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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the processor in the first vehicle & the communicator in the first vehicle" in the middle of the claim statement. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Especially “a processor” & “a communicator” at the beginning of the claim statement is not clarified that those are located in the first vehicle.
Claims 3-4 recites the limitation "the processor in the second vehicle" in the middle of the claim statement. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Especially “a processor” at the beginning of the independent claim 1 cited, but not clarified the location whether it is on the first vehicle or on the second vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 and 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Suzuki et al., Pub. No. : US 20070046457 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al. discloses an emergency report system to be applied to a vehicle configured to establish vehicle-to- vehicle communication, the emergency report system ([0019] “An emergency notification apparatus 10”)comprising:
a processor ([0019] “a processing device 15”); and
a communicator configured to perform transmission and reception of report information, wherein the vehicle comprises a first vehicle configured to receive the report information ([0021] The communication device 12 receives and transmits various kinds of information through vehicle-to-vehicle communication with other vehicles and communication with a base station 1 having a wireless communication function., a vehicle state sensor 13, a navigation device 14), and
the processor in the first vehicle is configured to, when the communicator in the first vehicle starts receiving the report information, determine whether the first vehicle is stoppable, and when determining that the first vehicle is stoppable, execute vehicle stop control of stopping the first vehicle and keeping the first vehicle stopped until the reception of the report information is completed (As per the specification, “the stoppable” conditions are disclosed on several paragraphs with a number of means including; [0023] “The vehicle state sensor 13 with a velocity sensor … a position sensor that detects the present position and travel direction of the vehicle based on a positioning signal … acceleration sensor; a yaw rate sensor … a steering angle sensor” & [0038] “The emergency notification apparatus 10” & [0061] “the information controller 22 outputs a message notifying the occupant of the vehicle in the communicable area 1a bay way of the display of the navigation device 14 and/or from the speakers.” & [0062] “the information controller 22 determines whether or not the vehicle is in a stable condition” & [0063] “the information controller 22 orders the occupant to decelerate or stop when the vehicle is traveling, or to move and to brake when the vehicle is stopping via the navigation device 14” & [0066] “the information controller 22 outputs a message notifying the occupant of a communication state such as ongoing or completed in the display of the navigation device 14 and/or from the speakers, and terminates the process.” & [0087] “the information controller 22 orders the occupant to decelerate or stop when the vehicle is traveling, or to move and to brake when the vehicle is stopping via the navigation device 14” & Cited references indicates that the prior art capable of being flexible, to decide whether the vehicle is stoppable, to keep the vehicle in stopped condition or to start/move for travel… therefore there is no inventive steps on the claim elements.).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. discloses a vehicle comprising the emergency report system according to claim 1 ([0018] An emergency notification apparatus for a vehicle).
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.
Claims 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Suzuki et al., Pub. No. : US 20070046457 A1 in view of KUWAHARA`441, Pub. No.: US 20200262441 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. discloses the emergency report system according to claim 1.
Suzuki et al. is not explicit on “automatically stop the first vehicle in a place where the first vehicle is allowed to stop...”, however, KUWAHARA`441, US 20200262441 A1, teaches VEHICLE DRIVING CONTROL SYSTEM and discloses;
wherein the processor in the first vehicle is configured to, when the first vehicle is traveling in an automated driving mode, execute the vehicle stop control of automatically stop the first vehicle in a place where the first vehicle is allowed to stop and keeping the first vehicle stopped until the reception of the report information is completed ([0044]-[0046] & [0062} “the driving mode transition controller 101 instructs the driving controller 104 to stop the automatic driving, and also instructs the retreat mode controller 105 to perform retreat traveling in the retreat mode. The retreat mode is one of risk reduction modes during the automatic driving, and is a driving mode for searching a place (retreat place) such as a roadside belt where the vehicle can be stopped safely in the control state of the automatic driving until the time point when the takeover request is output, and causing the vehicle to travel to the retreat place. In the retreat mode, the retreat mode controller 105 normally disables the driver's override operation and disables the transition to the manual operation mode in order to ensure safety against an operation unintended by the driver.” & Th automatic vs manual driving mode transitions after the safely stopping the vehicle (keeping stopped until) may be executed.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by KUWAHARA`441 with the system disclosed by Suzuki et al. in order to provide a vehicle driving control system has an automatic driving mode that enables traveling without a driver's operation. The vehicle driving control system includes a driver monitor, a driver state determining unit & a retreat mode controller that controls a retreat mode that causes an own vehicle to travel for retreat to a place where the own vehicle can safely stop when it is determined, during traveling under the automatic driving mode. (see Abstract & para. [0005]-[0006]).
Further, Suzuki et al. discloses, and
when the first vehicle is not traveling in the automated driving mode, execute the vehicle stop control of issuing a notification that urges a driver who drives the first vehicle to stop the first vehicle and issuing a notification that urges the driver to keep the first vehicle stopped until the reception of the report information is completed ([0061], [0066], [0085], & [0093]-[0095] “the information controller 22 outputs a message notifying the occupant of the vehicle” … Notifying the occupant or “emergency notification apparatus” are at least capable of notifying the stop place, condition, and duration.
Regarding claim 8 , Suzuki et al. discloses a vehicle comprising the emergency report system according to claim 2 ([0018] An emergency notification apparatus for a vehicle).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Suzuki et al., Pub. No. : US 20070046457 A1 in view of ZHANG et al., Pub. No.: US 20220030408 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al. discloses the emergency report system according to claim 1.
Suzuki et al. is not explicit on “a second vehicle to transmit the report information … transmit a non-stop notification to the second vehicle”, however, ZHANG et al., US 20220030408 A1, teaches EMERGENCY CALL BASED ON VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE COMMUNICATION and discloses;
wherein the vehicle comprises a second vehicle configured to transmit the report information, the processor in the first vehicle is configured to, when determining that the first vehicle is not stoppable, transmit a non-stop notification to the second vehicle, and the processor in the second vehicle is configured to, when receiving the non-stop notification, reduce an amount of the report information to transmit (Explicitly discloses the claim elements: [0122] “Second vehicles 120, 130, and 140 on each of which a second communications device is mounted in the vicinity receive the emergency call message, perform a corresponding rescue action based on the accident level, and also send a rescue response message in a broadcast manner. … the first vehicle 100 and the second vehicles 110, 120, and 130 may also communicate with each other by using a DSRC technology, to replace LTE-V communication.” & see also para. [0150], [0156]-[0167] “second vehicle” and “audio/display/ call system”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by ZHANG et al. with the system disclosed by Suzuki et al. in order to provide a first vehicle, a second vehicle, a communications system, and a communications method. A second vehicle-to-vehicle communications unit receives an emergency call message, performs a rescue action in response to the emergency call message, and sends the rescue response message to the first vehicle through the second vehicle-to-vehicle communications unit (see Abstract & para. [0002], [0032]-[0033]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Suzuki et al., Pub. No. : US 20070046457 A1 in view of KUWAHARA`441, Pub. No.: US 20200262441 A1, further in view of ZHANG et al., Pub. No.: US 20220030408 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al. discloses the emergency report system according to claim 2.
Suzuki et al. is not explicit on “a second vehicle to transmit the report information … transmit a non-stop notification to the second vehicle”, however, ZHANG et al., US 20220030408 A1, teaches EMERGENCY CALL BASED ON VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE COMMUNICATION and discloses;
wherein the vehicle comprises a second vehicle configured to transmit the report information, the processor in the first vehicle is configured to, when determining that the first vehicle is not stoppable, transmit a non-stop notification to the second vehicle, and the processor in the second vehicle is configured to, when receiving the non-stop notification, reduce an amount of the report information to transmit (Explicitly discloses the claim elements: [0122] “Second vehicles 120, 130, and 140 on each of which a second communications device is mounted in the vicinity receive the emergency call message, perform a corresponding rescue action based on the accident level, and also send a rescue response message in a broadcast manner. … the first vehicle 100 and the second vehicles 110, 120, and 130 may also communicate with each other by using a DSRC technology, to replace LTE-V communication.” & see also para. [0150], [0156]-[0167] “second vehicle” and “audio/display/ call system”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by ZHANG et al. with the system disclosed by Suzuki et al. in order to provide a first vehicle, a second vehicle, a communications system, and a communications method. A second vehicle-to-vehicle communications unit receives an emergency call message, performs a rescue action in response to the emergency call message, and sends the rescue response message to the first vehicle through the second vehicle-to-vehicle communications unit (see Abstract & para. [0002], [0032]-[0033]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Suzuki et al., Pub. No. : US 20070046457 A1 in view of Rubin et al., Pub. No.: US 20170243485 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki et al. discloses the emergency report system according to claim 1.
Suzuki et al. is not explicit on “the processor in the first vehicle is configured to transmit position data on a location to a third vehicle determined thereafter to be communicable with the first vehicle...”, however,
Rubin et al., US 20170243485 A1, teaches V2V SAFETY SYSTEM USING LEARNED SIGNAL TIMING and discloses; wherein the processor in the first vehicle is configured to,
when the vehicle-to-vehicle communication is terminated before the reception of the report information is completed, transmit position data on a location where the reception of the report information has started, to a third vehicle determined thereafter to be communicable with the first vehicle via the vehicle-to-vehicle communication ([0148] “V2V protocol” refers to the aggregate of communication …. The V2V protocol moves discreet “V2V messages” between vehicles, predominantly in a point-to-point communication mode. “[315] “to optimize the vehicle-to-vehicle communication” & [0329]-[0330] The third vehicle should send out a message collision notification.” & [0472] “If the transmitted location is precisely the position provided by the geolocation input to the V2V transponder, such as GPS coordinates, the offset would be zero.” & [0473] “Each of these four vehicles, if equipped, is regularly transmitting the location of each respective vehicle. By comparing the V2V received locations from vehicles two, three and four and comparing these locations to the locations observed by the local sensors”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Rubin et al. with the system disclosed by Suzuki et al. in order to provide a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication transponder for use in V2V communication, safety, optimization and anti-collision systems. Methods for sharing and making recommendations are described. Embodiments include equipped vehicles and V2V system using the transponder.. (see Abstract & para. [0025]-[0028]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Suzuki et al., Pub. No. : US 20070046457 A1 in view of KUWAHARA`441, Pub. No.: US 20200262441 A1, further in view of Rubin et al., Pub. No.: US 20170243485 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al. discloses the emergency report system according to claim 2.
Suzuki et al. is not explicit on “the processor in the first vehicle is configured to transmit position data on a location to a third vehicle determined thereafter to be communicable with the first vehicle...”, however,
Rubin et al., US 20170243485 A1, teaches V2V SAFETY SYSTEM USING LEARNED SIGNAL TIMING and discloses; wherein the processor in the first vehicle is configured to,
when the vehicle-to-vehicle communication is terminated before the reception of the report information is completed, transmit position data on a location where the reception of the report information has started, to a third vehicle determined thereafter to be communicable with the first vehicle via the vehicle-to-vehicle communication ([0148] “V2V protocol” refers to the aggregate of communication …. The V2V protocol moves discreet “V2V messages” between vehicles, predominantly in a point-to-point communication mode. “[315] “to optimize the vehicle-to-vehicle communication” & [0329]-[0330] The third vehicle should send out a message collision notification.” & [0472] “If the transmitted location is precisely the position provided by the geolocation input to the V2V transponder, such as GPS coordinates, the offset would be zero.” & [0473] “Each of these four vehicles, if equipped, is regularly transmitting the location of each respective vehicle. By comparing the V2V received locations from vehicles two, three and four and comparing these locations to the locations observed by the local sensors”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Rubin et al. with the system disclosed by Suzuki et al. in order to provide a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication transponder for use in V2V communication, safety, optimization and anti-collision systems. Methods for sharing and making recommendations are described. Embodiments include equipped vehicles and V2V system using the transponder.. (see Abstract & para. [0025]-[0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jalal C CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/Jalal C CODUROGLU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights