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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 12-16, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “The non-transitory computer-readable medium” to read --The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium--, as claim 11, from which claims 12-16 depend, recites “At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16-20, 22-26, 28-36, 38-42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US PGPub. No. 2013/0154853).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Chen discloses a first computing device [200] of a first vehicle [102B], comprising:
network interface circuitry [202, 204] configured to communicate information to a second computing device [200] of a second vehicle [102C] (Figures 1 and 2; ¶0038); and
one or more processors [208] configured to:
identify hazard information indicative of one or more road hazards detected by the first vehicle, the hazard information indicating that the first vehicle represents a hazard to other vehicles sharing an environment with the first vehicle (¶0028-0029, ¶0086, ¶0089; Examiner notes that Chen discusses triggering generation of a warning message for broadcast to other vehicles when conditions of a source vehicle (i.e. ego vehicle) indicate a hazard, whether external hazards or hazards associated with the source vehicle itself, and further discusses that the presence of hazard lights is indicative of a hazard and that a component failure of the vehicle may trigger generation and broadcast of the warning message.);
transmit an alert message to the second computing device of the second vehicle, the alert message being indicative of the one or more road hazards (¶0024, ¶0028, ¶0050); and
cause display of the alert message based upon a distance between the one or more road hazards and the second vehicle on the second vehicle (¶0062-0063, ¶0065-0066).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 18, Chen discloses the first computing device of claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively, wherein the hazard information is indicative of vehicle hazard warning lights (¶0029, ¶0086, ¶0089).
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 19, Chen discloses the first computing device of claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively, wherein the alert message is transmitted to the second computing device during a time interval comprising a time elapsed from when the one or more road hazards were detected by the first vehicle (¶0028-0029, ¶0086, ¶0089; Examiner notes that Chen describes generating and broadcasting a warning message after a hazard is observed, which represents a transmission “during a time interval comprising a time elapsed from when the one or more road hazards were detected by the first vehicle.”).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 20, Chen discloses the first computing device of claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively, wherein the hazard information is indicative of the first vehicle slowing to a predetermined speed (¶0062, ¶0073; Examiner notes a stopped vehicle indicates a vehicle slowing to a predetermined speed).
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 22, Chen discloses the first computing device of claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively, wherein the hazard information is indicative of the first vehicle having a mechanical failure (¶0029, ¶0050, ¶0086, ¶0089).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the first computing device of claim 1, wherein the first computing device is integrated as part of the first vehicle (¶0038).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the first computing device of claim 1, further comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) chip [200] comprising the one or more processors and the network interface circuitry (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the first computing device of claim 8, wherein the IC further comprises a memory [210] configured to store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors, to cause the first vehicle to identify the hazard information, transmit the alert message, and cause display of the alert message (¶0043, ¶0049, ¶0076, ¶0091-0092).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the first computing device of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) system (¶0066).
Regarding claims 23, 33, and 39, a first computing device [200] of a first vehicle [102C], comprising:
network interface circuitry [202, 204] configured to receive information from a second computing device [200] of a second vehicle [102B] (Figures 1 and 2; ¶0038); and
one or more processors [208] configured to:
receive hazard information indicative of one or more road hazards detected by the second vehicle, the hazard information indicating that the second vehicle represents a hazard to other vehicles sharing an environment with the first vehicle (¶0028-0029, ¶0086, ¶0089; Examiner notes that Chen discusses triggering generation of a warning message for broadcast to other vehicles when conditions of a source vehicle (i.e. ego vehicle) indicate a hazard, whether external hazards or hazards associated with the source vehicle itself, and further discusses that the presence of hazard lights is indicative of a hazard and that a component failure of the vehicle may trigger generation and broadcast of the warning message.); and
receive an alert message from the second vehicle, the alert message being indicative of the one or more road hazards and being selectively presented at the first vehicle based upon a distance between the one or more road hazards and the first vehicle (¶0024, ¶0028, ¶0050, ¶0062-0063, ¶0065-0066).
Regarding claims 24, 34, and 40, the first computing device of claims 23, 33, and 39, respectively, wherein the hazard information is based upon the second vehicle using hazard warning lights (¶0029, ¶0086, ¶0089).
Regarding claims 25, 35, and 41, the first computing device of claims 23, 33, and 39, respectively, wherein the alert message is received during a time interval comprising a time elapsed from when the one or more road hazards were detected by the second vehicle (¶0028-0029, ¶0086, ¶0089; Examiner notes that Chen describes generating and broadcasting a warning message after a hazard is observed, which represents a transmission “during a time interval comprising a time elapsed from when the one or more road hazards were detected by the first vehicle.”).
Regarding claims 26, 36, and 42, the first computing device of claims 23, 33, and 39, respectively, wherein the hazard information is based upon the second vehicle slowing to a predetermined speed (¶0062, ¶0073; Examiner notes a stopped vehicle indicates a vehicle slowing to a predetermined speed).
Regarding claims 28, 38, and 44, the first computing device of claims 23, 33, and 39, respectively, wherein the hazard information is based upon the second vehicle having a mechanical failure (¶0029, ¶0050, ¶0086, ¶0089).
Regarding claim 29, the first computing device of claim 23, wherein the first computing device is integrated as part of the first vehicle (¶0038).
Regarding claim 30, the first computing device of claim 23, further comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) chip [200] comprising the one or more processors and the network interface circuitry (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 31, the first computing device of claim 30, wherein the IC further comprises a memory [210] configured to store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors, to cause the first vehicle to receive the hazard information, receive the alert message, and selectively present the alert message (¶0043, ¶0049, ¶0076, ¶0091-0092).
Regarding claim 32, the first computing device of claim 23, wherein the first computing device comprises an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) system (¶0066).
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(s) 5, 15, 21, 27, 37, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1, 11, 17, 27, 37, and 43 above, respectively, and further in view of Stählin et al. (US PGPub. No. 2010/0267379).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 21, Chen discloses the first computing device of claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively (Chen Figures 1 and 2; ¶0024, ¶0028-0029, ¶0038, ¶0050, ¶0062-0063, ¶0065-0066, ¶0086, ¶0089), but appears to be silent on the first computing device further wherein the hazard information is indicative of the first vehicle being at a predetermined type of a road location.
Stählin, however, teaches a communication device, system and method relating to vehicle information being transmitted to other vehicles by virtue of a vehicle using a cellular network to send to a server which then transmits said information via the network to particular, selected vehicles which have a continual communication link to the server. The intervals of time for such transmissions match the dynamics of the relevant events, so that the data traffic can be minimized (Stählin Abstract). Stählin further teaches transmitting hazardous event information to other vehicles, where events can include where a detected vehicle speed is significantly below the speed limit for the current road section (Stählin ¶0067-0071). Examiner notes that a speed limit for a current road section represents a type of “predetermined type of a road location” which the hazard information is indicative of. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Chen in view of Stählin. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Chen, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the hazard information is indicative of the first vehicle being at a predetermined type of a road location, as doing so was a known hazardous condition worth relaying to approaching vehicles to increase safety, as recognized by Stählin (Stählin ¶0067-0071).
Regarding claims 27, 37, and 43, Chen in view of Stählin teaches the first computing device of claims 23, 33, and 39, respectively (Chen Figures 1 and 2; ¶0024, ¶0028-0029, ¶0038, ¶0050, ¶0062-0063, ¶0065-0066, ¶0086, ¶0089), wherein the hazard information is based upon the second vehicle being at a predetermined type of a road location (Stählin ¶0067-0071), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 5, 15, and 21, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights