DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01 August 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 11-13, 17-19, and 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous objection to the claims is withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn.
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 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, 3, 4, 11-13, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talmaki et al., US 2016/0232542 A1 (hereinafter Talmaki) in view of Elie et al., US 2017/0096144 A1 (hereinafter Elie).
Regarding claim 1:
Talmaki teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive from a first vehicle a first optical measurement result, and to receive from a second vehicle a second optical measurement result (“The processing module 122 may be configured to obtain a first set of sensor data related to a first physical characteristic of the road at a first location from a set of calibrated sensors located on a plurality of vehicles traveling over the road at the first location. The processing module 122 may also be configured to obtain a second set of sensor data related to the first physical characteristic of the road at the first location from a set of non-calibrated sensors located on a plurality of vehicles traveling over the road at the first location,” ¶ 0012); and
at least one processor configured to calibrate a sensor of the second vehicle at the apparatus based on a difference between the first and the second optical measurement results (“an automatic correction algorithm that determines a relationship between signals from the calibrated and non-calibrated sensors for the same location on a road. The processor may be configured to map the non-calibrated sensors to the calibrated sensors so that data from the non-calibrated sensors at different locations may be automatically corrected,” ¶ 0012);
wherein: the first optical measurement result is an optical measurement result of a surface of a road associated with a first location of the road; the second optical measurement result is an optical measurement result of the surface of the road associated with the first location of the road; and the at least one processor is further configured to determine a background of the road at the first location based on the first optical measurement result associated with the first location of the road and calibrate the sensor of the second vehicle based at least partially on the determined background of the road at the first location (“devices such as cameras may provide additional information regarding defects in a road surface,” ¶ 0010 – determination of defects requires a knowledge of the surface of the road at a particular location).
Talmaki does not teach wherein the first and second optical measurement results include measurement of backscattered light from a surface of a road.
Elie teaches a sensing system for including measurements of backscattered light from a surface of a road (“a method of inspecting a road includes illuminating the road with at least one infrared source emitting light at first and second wavelengths corresponding to a water-absorption wavelength and an ice-absorption wavelength respectively. The method also includes monitoring the road with a plenoptic camera system. The at least one infrared source and the camera are mounted to a vehicle. The method further includes detecting a backscatter intensity of the first and second wavelengths with the camera system to create a depth map of the road that includes data indicating water or ice on the road in response to the backscatter intensity associated with one of the first and second wavelengths being less than a threshold intensity, and outputting the depth map from the camera system to a controller,” ¶ 0003). Elie teaches that this is advantageous for warning the driver and/or modifying active or semi-active systems of the vehicle (¶ 0002).
It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art could easily use the sensing system of Elie as the “calibrated sensors” of Talmaki, as this would predictably allow one to determine road surface conditions, with the added benefit of being able to warn a driver or modify active systems of a vehicle, without otherwise altering the operation of Talmaki.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Talmaki to use the sensing system of Elie that senses backscattered light, because this would predictably and advantageously allow one to warn a driver and/or modify active systems of a vehicle, thereby resulting in wherein the first and second optical measurement results include measurement of backscattered light from a surface of a road.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the first optical measurement result associated with the first location of the road has been taken at known conditions of the surface of the road at the first location and set, responsive to the determination, the first optical measurement result associated with the first location of the road as a reference measurement result of the first location (Talmaki: “devices such as cameras may provide additional information regarding defects in a road surface,” ¶ 0010 – the conditions are known once the sensor has sensed conditions).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a road surface classification of the first optical measurement result associated with the first location and calibrate the sensor of the second vehicle based at least partially on the road surface classification of the first optical measurement result associated with the first location (Talmaki: “devices such as cameras may provide additional information regarding defects in a road surface,” ¶ 0010 – the sensed data describes a data set that includes a road surface classification based upon the sensed data set).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the receiver is further configured to receive from the second vehicle, upon calibration of the sensor of the second vehicle, a first optical measurement result associated with a second location and to receive from a fourth vehicle a second optical measurement result associated with the second location, and the at least one processor is further configured to calibrate a sensor of the fourth vehicle based on a difference between the first and the second optical measurement results associated with the second location (Talmaki: “The processing module 122 may be configured to obtain a first set of sensor data related to a first physical characteristic of the road at a first location from a set of calibrated sensors located on a plurality of vehicles traveling over the road at the first location. The processing module 122 may also be configured to obtain a second set of sensor data related to the first physical characteristic of the road at the first location from a set of non-calibrated sensors located on a plurality of vehicles traveling over the road at the first location,” ¶ 0012 – Talmaki is operable for an unlimited number of calibrated and uncalibrated vehicles).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to dispose the second optical measurement result upon determining that a difference between a time of the first optical measurement result and a time of the second optical measurement result is above a first threshold value, and/or a difference between a value of the first optical measurement result and a value of the second optical measurement result is above a second threshold (Talmaki: “Crowd sourcing of this road condition data gathering over a large number of vehicles that are traveling over the road may provide a timely and accurate assessment of the overall road infrastructure condition for any given road anywhere in the world,” ¶ 0011 – one having ordinary skill in the art would know that some amount of elapsed time would no longer satisfy the requirement of “timely” sensor data).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to dispose the second optical measurement result upon determining that a background of the road associated with the first optical measurement result and a background of the road associated with the second optical measurement result are different (Talmaki: “Crowd sourcing of this road condition data gathering over a large number of vehicles that are traveling over the road may provide a timely and accurate assessment of the overall road infrastructure condition for any given road anywhere in the world,” ¶ 0011 – one having ordinary skill in the art would know that “timely” sensor data would inherently include sensor data that describes the road in relatively the same condition, i.e., a road that has not been resurfaced since the previous sensor measurements, for example).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the background of the road includes at least one of black asphalt, white asphalt, or concrete (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, as the road itself is not included in the apparatus recited in claim 1. As set forth in MPEP § 2114, “‘…the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus‘ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. In this instance, claim 22 fails to recite any additional structural elements beyond those recited in claim 1, and therefore, the combination of Talmaki and Elie renders claim 22 obvious).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the background of the road includes at least one of a dry road, a wet road, and an icy road (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, as the road itself is not included in the apparatus recited in claim 1. As set forth in MPEP § 2114, “‘…the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus‘ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. In this instance, claim 23 fails to recite any additional structural elements beyond those recited in claim 1, and therefore, the combination of Talmaki and Elie renders claim 23 obvious).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein the background of the road does not include defects in a surface of the road (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, as the road itself is not included in the apparatus recited in claim 1. As set forth in MPEP § 2114, “‘…the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus‘ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. In this instance, claim 24 fails to recite any additional structural elements beyond those recited in claim 1, and therefore, the combination of Talmaki and Elie renders claim 24 obvious).
Claims 2 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talmaki in view of Elie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Talmaki and Elie teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Talmaki and Elie also teaches wherein: the receiver is further configured to receive from a third vehicle a third optical measurement result of a surface of the road associated with the first location of the road, and to receive from a fourth vehicle a fourth optical measurement result of the road associated with the first location of the road (Talmaki: “The processing module 122 may be configured to obtain a first set of sensor data related to a first physical characteristic of the road at a first location from a set of calibrated sensors located on a plurality of vehicles traveling over the road at the first location. The processing module 122 may also be configured to obtain a second set of sensor data related to the first physical characteristic of the road at the first location from a set of non-calibrated sensors located on a plurality of vehicles traveling over the road at the first location,” ¶ 0012 – Talmaki is operable for an unlimited number of calibrated and uncalibrated vehicles);
the first optical measurement result comprises measurement data of a first set of wavelengths; the second optical measurement result comprises measurement data of the first set of wavelengths (Talmaki does not disclose that wavelengths are different between measurements);
the at least one processor is further configured to compare the first measurement result with the second measurement result and to calibrate the sensor of the second vehicle accordingly; and the at least one processor is further configured to compare the third measurement result with the fourth measurement result and to calibrate the sensor of the fourth vehicle accordingly; wherein the order of the first, second, third and fourth vehicles may be ascending or descending (Talmaki: “an automatic correction algorithm that determines a relationship between signals from the calibrated and non-calibrated sensors for the same location on a road. The processor may be configured to map the non-calibrated sensors to the calibrated sensors so that data from the non-calibrated sensors at different locations may be automatically corrected,” ¶ 0012).
Talmaki does not teach wherein: the third optical measurement result comprises measurement data of a second set of wavelengths;
the fourth optical measurement result comprises measurement data of the second set of wavelengths.
AAPA teaches a variety of commercially known sensors (“Examples of commercially available optical sensors are Road Eye from Optical Sensors Sweden AB, RCM411 from Teconer Oy, Finland and IceSight 2020E from Innovative Dynamics Inc. (Ithaca, N.Y., USA) IVS optical from Intelligent Vision Systems, Dexter, Mich., USA,” ¶ 0033, that can operate at various wavelengths).
It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art could have added the known sensors of AAPA to the vehicle of Talmaki, including incorporating the sensors into the calibration scheme of Talmaki, without otherwise altering the operation of the sensor or the invention of Talmaki, thereby predictably providing Talmaki with the advantages of the known optical sensors.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Talmaki to include one of the commercially available sensors disclosed by AAPA, because this would advantageously and predictably provide the advantages of these commercial sensors, including sensing at various wavelengths, thereby resulting in wherein: the third optical measurement result comprises measurement data of a second set of wavelengths and the fourth optical measurement result comprises measurement data of the second set of wavelengths.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Talmaki, Elie, and AAPA teaches the invention of claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above. The combination of Talmaki, Elie, and AAPA also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the first optical measurement result associated with the first location of the road has been taken at known conditions of the surface of the road at the first location and set, responsive to the determination, the first optical measurement result associated with the first location of the road as a reference measurement result of the first location (Talmaki: “devices such as cameras may provide additional information regarding defects in a road surface,” ¶ 0010 – the conditions are known once the sensor has sensed conditions).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Talmaki, Elie, and AAPA teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Talmaki, Elie, and AAPA also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a road surface classification of the first optical measurement result associated with the first location and calibrate the sensor of the second vehicle based at least partially on the road surface classification of the first optical measurement result associated with the first location (Talmaki: “devices such as cameras may provide additional information regarding defects in a road surface,” ¶ 0010 – the sensed data describes a data set that includes a road surface classification based upon the sensed data set).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Talmaki, Elie, and AAPA teaches the invention of claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above. The combination of Talmaki, Elie, and AAPA also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a road surface classification of the first optical measurement result associated with the first location and calibrate the sensor of the second vehicle based at least partially on the road surface classification of the first optical measurement result associated with the first location (Talmaki: “devices such as cameras may provide additional information regarding defects in a road surface,” ¶ 0010 – the sensed data describes a data set that includes a road surface classification based upon the sensed data set).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leo Hinze whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
10 December 2025
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853