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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 06/23/2026. Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended. Claims 3–5 and 10–13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are currently pending examination.
Response to Arguments / Withdrawal of Prior Art Rejections
Applicant did not approve / authorize an Examiner’s Amendment previously prepared in connection with a Notice of Allowability directed to § 112 cleanup of the pending claims. Accordingly, that Examiner’s Amendment is not entered, and this second Non-Final Office action is issued so that Applicant may amend the claims to overcome the § 112(b) issues identified herein.
Upon further consideration of the pending claims in light of the prior art of record, the prior rejections of Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Das et al. (DE 102019132012 A1), hereinafter DAS, in view of D’Almeida (US 2011/0033233 A1 / US 8,562,244 B2), hereinafter D’Almeida, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 2023/0020966 A1), hereinafter Foster are withdrawn as to the pending claims insofar as those references, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the dual first/second average-length metrology between the at least two vehicular immobility projections and opposite edges of the spike barrier in a vehicular plan view image, together with assignment of the vehicular approach prevention direction (and, where claimed, converging-end orientation) toward the edge associated with the longer of those average lengths.
The Examiner does not re-apply a prior-art rejection against that dual average-length / longer-average assignment feature. The case posture is that the dual-average feature overcomes the art of record; only clarity under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) stands between the pending claims and allowance. See the Allowable Subject Matter section below.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 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. See MPEP 2173, 2173.05(e).
Claim 1 — “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis
Claim 1 recites:
at least partly control the vehicle based upon the determined vehicular approach prevention direction.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the vehicle” in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “a spike barrier detection and vehicular control system” comprising “at least one processor,” and refers to “a motor vehicle” only in the definitional clause describing the vehicular approach prevention direction (“impede the progress of a motor vehicle”), but does not previously introduce “the vehicle” as a claim element that is controlled. It is unclear whether “the vehicle” refers to the “motor vehicle” mentioned in the definitional clause, to some other vehicle, or to an unintroduced claim element. Claim 1 is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claims 2, 6, and 7 — indefinite by dependence on Claim 1
Claims 2, 6, and 7 depend from Claim 1 and incorporate the indefinite language of Claim 1 (including “the vehicle” in the control clause). Claims 2, 6, and 7 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for at least the same reasons as Claim 1. Claim 6 is additionally indefinite for the independent reason set forth below.
Claim 6 — “the vehicular approach prevention direction determiner” lacks antecedent basis
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the vehicular approach prevention direction determiner is configured to determine that the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier is towards the first edge of the spike barrier if the first average length is longer than the second average length and that the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier is towards the second edge of the spike barrier if the second average length is longer than the first average length.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vehicular approach prevention direction determiner.” Independent Claim 1 recites “at least one processor which is configured to” perform the recited operations; Claim 1 does not recite a “vehicular approach prevention direction determiner.” It is unclear whether Claim 6 intends to refer to the at least one processor of Claim 1, to a distinct structural element not previously claimed, or to some other entity. Claim 6 is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 8 — “the vehicle” / “tire of the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis
Claim 8 recites:
wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a tire of the vehicle;
and
wherein the software program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to at least partly control the vehicle based upon the determined vehicular approach prevention direction.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vehicle” (and therefore for “a tire of the vehicle”) in Claim 8. Claim 8 introduces a software program / at least one processor configuration and refers to “a motor vehicle” only in the definitional clause describing the vehicular approach prevention direction, but does not previously introduce “the vehicle” as a claim element whose tire is punctured or that is controlled. Claim 8 is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 9 — “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis
Claim 9 presently recites :
receiving an image comprising a spike barrier;
determining a vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the image comprising the spike barrier;
receiving at least two images from a plurality of imaging devices, each image from a respective imaging device;
constructing a vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier based on the image comprising the spike barrier, wherein determining the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier comprises determining the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier based on the vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier, … wherein the spike barrier comprises at least two vehicular immobility projections;
determining a first average length between the at least two vehicular immobility projections and a first edge of the spike barrier based on the vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier, wherein the first average length determined is substantially parallel to the vehicular approach prevention direction; and
determining a second average length between the at least two vehicular immobility projections and a second edge of the spike barrier based on the vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier, wherein the second average length determined is substantially parallel to the vehicular approach prevention direction, wherein determining the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier is based on the first average length and the second average length, the vehicular approach prevention direction being towards the first edge of the spike barrier when the first average length is longer than the second average length and towards the second edge of the spike barrier when the second average length is longer than the first average length; and
at least partly controlling the vehicle based upon the determined vehicular approach prevention direction.
Claim 9 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent basis — “the vehicle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vehicle” in the controlling step “at least partly controlling the vehicle based upon the determined vehicular approach prevention direction.” Claim 9 refers to “a motor vehicle” only in the definitional clause describing the vehicular approach prevention direction and does not previously introduce “the vehicle” as a controlled claim element.
Claims 14 and 15 — indefinite by dependence on Claim 9
Claims 14 and 15 depend from Claim 9 and incorporate the indefinite language of Claim 9 “the vehicle”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (for dependents). See MPEP 707.07(j).
Authorization for an Examiner’s Amendment was not obtained. This Office action is issued without an Examiner’s Amendment so that Applicant may submit amendments addressing the § 112(b) issues identified below. The suggested corrected claim language set forth in this section is applicant-facing guidance only (drawn from the corrections previously contemplated for the unapproved Examiner’s Amendment) and is not entered as an Examiner’s Amendment.
Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter
The closest prior art of record includes Das et al. (DE 102019132012 A1), hereinafter DAS; D’Almeida (US 2011/0033233 A1 / US 8,562,244 B2), hereinafter D’Almeida; and Foster et al. (US 2023/0020966 A1), hereinafter Foster.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
DAS discloses a processor/memory system that receives and processes images from one or more (including multi-camera) image capture devices, detects small sharp road-surface obstacles (e.g., nails, glass, or other sharp objects that can damage or puncture a tire), and provides a signal to maneuver / control an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle to avoid the detected obstacles. DAS does not teach or suggest determining a first average length between at least two vehicular immobility projections and a first edge of a spike barrier and a second average length between those projections and a second (opposite) edge based on a vehicular plan view image, nor determining a vehicular approach prevention direction towards the edge associated with the longer of those average lengths.
D’Almeida discloses a directional spike barrier / device for halting motor-vehicle traffic in one direction, comprising plural puncture spikes (vehicular immobility projections) selectively configured so that an allowed approach direction is distinguished from a forbidden / non-authorized approach direction in which tyre contact is punctured. D’Almeida does not teach or suggest determining a vehicular approach prevention direction from comparing first and second average lengths between immobility projections and opposite edges of the spike barrier in a vehicular plan-view image, nor assigning prevention direction (or converging-end orientation) toward the longer-average edge based on such metrology.
Foster discloses an autonomous-vehicle control computer with processors and memory, sensor/camera-based detection of roadway obstacles including one-way spikes, trajectory determination, and drive-subsystem control. Foster does not teach or suggest the dual average-length metrology from immobility projections to opposite edges in plan view, nor the longer-average → vehicular approach prevention direction (or converging-end orientation) assignment rule.
After consideration of the patent and non-patent literature of record, including focused searching directed to the dual average-length and longer-average assignment limitations, the prior art taken either individually or in combination fails to teach or suggest the invention as a whole with those limitations.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 9, the prior art taken either individually or in combination with the other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole:
determine a first average length between the at least two vehicular immobility projections of the spike barrier and a first edge of the spike barrier based on the vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier, and a second average length between the at least two vehicular immobility projections and a second edge of the spike barrier based on the vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier, wherein the first average length is substantially parallel to the vehicular approach prevention direction and the second average length is substantially parallel to the vehicular approach prevention direction, wherein the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier is determined based on the first average length and the second average length, the vehicular approach prevention direction being determined to be towards the first edge of the spike barrier when the first average length is longer than the second average length and towards the second edge of the spike barrier when the second average length is longer than the first average length
(and the corresponding determination / method language of independent claims 8 and 9 to the same dual average-length and longer-average assignment effect, including where claimed the converging-end orientation toward the longer-average edge).
Claims 2, 6, 7, 14, and 15 depend upon independent claims 1 and/or 9 and would be allowable for the same reasons if rewritten to overcome the § 112(b) rejections (and, where applicable, to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims).
§ 112 issues that must be addressed for allowance
To place the application in condition for allowance, Applicant should address each of the following § 112(b) issues. Suggested amendments below are illustrative of corrections Applicant may submit; they are not an Examiner’s Amendment and are not entered of record by this Office action.
1. Claim 1 — antecedent basis for “the vehicle”
Issue: “at least partly control the vehicle …” lacks antecedent basis.
Suggested amendment Applicant may submit: change the control clause to:
at least partly control a vehicle based upon the determined vehicular approach prevention direction.
2. Claim 6 — antecedent basis for “the vehicular approach prevention direction determiner”
Issue: “the vehicular approach prevention direction determiner” lacks antecedent basis (Claim 1 recites “at least one processor,” not a “determiner”).
Suggested amendment Applicant may submit: rewrite Claim 6 substantially as follows:
6. The spike barrier detection and vehicular control system as in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier is towards the first edge of the spike barrier if the first average length is longer than the second average length and that the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier is towards the second edge of the spike barrier if the second average length is longer than the first average length.
3. Claim 8 — antecedent basis for “the vehicle” / “tire of the vehicle”
Issue: “puncture a tire of the vehicle” and “at least partly control the vehicle …” lack antecedent basis.
Suggested amendment Applicant may submit: change the control clause to:
wherein the software program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to at least partly control a vehicle based upon the determined vehicular approach prevention direction.
and, consistently, change “a tire of the vehicle” to “a tire of a vehicle” (or otherwise introduce the vehicle earlier in the claim).
6. Dependents 2, 7, and 14
Claims 2 and 7 would be allowable if Claim 1 is amended to overcome the § 112(b) rejection. Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if Claim 9 is amended to overcome the § 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
