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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,571(‘571). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, for the reasons of record as discussed in the previous Office Action dated 12/3/2025.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pipe et al(USPGPUB 2021/0049908 A1) in view of Wolf(USPGPUB 2017/0120907).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Pipe et al(Pipe) includes:
1) connecting a first vehicle to a network is met by vehicle(102), which includes hazard detection system(100), that includes network access device(118)(see: Pipe, sec[0025]);
2) equipping the first vehicle with a plurality of sensors for capturing visual data and non-visual data of other vehicles including a second vehicle is met by the hazard detection sensor including one or more sensors(116) which measure and detect or otherwise determine objects in the surrounding environment and the motions of the objects including speed, direction of travel and other motions of the other vehicle(see: Pipe, sec[0049]) and driver behavior patterns(see: Pipe, sec[0043]);
3) analyzing, using a controller in communication with the plurality of sensors, the captured visual and non-visual data to detect signs of bad driving by the second vehicle based on at least one pre-defined rule is met by the hazard detection system(100) obtaining or generating a baseline(208), the baseline used to determine normal driving patterns of one or more vehicles at the current location of vehicle(102), so as to determine a hazardous condition(see: Pipe, sec[0054]);
4) based on the detection, communicating, using the controller, about the signs of bad driving by the second vehicle to at least one entity also connected to the network is met by the hazard detection system determining a hazard condition, and sending an alert to a server or an external database along with a location(see: Pipe, sec[0054];
5) executing a correcting action by at least one vehicle connected to the network is met by the hazard detection system(100) performing other operations including braking, changing lanes, re-routing the path of the vehicle(102) and/or autonomously steering the vehicle so as to avoid hazardous conditions that are detected(see: Pipe, sec[0056]).
- Pipe does not teach:
1) executing a correcting action by at least one vehicle connected to the network, that is not the first vehicle.
Although a correcting action by at least one vehicle that is not the first vehicle is not taught by Pipe, Pipe does desire to communicate alerts and warnings to other external entities, since Pipe teaches sending an alert to a server or an external database along with a location(see: Pipe, sec[0054]. Use of systems which execute corrective action in a vehicle that is not a first vehicle is well known.
In related art, Wolf teaches a collision avoidance system, that sends messages to adjacent vehicles to cause them to perform avoidance actions to help prevent a collision(see: Wolf, sec[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the communication with adjacent vehicles, as taught in Wolf, into the system of Pipe, since this would have added additional layers of collision avoidance.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) automatically activating, using the controller, the plurality of sensors when the first vehicle is started would have been inherent, since the controller would have controlled activation and overall operation of the system.
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the plurality of sensors is installed on the first vehicle, wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one of: high-resolution imaging devices, infrared devices, LIDAR devices, sonar devices, radar devices, and audio capturing devices is met by the camera(116a) which captures image data(see: Pipe, sec[0043]).
-- With regards to claims 4 and 5,
1) storing, using the controller, the captured visual and non-visual data about the other vehicles in a memory for later retrieval, analysis, and use(claim 4); and transmitting, using the controller, the captured visual and non-visual data about the other vehicles to at least one remote servers for later retrieval, analysis and use(claim 5) are met by the ECU(110), which obtains environment data within and surrounding the vehicle, and wherein the ECU notifies other entities of the hazardous conditions(see: Pipe, sec[0028]), and wherein the ECU(110) of the system(100) has a direct connection to network access device(118), so as to transmit data to and from external database(104)(see: Pipe, figure 1, sec[0031]).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) classifying, using the controller, a driving activity by the second vehicle as bad driving if the captured visual and non-visual data comprise at least one activity selected from a set of activities consisting of: one or more activities that are dangerous in nature, harmful to the society on the roads, and violating laws is met by the analysis of driving patterns, by the hazard detection system based on obtaining environmental sensor data(206), thereby determining normal driving behavior patterns, as opposed to hazardous patterns(see: Pipe, sec[0051]).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the step of communicating further comprises providing, using the controller, a communication about the signs of bad driving sent to at least one of the one or more surrounding vehicles, wherein the communication is generated by at least one artificial intelligence(AI( system) is met by the hazard detection system using sensor data to determine driving patterns, based on calculations performed by a computer program(see: Pipe, sec[0042]).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the step of communicating about the signs of bad driving to the law enforcement authorities further comprises sending, using the controller, additional information to the law enforcement authorities, wherein the additional information is selected from a set of additional information consisting of: general information about the other vehicles, locations of the other vehicles, and the signs of bad driving by the other vehicles is met by the report of the hazardous conditions to another entity, such as the police or other government agency(see: Pipe, sec[0028]), and additional information including an identification of hazardous conditions within the environment when the vehicle is in motion(see: Pipe, sec[0028]), and wherein the hazardous condition may be an object or situation that is not normally present within the external and or internal environment of the vehicle(102) and interferes with the operation of the vehicle(102) or the other vehicle(see: Pipe, sec[0027]), which would constitute the claimed general information about the other vehicles.
-- With regards to claims 9 and 10, it would have been obvious that the correlating, using a remote server in communication with the controller, the locations of the other vehicles showing the signs of bad driving with one or more locations of law enforcement authorities, and as well, identifying, using the remote server, the nearest authorities based on the correlation, would have been met by Pipe, since Pipe teaches a system wherein third parties are alerted base don the determination of bad driving patterns, and that third party being the police(see: Pipe, sec[0028; 0057]).
Since Pipe already teaches the use of navigation, and as well, is in communication with other entities such as government agencies such as the police, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate identifying the nearest authorities based on correlation, since this would have helped expedite providing a safer environment if police are alerted to bad driving patterns, in a more streamlined manner, based on direct determination by vehicles monitoring the surrounds.
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) comprising accessing, using a remote server in communication with the controller, a database for storing information about the signs of bad driving is met by the hazard detection system(100) performing analysis remotely using one or more processors on a server or other cloud device that is connected via the network(108)(see: Pipe, sec[0070]).
-- With regards to claim 12,
1) providing, using the remote server, access to the database based on at least one subscription-based-model is met by the external databased including a third party server or website that stores or provides information such as accessing files or sharing peripherals, which inherently implies use of a subscription service.
-- With regards to claim 13,
1) analyzing, using the controller, the captured visual and non-visual data in real-time and using an artificial intelligence(AI) system to detect the signs of bad driving by the other vehicles is met by the collection of image and driving data as real time information(see: Pipe, sec[0040]), and wherein the system uses the sensor data to determine driving patterns, based on calculations performed by a computer program(see: Pipe, sec[0042]), which would have inherently constituted an AI system.
-- Claim 14 recites a system that substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 15 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 14 above.
-- Claim 16 recites subject matter that is met as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above.
-- Claim 17 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 8 and 14 above.
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 5. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 14 above.
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 14 above.
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 13. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 13 and 14 above.
REMARKS:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, and have been addressed in the art rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686