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 were examined. Examiner filed a final rejection on 05/28/2025.
Applicant filed an RCE on 10/28/2025. Claims 1 and 8-9 were amended. Claims 1-2, 6-9 and 14-15 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 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 Applicant contends that Das does not teach these features, stating: “Das does not determine the direction of anything, let alone a vehicular approach prevention direction involving a spike barrier. In fact, intentionally disposed and directed spikes are not discussed in Das—only seemingly random debris on the road.” Further, applicant argues that Das’s road debris detection is undirected and does not involve selectively configured spike barriers.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, this argument is not persuasive, Das teaches a system for affirmatively detecting and determining characteristics of road obstacles, including small unclassified hazards that could impede vehicle progress (e.g., sharp objects like nails or glass that puncture tires). Das (Description, paragraph [0007]): “The invention relates to a method and a system for detecting small unclassified obstacles on a road surface.” Das further describes processing images to identify anomalies and determine their nature for vehicle control: Das (Description, paragraph [0008]): “Processing one or more images captured by one or more image capture devices through a first neural network and identifying an area of interest in the one or more images based on a predetermined criterion.” Additionally, from Das (Description, paragraph [0010]): “Receiving encoded feature maps and the depth images for the identified area of interest from each encoder of the first neural network and processing the encoded feature maps and the depth images for the identified area of interest through a second neural network comprising a semi-supervised classifier to detect the small unclassified obstacles on the road surface.” Das enables vehicle control based on this determination: Das (Description, paragraph [0014]): “Providing a signal for maneuvering an autonomous vehicle to avoid the detected small unclassified obstacles on the road surface.”
While Das focuses on undirected debris, it provides the base system for obstacle detection and vehicle control. The combination with D’Almeida addresses the selective configuration for a spike barrier
Applicant also argues that D’Almeida does not teach the claimed direction, stating: “Throughout D’Almeida, the only directions referenced are right, wrong, opposite, unauthorized, and travel directions for vehicles. For example, D’Almeida paragraph [0118] mentions that his ‘devices may be associated with any other electronic devices for detecting vehicles, which may include at least one traffic light of red lights and where appropriate [and]…can be activated by the frequency used by emergency services and fire brigades or the police to allow the use, for example, by ambulances, fire brigades vehicles or police vehicles to roads accessing highways safely in the unauthorized direction, i.e. the wrong direction.’” Applicant contends these are simply vehicle movement directions, not a direction towards which a spike barrier is selectively configured to impede progress. Further, “These directions are simply not the same thing as the claimed vehicular approach prevention direction, which, as mentioned, is a direction towards which a spike barrier is purposefully configured to impede the progress of a motor vehicle from ever moving across the spikes.”
This argument is not persuasive. D’Almeida explicitly teaches a spike barrier device selectively configured to impede vehicle progress in a specific direction (e.g., the wrong or unauthorized direction), while allowing passage in the opposite direction. D’Almeida (paragraph [0001]): “The present invention relates to a device for halting the motor vehicles traffic in one direction, for example, in the opposite to the allowed direction by the traffic signaling, especially, in one-way roads accessing highways.” D’Almeida (paragraph [0004]): “The invention device…can allow vehicles travelling in the appropriated traffic direction and reacts automatically, causing the motor vehicles immobilization which attempt to oppose a forbidden or non authorized direction.” D’Almeida (paragraph [0012]): “A first object of the invention is to provide a simple and selective device that is imperceptible to a vehicle travelling in the right direction, and automatically without any external intervention, human or electronic, preventing the vehicle movement in the opposite direction. To this end the present invention provides puncturing means, causing the tyre to rupture and thus the vehicle immobilization.” D’Almeida (paragraph [0013]): “A second object of the invention is to provide a simple and selective device…preventing and attempting to prevent the displacement of a vehicle in the opposite direction. To this end the present invention provides means, which can immobilize the motor vehicle by puncturing the wheel of the vehicle.”
Regarding paragraph [0118], D’Almeida teaches association with detection devices and selective allowance for emergency vehicles in the wrong direction, but this does not negate the core teaching of selective configuration for impediment: D’Almeida (paragraph [0118]): “The invention devices may be associated with any other electronic devices for detecting vehicles, which may include at least one traffic light of red lights and where appropriate. The devices according to the invention when provided with motorized control may be controlled by remote control, which in turn can be activated by the frequency used by emergency services and fire brigades or the police to allow the use, for example, by ambulances, fire brigades vehicles or police vehicles to roads accessing highways safely in the unauthorized direction, i.e. the wrong direction.”
D’Almeida’s spike barrier is selectively configured (e.g., imperceptible in one direction, active in the other), directly corresponding to the claimed “direction towards which a spike barrier has been selectively configured to impede the progress.”
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) and in further view of Foster et al. (US20230020966A1), hereinafter referred to as DAS, D'Almeida and Foster respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, DAS discloses 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]);
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]).
DAS does not explicitly teach and determine a vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the image containing the spike barrier
However, Foster does teach and determine a vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the image containing the spike barrier, the vehicular approach prevention direction being a direction towards which a spike barrier has been selectively configured to impede the progress of a motor vehicle (“An autonomous vehicle may detect obstacles in its trajectory towards the toll booth………..Accordingly, as the autonomous vehicle detects obstacles in its trajectory, the autonomous vehicle may classify the obstacles according to whether the autonomous vehicle can travel through the obstacles (e.g., at a reduced speed) or not. Upon classification of an obstacle as one through which the autonomous vehicle can travel (e.g., one-way spikes, speed bumps, etc.), the autonomous vehicle may determine a reduced speed for traveling through the obstacle and decelerate prior to arriving at the obstacle.” [0128]). Both DAS and Foster teach methods vehicle barrier detection and operation. However, Foster explicitly teaches determine a vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the image containing the spike barrier, the vehicular approach prevention direction being a direction towards which a spike barrier has been selectively configured to impede the progress of a motor 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 determine a vehicular approach prevention direction of the spike barrier, based on the image containing the spike barrier, the vehicular approach prevention direction being a direction towards which a spike barrier has been selectively configured to impede the progress of a motor vehicle, as in Foster 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 [Foster, 0128]).
Regarding claim 2, DAS discloses The spike barrier detection and vehicular control system as in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured 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]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, DAS discloses The spike barrier detection and vehicular control system as in claim 1, 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 (“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]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, DAS discloses The spike barrier detection and vehicular control system as in The spike barrier detection
and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine 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]);
DAS does not explicitly teach and vehicular control system as in wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a vehicle tire.
However, D’Almeida does teach and vehicular control system as in wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a vehicle tire (“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 vehicular control system as in wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a vehicle tire.
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 vehicular control system as in wherein each vehicular immobility projection comprises a respective converging end configured to puncture a vehicle tire, 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
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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights