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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Independent claim 12 recites a method which is in the process category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of one or more of the process steps in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as a sensor assembly. The steps may be described as mere data reception and/or data transmission activities, in conjunction with one or more mental processes, which comprise one or more abstract ideas.
But for the recitation of a sensor assembly, the step of sensing an environment exterior to and around the motorized vehicle with a sensor assembly may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to a person observing his environment around his motorized vehicle.
The step of receiving a signal from the sensor assembly regarding the environment corresponds to data reception or data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and can be understood as an activity that is incidental or tangential to the mental process. The step may be interpreted as the person receiving a distance or proximity signal from a sensor on his motor vehicle, such as an ultrasonic sensor, for example, regarding a distance to an object, pedestrian, or another motor vehicle that is detected.
The step of determining at least one of a speed or a position of an object in the environment relative to the motorized vehicle based on the received signal from the sensor assembly, may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person determining, in his mind, where the object, pedestrian, or another motor vehicle is located, for example.
The step of providing an output based on the determined at least one of the speed or the position of the object in the environment relative to the motorized vehicle could also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person reacting or responding to the location of the object, pedestrian, or another motor vehicle. Alternatively, the step could be interpreted as providing data related to the location of the object, pedestrian, or another motor vehicle. The data may be provided by way of data transmission using a computing device from the motorized vehicle. The data transmission may be interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) that is incidental or tangential to the mental process.
But for the recitation of the sensor assembly, the step of providing a notification to an external vehicle or to an operator of the external vehicle based on the output and the signal from the sensor assembly corresponds to post-solution data transmission activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and can be understood as an activity that is incidental or tangential to the mental process. The step can be interpreted as transmitting data such as a visual or audible alert to the external vehicle or operator of the external vehicle.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic component such as the sensor assembly does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 12. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 12 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a process). Claim 12 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include a determination, selection, estimation, identification, observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 12 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 12 the absence of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, such as the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present.
Since claim 12, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-21 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 12 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the dependent claims may include “generally linking” claims, such as in claim 19, which links the abstract idea presented in claim 12 to radar, lidar, and ultrasonic assemblies, such a claim adds nothing more than what is conventional and previously known to the industry and comprises nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Independent claim 2 recites “a comparator configured to compare a signal from the sensor assembly against a proximity threshold; and a notification generator configured to generate the notification to the external vehicle or the operator of the external vehicle if the signal satisfies the proximity threshold”. For example, the specification does not mention or disclose anything about a comparator, notification generator, or a proximity threshold, for example. Nor does the specification disclose anything about the comparator comparing a signal from a sensor assembly against a proximity threshold. Claim 2 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added.
Dependent claims 3-11 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 2. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph for the same reasons stated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 12 recites “providing an output based on the determined at least one of the speed or the position of the object in the environment relative to the motorized vehicle;”. It is unclear what is providing an output and what this output comprises. Furthermore, the claim fails to interrelate the term “output” to the other elements of the invention.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added.
Dependent claims 13-21 fail to resolve the deficiencies of independent claim 12. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons stated above.
Regarding claims 4, 17, and 20, it is unclear what is meant by “rate of speed”. The term “rate of speed” is indefinite because it fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the foregoing claims due to its technical ambiguity between speed and acceleration.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added.
For the sake of examination, the Examiner will strike-out the above-identified claimed language from the claims. The Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of the foregoing claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
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 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 2-9, 11-14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 2013/0311075).
Regarding claim 2, Tran teaches a motorized vehicle, comprising: a first wheel assembly mounted to a frame assembly to support the frame assembly near a front portion of the frame assembly; a second wheel assembly mounted to the frame assembly to support the frame assembly near a rear portion of the frame assembly; an engine supported by the frame assembly and configured to drive at least one of the first wheel assembly or the second wheel assembly; (see Tran at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts a motorcycle including a frame assembly supported by a first wheel assembly, a second wheel assembly, both mounted to the frame assembly, and an engine supported by the frame assembly.)
a sensor assembly including one or more sensor elements directed away from one or more of the first wheel assembly or the second wheel assembly, wherein the one or more sensor elements are configured to detect an object remote from the first wheel assembly or the second wheel assembly; (see Tran at [0019] which discloses that the sensors 14 can be one or more including but not limited to proximity sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors and cameras; see Tran at [0029] which discloses that if oncoming traffic is about to make a left turn from a stop the safety system 12 may be able to detect forward motion of the other vehicle 30 prior to motorcycle 10 operator by using a speed sensor for the motorcycle 10 and comparing it to the relative speed of the oncoming traffic detected with forward looking sensors 14 such as lidar, radar, and/or a camera. Examiner maps oncoming traffic and/or other vehicle to object remote from the first wheel assembly or the second wheel assembly.)
and a feedback system configured to provide a notification to an external vehicle or to an operator of the external vehicle, wherein the feedback system includes: [a comparator configured to compare a signal from the sensor assembly against a proximity threshold; and a notification generator configured to generate the notification to the external vehicle or the operator of the external vehicle if the signal satisfies the proximity threshold] (see Tran at [0021] which discloses that an external warning indicator 31 can be sent to the driver of the following vehicle, such as by flashing the rear turn signal/hazard lights 24 to gain the attention of the following driver and assist in distinguishing the motorcycle 10 from the surrounding environment; see Tran at [0022] which discloses that safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10; see Tran at [0029] which discloses that in addition to alerting the motorcycle 10 operator in these and other situations, the safety system 12 may be able to communicate and provide an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication; see Tran at [0030] which discloses that the electronic control unit 15 provides an indicator 20 that is capable of being sensed by at least one of an operator of the motorcycle 10, and/or an external indicator 31 that is capable of being sensed by a person in proximity to the motorcycle 10 when the at least one feature is above the first threshold 26 for safety awareness, step 52. Examiner maps safety system to the feedback system.).
Regarding claim 3, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the external vehicle is the object sensed by the sensor assembly (see Tran at [0029] which discloses that if oncoming traffic is about to make a left turn from a stop the safety system 12 may be able to detect forward motion of the other vehicle 30 prior to motorcycle 10 operator by using a speed sensor for the motorcycle 10 and comparing it to the relative speed of the oncoming traffic detected with forward looking sensors 14 such as lidar, radar, and/or a camera. Examiner maps other vehicle to the recited external vehicle.)
Regarding claim 4, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the [notification generator] is configured to generate the notification when the external vehicle is traveling [at a selected rate of speed] with respect to the motorized vehicle (see Tran at [0029] which discloses that if oncoming traffic is about to make a left turn from a stop the safety system 12 may be able to detect forward motion of the other vehicle 30 prior to motorcycle 10 operator by using a speed sensor for the motorcycle 10 and comparing it to the relative speed of the oncoming traffic detected with forward looking sensors 14 such as lidar, radar, and/or a camera and that in addition to alerting the motorcycle 10 operator in these and other situations the safety system 12 may be able to communicate and provide an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication.)
Regarding claim 5, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein [the notification generator] is configured to generate the notification when the external vehicle is determined to be a selected time away from the motorized vehicle (see Tran at [0021] which discloses that the sensors 14, e.g. the radar unit can constantly calculate whether a vehicle that is driving behind the motorcycle 10 has enough time to slow down so as to not hit the motorcycle 10 and that the driver can then be made aware of the situation with enough time to take evasive action. Examiner notes that enough time to slow down corresponds to being a selected time away from the motorized vehicle.)
Regarding claim 6, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the notification generator is configured to generate the notification when the external vehicle is determined to be a selected distance away from the motorized vehicle (see Tran at [0022], for example, which discloses that the safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10 and that this type of warning may also be useful when the safety system 12 detects that another vehicle 10 is following the motorcycle 10 at a closer distance than safety recommends at those speeds.)
Regarding claim 7, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the notification includes a flashing indicator light on the motorized vehicle (see Tran at [0022], for example, which discloses that the safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10 and that this type of warning may also be useful when the safety system 12 detects that another vehicle 10 is following the motorcycle 10 at a closer distance than safety recommends at those speeds.)
Regarding claim 8, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 7, wherein the notification includes flashing the flashing indicator light on the motorized vehicle a selected number of times at a selected frequency (see Tran at claim 4, which discloses wherein increasing the severity of the indicator further comprises increasing at least one of the number of warnings, the frequency of the warning and the intensity of the warnings. Examiner maps number of warnings to selected number of times. Examiner maps frequency of the warning to selected frequency.).
Regarding claim 9, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the feedback system is further configured to provide feedback to a rider of the motorized vehicle based on the signal from the sensor assembly (see Tran at [0019] which discloses that the safety system 12 can provide the operator of the motorcycle 10 assistance by providing blind spot detection, forward collision alert, rear collision alert, cross-traffic alert, merging-traffic alert, lane departure warning, traffic sign recognition and other operator assistance features and that the safety system 12 uses sensors 14 mounted on the motorcycle 10 to detect scenarios that could be hazardous to the motorcycle's riders and then warn both the operator of the motorcycle 10 and/or the driver of the nearby vehicle 30 which is involved in the mentioned hazardous scenario and that the sensors 14 can be one or more including but not limited to proximity sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors and cameras.)
Regarding claim 11, Tran teaches the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the sensor assembly is at least one of a radar assembly, a lidar assembly, an ultrasonic assembly, or combinations thereof (see Tran at [0019] which discloses that the sensors 14 can be one or more including but not limited to proximity sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors and cameras.)
Regarding claim 12, Tran teaches a method of providing a notification from a two-wheel or three-wheel wheeled motorized vehicle, comprising: sensing an environment exterior to and around the motorized vehicle with a sensor assembly; (see Tran at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts a motorcycle including a frame assembly supported by a first wheel assembly, a second wheel assembly, both mounted to the frame assembly, and an engine supported by the frame assembly; Examiner notes that the motorcycle maps the a two-wheel motorized vehicle. Also, see Tran at [0019] which discloses that the sensors 14 can be one or more including but not limited to proximity sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors and cameras.)
receiving a signal from the sensor assembly regarding the environment; (see Tran at [0026] which discloses that the safety system 12 for the motorcycle 10 comprises the at least one sensor 14 mounted to the motorcycle 10 to sense at least one feature 30 of the environment surrounding the motorcycle 10 and that the electronic control unit 15 is configured to receive a signal from the at least one sensor 14 with the at least one feature 30.)
determining at least one of a speed or a position of an object in the environment relative to the motorized vehicle based on the received signal from the sensor assembly; (see Tran at [0020] which discloses that using the sensors 14 mounted on the motorcycle 10 at least one object/feature 30 of an environment surrounding the motorcycle 10 may be sensed and provided to an electronic control unit (ECU) 15 for the safety system 12, i.e. lane markers can be used to provide lane departure warnings, a following vehicle speed may be detected to provide rear collision alert, etc.)
[providing an output based on the determined at least one of the speed or the position of the object in the environment relative to the motorized vehicle;] and providing a notification to an external vehicle or to an operator of the external vehicle based on the output and the signal from the sensor assembly (see Tran at [0021] which discloses that an external warning indicator 31 can be sent to the driver of the following vehicle, such as by flashing the rear turn signal/hazard lights 24 to gain the attention of the following driver and assist in distinguishing the motorcycle 10 from the surrounding environment; see Tran at [0022] which discloses that safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10; see Tran at [0029] which discloses that in addition to alerting the motorcycle 10 operator in these and other situations, the safety system 12 may be able to communicate and provide an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication; see Tran at [0030] which discloses that the electronic control unit 15 provides an indicator 20 that is capable of being sensed by at least one of an operator of the motorcycle 10, and/or an external indicator 31 that is capable of being sensed by a person in proximity to the motorcycle 10 when the at least one feature is above the first threshold 26 for safety awareness, step 52.).
Regarding claim 13, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, wherein providing the notification to the external vehicle includes providing the notification to the object in the environment (see Tran at [0029] which discloses that in addition to alerting the motorcycle 10 operator in these and other situations the safety system 12 may be able to communicate and provide an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication. Examiner maps motorcycle to vehicle communication that provides an external alert to wherein providing the notification to the external vehicle includes providing the notification to the object in the environment.)
Regarding claim 14, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, wherein providing the notification includes activating at least one of a speaker, a light, or combinations thereof (see Tran at [0022] which discloses that the safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10. Examiner maps one of the flashing lights to the recited light.)
Regarding claim 17, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, wherein providing the notification includes providing an indication that the motorized vehicle has detected that the external vehicle is approaching at a selected high [rate of speed], that the external vehicle is not slowing, or to indicate that the motorized vehicle is slowing to further enhance visibility to the operator of the external vehicle (see Tran at [0022] which discloses that the safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10 and that this type of warning may also be useful when the safety system 12 detects that another vehicle 10 is following the motorcycle 10 at a closer distance than safety recommends at those speeds.)
Regarding claim 18, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising providing feedback to a rider of the motorized vehicle based on the output and the signal from the sensor assembly (see Tran at [0019] which discloses that the safety system 12 can provide the operator of the motorcycle 10 assistance by providing blind spot detection, forward collision alert, rear collision alert, cross-traffic alert, merging-traffic alert, lane departure warning, traffic sign recognition and other operator assistance features, and that the safety system 12 uses sensors 14 mounted on the motorcycle 10 to detect scenarios that could be hazardous to the motorcycle's riders and then warn both the operator of the motorcycle 10 and/or the driver of the nearby vehicle 30 which is involved in the mentioned hazardous scenario.)
Regarding claim 19, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, wherein sensing the environment exterior to and around the motorized vehicle with the sensor assembly includes sensing the environment with at least one of a radar assembly, a lidar assembly, an ultrasonic assembly, or combinations thereof (see Tran at [0019] which discloses that the sensors 14 can be one or more including but not limited to proximity sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors and cameras.)
Regarding claim 20, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, wherein providing the notification includes providing the notification when the external vehicle is traveling at a selected [rate of speed] with respect to the motorized vehicle (see Tran at [0029] which discloses that if oncoming traffic is about to make a left turn from a stop the safety system 12 may be able to detect forward motion of the other vehicle 30 prior to motorcycle 10 operator by using a speed sensor for the motorcycle 10 and comparing it to the relative speed of the oncoming traffic detected with forward looking sensors 14 such as lidar, radar, and/or a camera and that in addition to alerting the motorcycle 10 operator in these and other situations the safety system 12 may be able to communicate and provide an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication.)
Regarding claim 21, Tran teaches the method of claim 12, wherein providing the notification includes providing the notification when the external vehicle is determined to be a selected distance away from the motorized vehicle (see Tran at [0022], for example, which discloses that the safety system 12 can also provide the external warning indicator 31 to the driver of the following vehicle 30 by means of flashing lights 24 mounted at the rear of the motorcycle 10 and that this type of warning may also be useful when the safety system 12 detects that another vehicle 10 is following the motorcycle 10 at a closer distance than safety recommends at those speeds.)
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 2013/0311075) in view of Patil et al. (US 2018/0053413).
Regarding claim 10, Tran at [0029], for example, teaches providing an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication. Tran does not expressly disclose the motorized vehicle of claim 2, wherein the external vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, which in a related art Patil teaches (see Patil at [0031] which discloses that in accordance with an embodiment, the wireless communication network 106 may be used for a vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication among the plurality of vehicles 102 and that the wireless communication network 106 may also be used for a vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication between one of the plurality of vehicles 102 and the RSU 12; see Patil at [0032] which discloses that the first vehicle 102a may be an autonomous vehicle that may operate in an autonomous mode, a semi-autonomous mode, or a manual mode.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran to include wherein the external vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Patil.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide vehicle to vehicle communication among a plurality of vehicles, as suggested by Patil at [0031].
Regarding claim 15, Tran at [0029], for example, teaches providing an external alert 31 to the other vehicles 30 providing a warning to operators of the presence of a motorcycle 10, such as by motorcycle 10 to vehicle 30 communication. Tran does not expressly disclose the method of claim 12, wherein providing the notification to the external vehicle includes providing the notification to an autonomous vehicle, which in a related art Patil teaches (see Patil at [0031] which discloses that in accordance with an embodiment, the wireless communication network 106 may be used for a vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication among the plurality of vehicles 102 and that the wireless communication network 106 may also be used for a vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication between one of the plurality of vehicles 102 and the RSU 12; see Patil at [0032] which discloses that the first vehicle 102a may be an autonomous vehicle that may operate in an autonomous mode, a semi-autonomous mode, or a manual mode.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran to include wherein providing the notification to the external vehicle includes providing the notification to an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Patil.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide vehicle to vehicle communication among a plurality of vehicles, as suggested by Patil at [0031].
Regarding claim 16, the modified Tran teaches the method of claim 15, wherein providing the notification includes providing a wireless digital communication to the autonomous vehicle (see Patil at [0031] which discloses that in accordance with an embodiment, the wireless communication network 106 may be used for a vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication among the plurality of vehicles 102. Examiner maps V2V communication to wireless digital communication.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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 on 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights