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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/19/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive and the Examiner relies upon newly cited reference Urmson et al (US 8,954,252 B1).
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/19/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and persuasive and thus withdrawn of the 101 claim rejections.
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 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.
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 1-2, 4-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Gordon et al (US 2018/0190042 A1) in further view of Urmson et al (US 8,954,252 B1), (hereinafter Urmson).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a vehicle operating in an autonomous or a semi-autonomous mode, comprising: a vehicle computing system, the vehicle computing system comprising: one or more processors; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising (see Gordon abstract and paras “0002”, “0015-0016” and “0020”),
(a) obtaining data indicating that the vehicle is implementing a vehicle stop maneuver in the autonomous or the semi-autonomous mode (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the severity level (for the faulty SDV) is based on hazards posed by the faulty SDV itself, such as the faulty SDV about to come to a stop (the faulty SDV imminently stopping), how much danger is posed to other vehicles by the faulty SDV being disabled on the roadway” and “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed” regarding determining if the self driving vehicle will stop and based on that the stop maneuver it will determine the severity level of faulty SDV based on the type of hazard the faulty SDV poses to other vehicles in order to determine whether to deploy warning lights or flares or not),
(b) determining whether one or more warning devices should be activated (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed. However, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is having a heart attack (as detected by biometric sensors within the cabin of the faulty SDV), then one or more road safety flares will be deployed around the faulty SDV.”),
and (c) based on determining that the one or more warning devices should be activated, providing one or more signals to initiate a modification of a light blink pattern of existing lights of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0046” and “0098” “With respect to the feature of 4) providing any other inputs needed to safely control the movement of the SDV 202, such inputs include, but are not limited to, control signals to activate a horn, turning indicators, flashing emergency lights, etc. on the SDV 202.”).
Gordon teaches when the vehicles tend to stop after detecting failure (see Gordon at least paras “0087-0088” and “0097”), but Gordon fails to explicitly teach wherein the data indicating that the vehicle is implementing the vehicle stop maneuver comprises a stop motion plan, the stop motion plan determined by a motion planning system of the vehicle.
However, Urmson teaches wherein the data indicating that the vehicle is implementing the vehicle stop maneuver comprises a stop motion plan, the stop motion plan determined by a motion planning system of the vehicle (see Urmson col 2, lines 48-60 and col 12, lines 33-48 “The vehicle includes a processor configured. The processor is configured to maneuver, without continuous input from a driver, the vehicle along a route including a roadway; receive sensor data about the vehicle's environment collected by sensors associated with the vehicle; identify an object in the vehicle's environment from the sensor data; select a plan of action for responding to the object, wherein the plan of action includes one of stopping the vehicle and yielding to the object, slowing the vehicle down and yielding to the object, or continuing along the route without change; and provide, without specific initiating input from the driver, a notification to the object indicative of the selected plan of action” and “The vehicle may then both act on the plan of action and provide a notification to the pedestrian indicating the selected plan of action (yield, stop, or continue). For example, computer 110 may control the braking system 180, acceleration system 182, steering system 184, etc. in order to maneuver vehicle 101 according to the selected plan of action”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the Self-driving vehicle road safety flare deploying system of Gordon to select a plan of action for responding to the object, wherein the plan of action includes one of stopping the vehicle as taught by Urmson, (col 2, lines 48-60 and col 12, lines 33-48) in order to stop the vehicle safely to the side of the road.
Regarding claim 2, Gordon teaches wherein the existing lights of the vehicle comprise at least one of: (i) hazard lights or (ii) brake lights of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0046” and “0098” “With respect to the feature of 4) providing any other inputs needed to safely control the movement of the SDV 202, such inputs include, but are not limited to, control signals to activate a horn, turning indicators, flashing emergency lights, etc. on the SDV 202.”).
Regarding claim 4, Gordon teaches wherein the implementation of the vehicle stop maneuver is based on a detected fault of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed. However, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is having a heart attack (as detected by biometric sensors within the cabin of the faulty SDV), then one or more road safety flares will be deployed around the faulty SDV.”).
Regarding claim 5, Gordon teaches wherein the implementation of the vehicle stop maneuver is based on a detected fault of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the severity level (for the faulty SDV) is based on hazards posed by the faulty SDV itself, such as the faulty SDV about to come to a stop (the faulty SDV imminently stopping), how much danger is posed to other vehicles by the faulty SDV being disabled on the roadway… what types of hazards (fire, explosion, traffic blockage) will be caused by an engine malfunction in the faulty SDV, a radiator malfunction in the faulty SDV, an electrical malfunction in the faulty SDV, a flat tire on the faulty SDV, and/or an accident involving the faulty SDV, etc.”).
Regarding claim 6, Gordon teaches wherein the operations further comprise: (d) communicating, to a remote computing system, data indicating the vehicle stopped (see Gordon paras “0033-0035” and “0051-0052” “one or more of the road safety flares 226 are deployed directly from the faulty SDV 202 (i.e., are dropped onto the driving surface 204 as the faulty SDV 202 rolls to a stop)” and “the aerial drone 200 and/or the faulty SDV 202 are under the control of a remote SDV/drone controller system 201, which is able to communicate (e.g., via wireless transmissions) to the aerial drone 200 and/or faulty SDV 202.”).
Regarding claim 7, Gordon teaches wherein the remote computing system is a cloud-based server system. (see Gordon at least paras “0026” and “0101-0104”).
Regarding claim 8, Gordon teaches wherein (b) comprises determining whether the one or more warning devices should be activated based on a vehicle motion parameter (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “The flare deployment may further be precisely timed to provide a determined spacing between the flare and the vehicle upon stopping. The spacing may be a function of 1) road conditions, 2) road curvature, 3) average speed of vehicles on road, 4) weather, 5) time of day, 6) traffic conditions, etc. Multiple flares may be deployed during the breakdown in order to form a particular alerting visual pattern for approaching vehicles (such as a curved pattern to move vehicles away from the stopped faulty SDV). Movements of the faulty SDV prior to breakdown can be coordinated for proper flare placement. Flares may be mobile and their position adjusted in order to optimize their position after deployment.”).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon teaches wherein the vehicle motion parameter comprises at least one of: (i) a speed or (ii) an acceleration (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “The flare deployment may further be precisely timed to provide a determined spacing between the flare and the vehicle upon stopping. The spacing may be a function of 1) road conditions, 2) road curvature, 3) average speed of vehicles on road, 4) weather, 5) time of day, 6) traffic conditions, etc. Multiple flares may be deployed during the breakdown in order to form a particular alerting visual pattern for approaching vehicles (such as a curved pattern to move vehicles away from the stopped faulty SDV). Movements of the faulty SDV prior to breakdown can be coordinated for proper flare placement. Flares may be mobile and their position adjusted in order to optimize their position after deployment”).
Regarding claim 10, Gordon teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling operation of a vehicle operating in an autonomous or a semi-autonomous mode, comprising: (see Gordon abstract and paras “0002”, “0015-0016” and “0020”),
(a) obtaining data indicating that the vehicle is implementing a vehicle stop maneuver in the autonomous or the semi- autonomous mode (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the severity level (for the faulty SDV) is based on hazards posed by the faulty SDV itself, such as the faulty SDV about to come to a stop (the faulty SDV imminently stopping), how much danger is posed to other vehicles by the faulty SDV being disabled on the roadway” and “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed” regarding determining if the self driving vehicle will stop and based on that the stop maneuver it will determine the severity level of faulty SDV based on the type of hazard the faulty SDV poses to other vehicles in order to determine whether to deploy warning lights or flares or not),
(b) determining whether one or more warning devices should be activated (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed. However, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is having a heart attack (as detected by biometric sensors within the cabin of the faulty SDV), then one or more road safety flares will be deployed around the faulty SDV.”),
(c) based on determining that the one or more warning devices should be activated, providing one or more signals to initiate a modification of a light blink pattern of existing lights of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0046” and “0098” “With respect to the feature of 4) providing any other inputs needed to safely control the movement of the SDV 202, such inputs include, but are not limited to, control signals to activate a horn, turning indicators, flashing emergency lights, etc. on the SDV 202.”).
Gordon teaches when the vehicles tend to stop after detecting failure (see Gordon at least paras “0087-0088” and “0097”), but Gordon fails to explicitly teach wherein the data indicating that the vehicle is implementing the vehicle stop maneuver comprises a stop motion plan, the stop motion plan determined by a motion planning system of the vehicle.
However, Urmson teaches wherein the data indicating that the vehicle is implementing the vehicle stop maneuver comprises a stop motion plan, the stop motion plan determined by a motion planning system of the vehicle (see Urmson col 2, lines 48-60 and col 12, lines 33-48 “The vehicle includes a processor configured. The processor is configured to maneuver, without continuous input from a driver, the vehicle along a route including a roadway; receive sensor data about the vehicle's environment collected by sensors associated with the vehicle; identify an object in the vehicle's environment from the sensor data; select a plan of action for responding to the object, wherein the plan of action includes one of stopping the vehicle and yielding to the object, slowing the vehicle down and yielding to the object, or continuing along the route without change; and provide, without specific initiating input from the driver, a notification to the object indicative of the selected plan of action” and “The vehicle may then both act on the plan of action and provide a notification to the pedestrian indicating the selected plan of action (yield, stop, or continue). For example, computer 110 may control the braking system 180, acceleration system 182, steering system 184, etc. in order to maneuver vehicle 101 according to the selected plan of action”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the Self-driving vehicle road safety flare deploying system of Gordon to select a plan of action for responding to the object, wherein the plan of action includes one of stopping the vehicle as taught by Urmson, (col 2, lines 48-60 and col 12, lines 33-48) in order to stop the vehicle safely to the side of the road.
Regarding claim 11, Gordon teaches wherein the existing lights of the vehicle comprise at least one of: (i) hazard lights or (ii) brake lights of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0046” and “0098” “With respect to the feature of 4) providing any other inputs needed to safely control the movement of the SDV 202, such inputs include, but are not limited to, control signals to activate a horn, turning indicators, flashing emergency lights, etc. on the SDV 202.”).
Regarding claim 13, Gordon teaches wherein (b) comprises determining whether the one or more warning devices should be activated based on a vehicle parameter, the vehicle parameter comprising at least one of: (i) a speed of the vehicle, (ii) an acceleration of the vehicle, (iii) a fuel level of the vehicle,(iv) a charge level of the vehicle,(v) engine conditions of the vehicle, (vi) a tire pressure of one or more tires of the vehicle, or (vii) a level of data storage of the vehicle computing system (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “The flare deployment may further be precisely timed to provide a determined spacing between the flare and the vehicle upon stopping. The spacing may be a function of 1) road conditions, 2) road curvature, 3) average speed of vehicles on road, 4) weather, 5) time of day, 6) traffic conditions, etc. Multiple flares may be deployed during the breakdown in order to form a particular alerting visual pattern for approaching vehicles (such as a curved pattern to move vehicles away from the stopped faulty SDV). Movements of the faulty SDV prior to breakdown can be coordinated for proper flare placement. Flares may be mobile and their position adjusted in order to optimize their position after deployment.”).
Regarding claim 14, Gordon teaches wherein (b) comprises determining whether the one or more warning devices should be activated based on a vehicle parameter, the vehicle parameter comprising at least one of:(i) a speed of the vehicle,(ii) an acceleration of the vehicle,(iii) a fuel level of the vehicle,(iv) a charge level of the vehicle,(v) engine conditions of the vehicle,(vi) a tire pressure of one or more tires of the vehicle, or (vii) a level of data storage of the vehicle computing system (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “The flare deployment may further be precisely timed to provide a determined spacing between the flare and the vehicle upon stopping. The spacing may be a function of 1) road conditions, 2) road curvature, 3) average speed of vehicles on road, 4) weather, 5) time of day, 6) traffic conditions, etc. Multiple flares may be deployed during the breakdown in order to form a particular alerting visual pattern for approaching vehicles (such as a curved pattern to move vehicles away from the stopped faulty SDV). Movements of the faulty SDV prior to breakdown can be coordinated for proper flare placement. Flares may be mobile and their position adjusted in order to optimize their position after deployment”).
Regarding claim 16, Gordon teaches a vehicle computing system for controlling operation of a vehicle operating in an autonomous or a semi-autonomous mode, comprising: one or more processors; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: (see Gordon abstract and paras “0002”, “0015-0016” and “0020”),
(a) obtaining data indicating that the vehicle is implementing a vehicle stop maneuver in the autonomous or the semi-autonomous mode (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the severity level (for the faulty SDV) is based on hazards posed by the faulty SDV itself, such as the faulty SDV about to come to a stop (the faulty SDV imminently stopping), how much danger is posed to other vehicles by the faulty SDV being disabled on the roadway” and “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed” regarding determining if the self driving vehicle will stop and based on that the stop maneuver it will determine the severity level of faulty SDV based on the type of hazard the faulty SDV poses to other vehicles in order to determine whether to deploy warning lights or flares or not),
(b) determining whether one or more warning devices should be activated (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the system will determine how much danger occupants of the faulty SDV are in, and use this information to determine if and how to deploy the road safety flare. That is, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is merely stopping briefly on the side of the road (e.g., to make a phone call while parked), then no road safety flares are needed. However, if the occupant of the faulty SDV is having a heart attack (as detected by biometric sensors within the cabin of the faulty SDV), then one or more road safety flares will be deployed around the faulty SDV.”),
and (c) based on determining that the one or more warning devices should be activated, providing one or more signals to initiate a modification of a light blink pattern of existing lights of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0046” and “0098” “With respect to the feature of 4) providing any other inputs needed to safely control the movement of the SDV 202, such inputs include, but are not limited to, control signals to activate a horn, turning indicators, flashing emergency lights, etc. on the SDV 202.”).
Gordon teaches when the vehicles tend to stop after detecting failure (see Gordon at least paras “0087-0088” and “0097”), but Gordon fails to explicitly teach wherein the data indicating that the vehicle is implementing the vehicle stop maneuver comprises a stop motion plan, the stop motion plan determined by a motion planning system of the vehicle.
However, Urmson teaches wherein the data indicating that the vehicle is implementing the vehicle stop maneuver comprises a stop motion plan, the stop motion plan determined by a motion planning system of the vehicle (see Urmson col 2, lines 48-60 and col 12, lines 33-48 “The vehicle includes a processor configured. The processor is configured to maneuver, without continuous input from a driver, the vehicle along a route including a roadway; receive sensor data about the vehicle's environment collected by sensors associated with the vehicle; identify an object in the vehicle's environment from the sensor data; select a plan of action for responding to the object, wherein the plan of action includes one of stopping the vehicle and yielding to the object, slowing the vehicle down and yielding to the object, or continuing along the route without change; and provide, without specific initiating input from the driver, a notification to the object indicative of the selected plan of action” and “The vehicle may then both act on the plan of action and provide a notification to the pedestrian indicating the selected plan of action (yield, stop, or continue). For example, computer 110 may control the braking system 180, acceleration system 182, steering system 184, etc. in order to maneuver vehicle 101 according to the selected plan of action”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the Self-driving vehicle road safety flare deploying system of Gordon to select a plan of action for responding to the object, wherein the plan of action includes one of stopping the vehicle as taught by Urmson, (col 2, lines 48-60 and col 12, lines 33-48) in order to stop the vehicle safely to the side of the road.
Regarding claim 17, Gordon teaches wherein the existing lights of the vehicle comprise at least one of: (i) hazard lights or (ii) brake lights of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0046” and “0098” “With respect to the feature of 4) providing any other inputs needed to safely control the movement of the SDV 202, such inputs include, but are not limited to, control signals to activate a horn, turning indicators, flashing emergency lights, etc. on the SDV 202.”).
Regarding claim 19, Gordon teaches wherein the implementation of the vehicle stop maneuver is based on a detected fault of the vehicle (see Gordon paras “0087-0088” and “0097” “the severity level (for the faulty SDV) is based on hazards posed by the faulty SDV itself, such as the faulty SDV about to come to a stop (the faulty SDV imminently stopping), how much danger is posed to other vehicles by the faulty SDV being disabled on the roadway… what types of hazards (fire, explosion, traffic blockage) will be caused by an engine malfunction in the faulty SDV, a radiator malfunction in the faulty SDV, an electrical malfunction in the faulty SDV, a flat tire on the faulty SDV, and/or an accident involving the faulty SDV, etc.”).
Regarding claim 20, Gordon teaches wherein the operations further comprise:(d) communicating, to a remote computing system, data indicating the vehicle stopped. (see Gordon paras “0033-0035” and “0051-0052” “one or more of the road safety flares 226 are deployed directly from the faulty SDV 202 (i.e., are dropped onto the driving surface 204 as the faulty SDV 202 rolls to a stop)” and “the aerial drone 200 and/or the faulty SDV 202 are under the control of a remote SDV/drone controller system 201, which is able to communicate (e.g., via wireless transmissions) to the aerial drone 200 and/or faulty SDV 202.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Gordon et al (US 2018/0190042 A1) in further view of Urmson et al (US 8,954,252 B1), (hereinafter Urmson) as applied above to claim 10, in further view of Kanerva (US 2016/0060822 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Gordon fails to explicitly teach wherein the vehicle comprises a tractor trailer truck.
However, Kanerva teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a tractor trailer truck (see Kanerva paragraph “0020” regarding deploying a flash light that is attached physically to the roof of the tractor and also to the roof of the trailer to warn other motorists behind the tractor “The vehicle may optionally include rotating beacons P (i.e. one flashing light on the roof of the tractor and one flashing light on the roof of the trailer). The rotating beacons warn other motorists of the presence of the stopped repair vehicle.”).
Basically, Gordon teaches that the autonomous vehicle deploys road safety flares that can be physically connected to the self-driving vehicle by magnets to keep the flares from rolling away on the ground, but Gordon fails to teach the specific type of the vehicle which is the “truck”. However, Kanerva teaches a truck that deploys a beacon (e.g. flashing lights) that is physically connected to the roof of the tractor to warn other drivers behind the tractor. it would still be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gordon's concept of deploying safety flares that sticks on a vehicle through magnets with Kanerva's teaching of a truck that has a beacon attached to the tractor portion of the truck that flashes light to optimize visibility and provide warning to other vehicles because a person behind or vehicles behind would be able to detect that the own vehicle is stopping and be able to react accordingly to avoid any crash.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights