include, for example, a LIDAR sensor 725 (e.g., to locate itself and other objects, in an environment),” also see Fig. 2)
a control module configured to execute control instructions for driving tasks; and (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses controlling “a steering control module 228 [i.e., a control module] to assist in controlling particular driving elements 209 to guide SA/AD vehicle 102,” also see Fig. 2)
a safety subsystem (Akotkar ¶ 22 “decision unit 220”) configured to perform safety measure tasks comprising proactive safety measures, active safety measures, and passive safety measures; (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses that “navigation control system 226 may receive an approximate location of an emergency vehicle and to control steering control module 228 to allow an emergency vehicle associated with the audio signal to pass SA/AD vehicle 102” such that “decision unit 220 may further work with navigation control system 226 to determine how and when SA/AD vehicle 102 should respond to the alarm signal, e.g., whether to slow down or pull over to the side of a road or take other action. In some embodiments, decision unit 220 may determine that communications with an emergency vehicle should be initiated,” see ¶ 22, wherein the emergency vehicle is an “approaching emergency vehicle ... emitting an alarm and/or blinking lights,” see ¶ 3. Also see Fig. 1.)
Akotkar does not expressly disclose:
wherein the OBU is configured to perform prediction methods, comprising predicting vehicle behaviors based on data collected by said OBU and modifying a prediction according to environmental data collected and/or predicted by an RSU.
However, Mintz discloses:
wherein the OBU (Aoude ¶ 67 “Onboard Equipment (OBE)”) is configured to perform prediction methods, comprising predicting vehicle behaviors based on data collected by said OBU and modifying a prediction according to environmental data collected and/or predicted by an RSU. (Aoude ¶ 105 discloses that the OBE includes a smart obe (SOBE) which includes fusing data to predict a next action or reaction of a driver of user of the vehicle as well as predicting the intent and future trajectories associated with collision risks due to other vehicles. “The risk is computed by the SOBE based on the probability of the various future predicted trajectories of the nearby vehicle (e.g., going straight, changing lane to the right, changing lane to the left), and the associated risk of collision with the host vehicle for each of those trajectories,” see ¶ 105. Also see ¶ 113 “If a hazard is predicted, a message will be broadcast from the RSE [i.e., RSU] to the OBE or the OPE or both, alerting each entity of the intended path of the other and allowing each of them to take a pre-emptive action with enough time to avoid the collision.” Also see ¶¶ 86, 105, and 113.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the OBU of Akotkar with the OBU being configured to perform prediction methods, comprising predicting vehicle behaviors based on data collected by said OBU and modifying a prediction according to environmental data collected and/or predicted by an RSU, as disclosed by Aoude, with reasonable expectation of success, to enhance other traffic hazard detection techniques using AI to achieve high accuracy and provide additional time to react and avoid a collision (Aoude ¶ 145), which further enables real time prediction of dangerous situations and therefore enables sending warnings early on to allow the entities enough time to react and avoid collisions (Aoude ¶ 161), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle sensing module is configured to perform a sensing method comprising sensing an environment and detecting objects at a microscopic level, a mesoscopic level, and/or a macroscopic level. (Akotkar ¶ 48 discloses “data obtained by the onboard computer may include sensor data from one or more microphones embedded in, on, or around the vehicle 702 [i.e., microscopic], data packets from other onboard computers included in other vehicles 702 [i.e., macroscopic]”)
Regarding claim 3, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the OBU is configured to perform prediction methods at a microscopic, mesoscopic, and/or macroscopic level. (Akotkar ¶ 20 discloses determining “a location from which the alarm signal and thus emergency vehicle may be approaching”)
Regarding claim 4, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the proactive safety measures comprise preventive measures based on incident prediction and risk index estimation and are deployed prior to incident occurrence. (Akotkar ¶ 83 discloses receiving a location of “an approaching emergency vehicle and to control the steering module to drive the SA/AD vehicle to allow the approaching emergency vehicle to pass the SA/AD vehicle,” such that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that driving the vehicle to allow the emergency vehicle to pass, such as controlling the vehicle to “slow down or pull over to the side of a road” is a preventative measure, see ¶ 22. Also see Fig. 1 depicting the proactive measure based on the incident prediction and risk estimation, see corresponding ¶¶ 16 and 22.)
Regarding claim 5, Akotkar does not expressly disclose the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the proactive measures are configured to produce a pavement condition warning and/or a pedestrian warning and/or a bicyclist warning.
However, Aoude discloses:
the proactive measures are configured to produce a pavement condition warning and/or a pedestrian warning and/or a bicyclist warning. (Aoude ¶ 7 discloses sending a warning about a dangerous situation such as pedestrians crossing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the proactive measure of Akotkar with the proactive measure being configured to produce a pavement condition warning and/or a pedestrian warning and/or a bicyclist warning, as disclosed by Aoude, with reasonable expectation of success, to prevent collisions and near misses with another object in the environment (Aoude ¶¶ 34 and 49), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 6, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the active safety measures comprise rapid incident detection and are deployed before harms to humans and/or property occur. (Akotkar Fig. 1 depicts capturing an audio signal from an approaching emergency vehicle 106, thereby determining the location of the approaching emergency vehicle, see ¶¶ 20 and 83, prior to controlling driving elements of the vehicle to respond to the situation, see corresponding ¶ 17, the detection thereby being performed or deployed before harm occurs. One having ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that the emergency vehicle being identified as “approaching” indicates that it has been detected and harm has not yet occurred.)
Regarding claim 7, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the active safety measures are configured to brake a vehicle in an emergency and/or provide for a human driver to assume control of a vehicle. (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses that “navigation control system 226 may control a steering control module 228 to assist in controlling particular driving elements 209 to guide SA/AD vehicle 102,” such that the SA/AD vehicle may receive “an approximate location of an emergency vehicle and to control steering control module 228 to allow an emergency vehicle associated with the audio signal to pass SA/AD vehicle 102, the driving elements 209 which includes braking system 217, see ¶ 19)
Regarding claim 8, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the passive safety measures comprise post-incident measures to alleviate further harms and losses. (Akotkar ¶ 20 discloses that “decision unit 220 may also assist in determining a next action for SA/AD vehicle 102 in response to the alarm signal.” The Examiner notes this limitation appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “to alleviate further harms and losses”) and is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and is therefore not given patentable weight.)
Regarding claim 9, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the passive measures are configured to manage incident response and provide dynamic routing. (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses that navigation control system 226 may be used to “determine how and when SA/AD vehicle 102 should respond to the alarm signal, e.g., whether to slow down or pull over to the side of a road or take other action [i.e., dynamic routing].” Also see at least ¶ 67)
Regarding claim 10, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 1, wherein:
the safety measures comprise incident prediction, rapid incident detection, and post-incident measures to prevent or alleviate harm and property damage caused by traffic incidents. (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses that “navigation control system 226 may receive an approximate location of an emergency vehicle and to control steering control module 228 to allow an emergency vehicle associated with the audio signal to pass SA/AD vehicle 102” such that “decision unit 220 may further work with navigation control system 226 to determine how and when SA/AD vehicle 102 should respond to the alarm signal, e.g., whether to slow down or pull over to the side of a road or take other action. In some embodiments, decision unit 220 may determine that communications with an emergency vehicle should be initiated,” see ¶ 22, wherein the emergency vehicle is an “approaching emergency vehicle ... emitting an alarm and/or blinking lights,” see ¶ 3. Also see Fig. 1. The Examiner further notes that this limitation appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “to prevent or alleviate harm”) and is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and is therefore not given patentable weight.)
Regarding claim 11, Akotkar discloses the vehicle safety system (VSS) for autonomous driving, comprising:
an onboard unit (OBU); and (Akotkar in at least ¶ 18 “onboard computer 218”),
a roadside unit (RSU) network, (Akotkar ¶ 50 discloses that the onboard computer operates using communication circuitry of the vehicle, wherein the “communications circuitry of the vehicle 702 may communicate with the cloud 705 via wireless access node 703,” the wireless access node being an RSU, see ¶ 51)
wherein an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprises said OBU (Akotkar in at least ¶ 18); and wherein the OBU comprises:
a communication module configured to communicate with one or more of- (a) a roadside unit (RSU) network; (b) another OBU;(c) a cloud platform; (d) a traffic control center/traffic control unit (TCC/TCU); or (e) a traffic operations center (TOC);a vehicle sensing module configured to collect and/or provide information describing the driving environment; (Akotkar ¶ 50 discloses that the onboard computer operates using communication circuitry of the vehicle, wherein the “communications circuitry of the vehicle 702 may communicate with the cloud 705 via wireless access node 703,” the wireless access node being an RSU, see ¶ 51)
a control module configured to execute control instructions for driving tasks; and (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses controlling “a steering control module 228 [i.e., a control module] to assist in controlling particular driving elements 209 to guide SA/AD vehicle 102,” also see Fig. 2)
an OBU safety subsystem configured to perform safety measure tasks comprising proactive safety measures, active safety measures, and passive safety measures; and (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses that “navigation control system 226 may receive an approximate location of an emergency vehicle and to control steering control module 228 to allow an emergency vehicle associated with the audio signal to pass SA/AD vehicle 102” such that “decision unit 220 may further work with navigation control system 226 to determine how and when SA/AD vehicle 102 should respond to the alarm signal, e.g., whether to slow down or pull over to the side of a road or take other action. In some embodiments, decision unit 220 may determine that communications with an emergency vehicle should be initiated,” see ¶ 22, wherein the emergency vehicle is an “approaching emergency vehicle ... emitting an alarm and/or blinking lights,” see ¶ 3. Also see Fig. 1.)
Akotkar does not expressly disclose:
wherein an RSU of the RSU network comprises a sensing module configured to measure characteristics of the driving environment;
a communication module configured to communicate with vehicles, TCUs, and the cloud platform;
a data processing module configured to process, fuse, and compute data from the sensing and/or communication modules;
a RSU safety subsystem configured to perform safety measure tasks comprising proactive safety measures, active safety measures, and passive safety measures.
However, Aoude discloses:
wherein an RSU of the RSU network comprises a sensing module configured to measure characteristics of the driving environment; (Aoude ¶ 62 discloses that “Roadside Equipment (RSE) 10 that includes or makes use of sensors 12 to monitor, track, detect, and predict motion (such as speed, heading, and position), behavior (e.g., high speed), and intent (e.g., will violate the stop sign) of ground transportation entities 14”)
a communication module configured to communicate with vehicles, TCUs, and the cloud platform; (Aoude in at least ¶ 74 discloses that the RSEs access data storage servers which include “cloud storage,” and wherein the RSE may generate an alert message of a dangerous situation and broadcast it to receiving vehicles, see ¶ 130. Also see Fig. 1 depicting the RSE 10 to communicate with traffic light controller 26)
a data processing module configured to process, fuse, and compute data from the sensing and/or communication modules; (Aoude ¶ 86 discloses sensor controllers 107 that perform sensor fusion of aggregate data from two or more sensors 101. Also see ¶ 105.)
a RSU safety subsystem configured to perform safety measure tasks comprising proactive safety measures, active safety measures, and passive safety measures. (Aoude ¶ 143 discloses that “Smart RSEs also rely on learning traffic patterns and entity behaviors to better predict and prevent dangerous situations and avoid collisions,” such as broadcasting a safety message for detected entities sand detecting violating entities in advance [i.e., a proactive safety measure], see at least ¶ 210,” generating an intersection collision avoidance warning [i.e., an active safety measure], see ¶ 143, and wherein the data is processed in real time [i.e., a passive safety measure].”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the OBU of Akotkar with the OBU being configured to perform prediction methods, comprising predicting vehicle behaviors based on data collected by said OBU and modifying a prediction according to environmental data collected and/or predicted by an RSU, as disclosed by Aoude, with reasonable expectation of success, to enhance other traffic hazard detection techniques using AI to achieve high accuracy and provide additional time to react and avoid a collision (Aoude ¶ 145), which further enables real time prediction of dangerous situations and therefore enables sending warnings early on to allow the entities enough time to react and avoid collisions (Aoude ¶ 161), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Akotkar discloses the VSS of claim 11, wherein:
the proactive safety measures of the RSU safety subsystem comprise preventive measures based on incident prediction and risk index estimation and are deployed prior to incident occurrence; the active safety measures of the RSU safety subsystem comprise rapid incident detection and are deployed before harms to humans and/or property occur; and/or the passive safety measures of the RSU safety subsystem comprise post-incident measures to alleviate further harms and losses. (Akotkar ¶ 83 discloses receiving a location of “an approaching emergency vehicle and to control the steering module to drive the SA/AD vehicle to allow the approaching emergency vehicle to pass the SA/AD vehicle,” such that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that driving the vehicle to allow the emergency vehicle to pass, such as controlling the vehicle to “slow down or pull over to the side of a road” is a preventative measure, see ¶ 22. Also see Fig. 1 depicting the proactive measure based on the incident prediction and risk estimation, see corresponding ¶¶ 16 and 22.)
Regarding claim 16, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. Akotkar in combination with Aoude further discloses:
a cloud subsystem, (Akotkar ¶ 20 and Fig. 7 “cloud 705”)
wherein the cloud subsystem comprises: a communication module configured to communicate with OBUs, vehicles, users, and/or infrastructure; and (Akotkar Fig. 7 depicts the cloud subsystem communicating with the vehicle 702 and infrastructure 703)
an OBU-vehicle end subsystem configured to provide navigation, guidance, and control through a vehicle-based cloud service; (Akotkar ¶ 45 dislocses “a decision unit, e.g., decision unit 220, may communicate with cloud 705 for assistance in determining a course of action to respond to an alarm signal.”)
a cloud safety subsystem configured to perform safety measure tasks comprising proactive safety measures, active safety measures, and passive safety measures. (Akotkar ¶ 21 discloses that “navigation control system 226 may receive an approximate location of an emergency vehicle and to control steering control module 228 to allow an emergency vehicle associated with the audio signal to pass SA/AD vehicle 102” such that “decision unit 220 may further work with navigation control system 226 to determine how and when SA/AD vehicle 102 should respond to the alarm signal, e.g., whether to slow down or pull over to the side of a road or take other action. In some embodiments, decision unit 220 may determine that communications with an emergency vehicle should be initiated,” see ¶ 22, wherein the emergency vehicle is an “approaching emergency vehicle ... emitting an alarm and/or blinking lights,” see ¶ 3. The decision unit 220 communicates with cloud 705 for assistance in determining a course of action, see ¶ 45 and Fig. 7.)
Regarding claim 17, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude, discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. Also see Akotkar in at least ¶ 45 and Fig. 7 (A decision unit 220 on board the vehicle, see Fig. 2, communicates with cloud 705 for assistance in determining a course of action, see ¶ 45 and Fig. 7.)
Regarding claim 18, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude,, discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. Also see Akotkar in at least ¶ 45 and Fig. 7 (A decision unit 220 on board the vehicle, see Fig. 2, communicates with cloud 705 for assistance in determining a course of action, see ¶ 45 and Fig. 7.)
Regarding claim 19, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude, discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. Also see Akotkar in at least ¶ 45 and Fig. 7 (A decision unit 220 on board the vehicle, see Fig. 2, communicates with cloud 705 for assistance in determining a course of action, see ¶ 45 and Fig. 7.)
Regarding claim 20, Akotkar taken alone or in combination with Aoude, discloses the VSS of claim 16, wherein:
the proactive safety measures of the cloud safety subsystem comprise preventive measures based on incident prediction and risk index estimation and are deployed prior to incident occurrence; the active safety measures of the cloud safety subsystem comprise rapid incident detection and are deployed before harms to humans and/or property occur; and/or the passive safety measures of the cloud safety subsystem comprise post-incident measures to alleviate further harms and losses. (Akotkar ¶ 83 discloses receiving a location of “an approaching emergency vehicle and to control the steering module to drive the SA/AD vehicle to allow the approaching emergency vehicle to pass the SA/AD vehicle,” such that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that driving the vehicle to allow the emergency vehicle to pass, such as controlling the vehicle to “slow down or pull over to the side of a road” is a preventative measure, see ¶ 22. Also see Fig. 1 depicting the proactive measure based on the incident prediction and risk estimation, see corresponding ¶¶ 16 and 22.)
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights