DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the request for continued examination filed 5/6/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending. All are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0179069 (“Cazanas”), in view of Basu, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0306677 (“Basu”).
With regard to Claim 1, Cazanas teaches a transportation vehicle comprising:
a control unit configured to determine current dimensions of the transportation vehicle ([0020] describes that an application can analyze static and dynamic attributes of a vehicle, including identifying both a current vehicle height and weight to compare to an approaching structure such as a bridge);
a communication module configured to receive messages indicating a position and extent of a restricted passage geometry ([0018]-[0020] describe that a vehicle has a communication device to receive road data from an information marker, where the road data can indicate that the vehicle is approaching a bridge or overpass that has low clearance and/or may be nearing a weight limit),
wherein the control unit is further configured to compare the current dimensions and the current route of the transportation vehicle to the received position and extent of the restricted passage geometry information included in the received messages, and to determine a report based on the comparison ([0020] describes that in response to receiving road data indicating that the vehicle is approaching the low clearance structure, the application can compare the clearance height of the bridge to the known height of the vehicle to determine if the bridge poses a problem for the vehicle. [0022] describes that in one embodiment, the bridge height and vehicle height can be displayed to the driver of the vehicle along with an indication that the vehicle exceeds the bridge height); and
an output display configured to display an output of the determined report in response to a determination that the comparison revealed that at least one of the transportation vehicle dimensions are greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route ([0022] describes that in one embodiment, the bridge height and vehicle height can be displayed to the driver of the vehicle along with an indication that the vehicle exceeds the bridge height, thereby displaying the report to the user in response to the determination that the vehicle height exceeds the specified height. [0043] describes report output in response to determining that a vehicle will cause a weight limit to be exceeded).
Cazanas, in view of Basu teaches wherein the communication is further configured to send messages to other transportation vehicles, to a server and at least one roadside unit, wherein the messages sent by the transportation vehicle indicate the dimensions and current route of the transportation vehicle.
Cazanas teaches at [0037] that the vehicle data for a vehicle includes dimensions such as height and length, as well as current weight. [0039] describes that the vehicle transmits the vehicle data to a marker, which is a unit in or near the road, and that the data is also communicated to a central authority server for logging and analysis. [0054]-[0055] describe that the vehicle communicates with successive markers, which are used to determine the route the vehicle is following, and that the vehicle data can also include the vehicle’s location. Basu teaches at [0051] that each of a plurality of vehicle generates data about the vehicle’s path, including position, orientation, and direction of travel, as well as vehicle size. [0054] describes that this pathside data is communicated to other vehicles in the vicinity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Basu with Cazanas. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by incorporating additional communication capabilities that improve decision-making by vehicles by increasing awareness about conditions on a road.
Claims 2, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas, in view of Basu, and in view of Gieseke, U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0222592 (“Gieseke”).
With regard to Claim 2, Gieseke teaches at least one sensor configured to detect at least one sensor value relating to the transportation vehicle surroundings, wherein the control unit is further configured to identify restricted passage geometry from the at least one sensor value, determine the extent of the restricted passage geometry from the at least one sensor value, and determine a position of the restricted passage geometry relative to a position of the transportation vehicle to thereby provide information indicating a position of the identified restricted passage geometry along the current route of the transportation vehicle. [0025] describes that a maximum width and height of a driving path can be detected by processing forward or rearward sensor data from a variety of sensor types. [0033] describes that the system detects when such a structure is in the path of travel of the vehicle.
Gieseke further teaches wherein the communication module is configured to transmit a message indicating the determined extent and position of the identified restricted passage geometry relative to the current route of the transportation vehicle to a further other transportation vehicles, a server and at least one roadside unit. [0045] describes that a measured driving path height can be received and stored by peripheral facilities, which can then be used by street maintenance services. Therefore, a message can be transmitted by a vehicle that measures the height which is stored by a roadside unit, as well as a server and other vehicle as road maintenance is able to access stored height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Gieseke with Cazanas and Basu. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by allowing for the system to identify and store dynamic conditions relating to potential collision hazards.
With regard to Claim 3, Cazanas, in view of Gieseke teaches that the control unit is further configured to determine at least one transportation vehicle setting that effects the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle and outputs advice indicating the relevant transportation vehicle setting by the output display of the transportation vehicle in response to the determination that the comparison of the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle and the extent of the restricted passage geometry information included in the received messages revealed that the at least one of the transportation vehicle dimensions is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route.
Cazanas teaches at [0018]-[0020] receiving information indicating a low clearance obstruction, which is used to compare to a vehicle height to determine a collision potential. Gieseke teaches at [0038] that a determined height and width of a trailer that has been attached to a vehicle can be displayed when the vehicle displays path planning advice to a user, where [0033] describes that path planning is displayed when a structure or object is detected which may be a hazard to the driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Gieseke with Cazanas and Basu. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by allowing for the system to identify and store dynamic conditions relating to potential collision hazards.
Claim 10 recites a vehicle which is substantially the same as the vehicle of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gieseke, in view of Yagi, U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0047659 (“Yagi”).
With regard to Claim 4, Gieseke teaches a method of a transportation vehicle for environment detection in traffic situations with restricted passage geometry, the method comprising:
detecting at least one sensor value relating to transportation vehicle surroundings using at least one sensor ([0025] describes sensors that collect information about a driving path of a vehicle);
identifying a restricted passage geometry based on from the detected at least one sensor value ([0025] describe that the sensor data is processed to detect the maximum width and height of the driving path of the vehicle. [0027] describes that the system can determine if there is sufficient clearance for the object detected in the vehicle path);
determining a position of the restricted passage geometry relative to the transportation vehicle and an extent of the restricted passage geometry based on the detected at least one sensor value ([0024] describes that the clearance is detected along a vehicle’s intended path, where [0025] describes identifying the height and width of the path).
Yagi teaches a method comprising:
determining whether at least one further transportation vehicle having current dimensions that exceed the determined extent is on a current route that leads to the determined position of the restricted passage geometry ([0044] describes a unit that detects a vehicle traveling on a particular road. [0140] describes that the unit identifies whether the vehicle is traveling toward a particular road that has a height restriction reference value associated therewith);
in response to a determination that at least one further transportation vehicle has current dimensions that exceed the determined extent and is on a current route that leads to the determined position of the restricted passage geometry, generating and transmitting a message indicating the determined extent and position of the restricted passage geometry to the at least one further transportation vehicle for output by the at least one further transportation vehicle ([0140] describes that when the unit detects a vehicle that has a height higher than the restriction for the road toward which the vehicle is traveling, the unit sends a waring message to the vehicle, where [0026] describes that the warning message can notify the driver through speakers and a display that the vehicle exceeds the height allowed on the road, also described at [0073]); and
transmitting the message to a server and/or a roadside unit ([0024]-[0025] describe that units which notify vehicles exchange notification information with each other as well).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Gieseke with Yagi. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the functioning of collision avoidance systems by enabling for detecting of over height vehicles by infrastructure elements, in addition to vehicles identifying these things themselves, thereby preventing additional collisions.
With regard to Claim 5, Gieseke teaches that the determining of the extent comprises determining a maximum passage height, a maximum passage width, and/or a three-dimensional travel corridor along the current route from the at least one sensor value. [0025] describes that the sensor data is processed to determine a maximum width and height of a travel path, and [0028] describes that a virtual driving tunnel can also be generated by the clearance algorithm.
Claims 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas, in view of Basu, and in view of Pohl, U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0047473 (“Pohl”).
With regard to Claim 6, Cazanas teaches a method for a transportation vehicle to analyze vehicle control in traffic situations with restricted passage geometry, the method comprising:
receiving a message containing a position and extent of a restricted passage geometry ([0018]-[0020] describe that a vehicle has a communication device to receive road data from an information marker, where the road data can indicate that the vehicle is approaching a bridge or overpass that has low clearance and/or may be nearing a weight limit);
comparing the extent of the restricted passage geometry with the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle ([0020] describes that in response to receiving road data indicating that the vehicle is approaching the low clearance structure, the application can compare the clearance height of the bridge to the height of the vehicle to determine if the bridge poses a problem for the vehicle); and
generating and outputting a report by an output display of the transportation vehicle based on the comparison in response to a determination that the comparison revealed that at least one of the determined dimensions of the transportation vehicle is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route of the transportation vehicle ([0022] describes that in one embodiment, the bridge height and vehicle height can be displayed to the driver of the vehicle along with an indication that the vehicle exceeds the bridge height, thereby displaying the report to the user in response to the determination that the vehicle height exceeds the specified height. [0043] describes report output in response to determining that a vehicle will cause a weight limit to be exceeded).
Cazanas does not teach sending a message containing information indicating determined relating to current vehicle dimensions and a current route of the transportation vehicle to at least one further transportation vehicle. Basu teaches at [0051] that each of a plurality of vehicle generates data about the vehicle’s path, including position, orientation, and direction of travel, as well as vehicle size. [0054] describes that this pathside data is communicated to other vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Basu with Cazanas. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by incorporating additional communication capabilities that improve decision-making by vehicles by increasing awareness about conditions on a road.
Cazanas does not teach that the received message containing a position and extent of a restricted passage geometry is received from at least one further transportation vehicle. Pohl teaches at [0155] that a vehicle sensor can include a receiver to receive data from another vehicle through V2V communications, where the data may represent a position and dimensions of an obstacle, such as the height and width of a tunnel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Cazanas and Basu with Pohl. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling communication of potential collision points in locations where roadside units are not available, thereby extending the areas covered by such a collision warning system and reducing collisions.
With regard to Claim 7, Cazanas teaches comparing the position of the restricted passage geometry along the current route of the transportation vehicle; and adapting the current route based on the comparison; and/or adjusting the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle in response to the determination that the comparison revealed that at least one of the determined dimensions of the transportation vehicle is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route of the transportation vehicle. [0012] describes that when a vehicle approaches an upcoming obstruction, the application can instruct the vehicle to take an alternate route.
With regard to Claim 8, Cazanas teaches determining at least one transportation vehicle setting that is relevant to the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle; and outputting advice indicating the relevant transportation vehicle setting by an output display of the transportation vehicle in response to the determination that the comparison revealed that at least one of the determined dimensions of the transportation vehicle is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route of the transportation vehicle. [0043] describes that the system can inform a vehicle that the vehicle has a high weight upon determining that the vehicle weight could exceed a weight limit for a bridge. The system can advise the vehicle to take an alternate route to avoid the bridge.
With regard to Claim 9, Cazanas teaches that the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle are determined by determining at least one accessory that is on the transportation vehicle, and retrieving dimensions of the at least one accessory from a network server and/or at least one accessory. [0037]-[0038] describes that vehicle weights can be stored at a central authority as a vehicle periodically weighs itself, indicating accessories being added or removed that affect the weight of the vehicle. [0026] describes that the central authority is able to use vehicle data to determine if the vehicle has any attributes relevant to its current route.
With regard to Claim 11, Pohl teaches determining at least one transportation vehicle setting that is relevant to the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle; and automatically adapting the relevant transportation vehicle setting by the transportation vehicle in response to the determination that the comparison of the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle and the extent of the restricted passage geometry information included in the received messages revealed that at least one of the transportation vehicle dimensions is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route. [0093]-[0095] describe that a collision threat can be detected by a vehicle, based on a lateral distance of an obstacle from a side mirror assembly, and comparing the distance to a lateral safety distance. A safety operation can be triggered when the collision is predicted that causes the side mirror assembly (or other vehicle assembly) to fold in to a second position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Cazanas and Basu with Pohl. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by protecting expensive car parts such as side mirror assemblies from damage when approaching an obstacle with which a collision is possible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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. The use of different references in rejecting the amended claims is not to be taken as an admission that the previous references do not teach or suggest any or all aspects of the amended claims, or acquiescence to any of the arguments presented by Applicant in the Request for Continued Examination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
7/10/2025