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
Claims 1-15 of U.S. Application No. 17/457,568 filed on 12/03/2021 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 12/04/2024.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 03/04/2025. Claims 1-2, 6-9 and 14-15 were amended. Claims 3-5, 12 and 10-13 were cancelled. Claims 1-2, 6-9 and 14-15 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f): applicant’s arguments filed 03/04/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The previously given claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The previously given claim rejections under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2025 with respect to DAS et al. (DE 102019132012 A1) in view of D'Almeida (US 20110033233 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, The Applicant argues that Das and D’Almeida fail to teach or suggest determining “a first average length between the at least two vehicular immobility projections and a first edge of the spike barrier” and “a second average length between the at least two vehicular immobility projections and a second edge of the spike barrier,” as well as determining the “vehicular approach prevention direction” based on these lengths, as recited in amended claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14. The Applicant asserts that Das (paragraphs [0012] and [0045]) only discloses detecting speed bumps or small objects on a road surface, and D’Almeida lacks disclosure of a processor determining these lengths. (emphasis applicant’s) (See at least Page 8 in the Remarks).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, this argument is not persuasive, Das discloses a system for detecting obstacles on a road surface, including speed bumps (paragraph [0012]), and providing signals to maneuver a vehicle or warn a driver (paragraph [0045]). While Das does not explicitly recite determining “average lengths” between vehicular immobility projections and edges of a spike barrier, the reference’s disclosure of identifying deviations from a flat surface (paragraph [0012]) implies a spatial analysis of obstacles relative to the vehicle’s path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that detecting a speed bump or spike barrier involves analyzing its geometric properties, such as its orientation and dimensions relative to the vehicle’s approach. The “first average length” and “second average length” recited in the claims can be interpreted as the distances or spatial relationships between the vehicle’s position (or projections) and the edges of the barrier, which Das performs when identifying and locating obstacles in the vehicle’s path.
D’Almeida complements Das by providing a method for vehicle navigation and obstacle avoidance, which includes determining the orientation and position of barriers relative to the vehicle [0118]. The combination of Das’s obstacle detection with D’Almeida’s navigation techniques renders obvious the determination of average lengths as a means to calculate the barrier’s orientation and position. Furthermore, the “vehicular approach prevention direction” is a logical outcome of such analysis, as Das’s system provides signals to maneuver the vehicle (paragraph [0045]), which would naturally involve directing the vehicle away from the detected barrier based on its geometry. The Applicant’s argument that Das focuses on small objects (page 9) is unpersuasive, as speed bumps (paragraph [0012]) are analogous to spike barriers in the context of vehicular immobility projections, and the claims do not exclude such obstacles.
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 14, which recite determining the vehicular approach prevention direction based on comparing the first and second average lengths (e.g., “towards the first edge of the spike barrier if the first average length is longer than the second average length”), the Examiner asserts that this conditional logic is an obvious extension of Das’s obstacle avoidance system. Das’s disclosure of maneuvering a vehicle based on detected obstacles (paragraph [0045]) implies a directional decision-making process, which would naturally favor a path that avoids the most restrictive or hazardous side of the obstacle. D’Almeida’s navigation system further supports this by providing a framework for directional control based on spatial analysis. Thus, the combination of Das and D’Almeida renders obvious the claimed features.
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 1-2, 6-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAS et al. (DE 102019132012 A1) in view of D'Almeida (US 20110033233 A1), hereinafter referred to as DAS and D'Almeida respectively.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-9 and 14-15, DAS A spike barrier detection and vehicular control system, comprising:
a software program maintained in non-transitory memory and having instructions which, when executed by at least one processor (“In one embodiment, a memory is operatively coupled to the processors, the memory comprising computer readable instructions that cause the processor to implement the method disclosed above” [0015]), causes the at least one processor to:
receive an image containing a spike barrier (“The method further includes receiving at 103 encoded feature maps and the depth images for the identified region of interest from each encoder of the first neural network and processing 104 the encoded feature maps and depth images for the identified region of interest by a second neural network including a semi-supervised classifier to detect the small unclassified obstacles or road surface.” [0029]),
wherein the software program configure the at least one processor to receive at least two images from a plurality of imaging devices, each image from a respective imaging device (“a method for detecting small unclassified obstacles on a road surface is provided, comprising processing one or more images captured by one or more image capture devices” [0008]);
construct a vehicular plan view image comprising the spike barrier based on the image comprising the spike barrier (“comprising processing one or more images captured by one or more image capture devices by a first neural network and identifying an area of interest in the one or more images based on a predetermined criterion.” [0008]);
determine 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(“The predetermined criterion may include identifying a road area in the one or more images through pixel-based segmentation implemented by the first neural network.” See at least [0041]),
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, (“In another embodiment, the second neural network includes a detector for detecting anomalous regions in the region of interest having local appearance variations and/or lower confidence of a pixel segmentation score for road and depth estimation from the pixel-based segmentation implemented by the first neural network.” [0012]);
wherein the first average length determined is substantially parallel to a vehicular approach prevention direction and the second average length determined is substantially parallel to the vehicular approach prevention direction (“ In one embodiment, the one or more processors 201 are further configured to provide a signal to maneuver an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle to avoid the detected small unclassified obstacles on the road surface.” [0045]);
and determine a vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the image containing the spike barrier (“The present invention relates to a method and system for detecting small unclassified obstacles on a road surface as set out in the appended claims. 63 More specifically, the method and system supports the detection of dangerous obstacles on a road surface, for example broken glass, nails or sharp objects, using a semi-supervised classifier” [0007]);
wherein the vehicular approach prevention direction determination determines the vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the vehicular plan view image containing the spike barrier (“The present invention relates to a method and system for detecting small unclassified obstacles on a road surface as set out in the appended claims. 63 More specifically, the method and system supports the detection of dangerous obstacles on a road surface, for example broken glass, nails or sharp objects, using a semi-supervised classifier” [0007]);
wherein the vehicular approach prevention direction determination determines 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 (“The present invention relates to a method and system for detecting small unclassified obstacles on a road surface as set out in the appended claims. 63 More specifically, the method and system supports the detection of dangerous obstacles on a road surface, for example broken glass, nails or sharp objects, using a semi-supervised classifier” [0007]);
and wherein the vehicular approach prevention direction determination determines that the converging ends are orientated towards the first edge of the spike barrier if the first average length is longer than the second average length and that the converging ends are orientated towards the second edge of the spike barrier if the second average length is longer than the first average length(“The present invention relates to a method and system for detecting small unclassified obstacles on a road surface as set out in the appended claims. 63 More specifically, the method and system supports the detection of dangerous obstacles on a road surface, for example broken glass, nails or sharp objects, using a semi-supervised classifier” [0007]);
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 (“In one embodiment, the method further comprises warning a driver of the autonomous vehicle of the detected small unclassified object and transferring control to the driver to maneuver the vehicle.” [0014]).
DAS does not explicitly teach wherein the spike barrier comprises at least two vehicular immobility projections,
detect the spike barrier and the at least two vehicular immobility projections in the vehicular plan view image;
the second edge being opposite the first edge along the spike barrier
wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a tire of a vehicle.
However, D’Almeida does teach wherein the spike barrier comprises at least two vehicular immobility projections (Fig.26 “Each mechanism M3 of the bank of mechanisms B3 according to the invention, depicted in FIGS. 26 to 35, and in more detail in FIGS. 27 to 31, consists of a mobile piece 20 having a removable spike 19; a mobile roller 23 mounted on a shaft 23' in said mobile piece 20; a shaft 3 common to the other mechanisms M3 housed in the other cells of the bank of mechanisms B3, which supports said mobile piece 20; a stop 15 arranged on the inner side of the intermediate vertical wall P2 near said removable spike 19, and which surface provided with a damping and noise reduction element, acts as a stop to said roller 23; a stop 30, arranged bellow the intermediate vertical wall P3, away from said mobile spike 19, and which surface, provided with a damping and noise reduction element, acts as a stop to said mobile piece 20.” [0087]);
the second edge being opposite the first edge along the spike (“arranged on the side of the intermediate vertical wall P2 opposite to the removable spike 19 (see FIG. 25) and the removable spike 19 punctures the tyre R. The mobile roller 23 forms a slippery barrier to the tyre R which together with the removable spike 19, causes the tyre R tearing, and therefore the vehicle immobilization.” [0083])
detect the spike barrier and the at least two vehicular immobility projections in the vehicular plan view image (“These devices are placed on the pavement act on both directions under control of the authorities. Patent FR2723239 describes a detection system of vehicles travelling on wrong direction, associated with traffic lights and one barrier, having as main drawback the high degree of sophistication and, therefore, the high cost and also the fact of being able to cause important damages not only in the vehicle travelling on wrong direction but also in a vehicle travelling on the right direction but finding the barrier closed.” [0009];
wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a tire of a vehicle (“To this end the present invention provides means, which can immobilize the motor vehicle by puncturing the wheel of the vehicle and simultaneously causing its elevation, causing the driving wheels to work against rollers or bumps, causing them to lose adherence on the pavement while they are torn.” [0013]). Both DAS and D’Almeida teach methods vehicle barrier detection and operation. However, D’Almeida explicitly teaches wherein the spike barrier comprises at least two vehicular immobility projections, detect the spike barrier and the at least two vehicular immobility projections in the vehicular plan view image; the second edge being opposite the first edge along the spike barrier and wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a tire of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the road barrier monitoring method of DAS to also include wherein the spike barrier comprises at least two vehicular immobility projections, detect the spike barrier and the at least two vehicular immobility projections in the vehicular plan view image; the second edge being opposite the first edge along the spike barrier and wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a tire of a vehicle, as in D’Almeida with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle through obstacles and road barriers (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [D’Almeida, 0012 - 0016]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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.
AHMED ALKIRSHExaminer, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668