DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 10/29/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9-11 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended, and Claims 3-5 and 8 are canceled.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are 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.
Maise teaches comparing to determine whether at least one current transportation vehicle setting effects at least one of the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle such 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 and precludes traversing the restricted passage geometry, and generate a report based on the comparison in response to the comparison revealing that at least one of the current transportation vehicle dimensions is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route, the report including advice that indicates which at least one setting of the transportation vehicle is to be adapted, and a required adaptation, to ensure that resulting adapted transportation vehicle dimensions are sufficient to enable traversing the restricted passage geometry.
Maise teaches at [0022] that a server transmits available data regarding a state of a road to vehicles approaching a respective position. Vehicles use the received data to derive suitable recommendations for adjustment of their chassis. Optimum values can be compared to current values for all adjustment parameters related to the suspension system, stabilizers, shock absorbers, and body position with respect to an available clearance height in a parking garage, or in an approaching bridge or tunnel. If the optimum adjustment in any case does not correspond to a current vehicle setting for a particular parameter, recommendations for the adjustments are made to the vehicle driver. The driver can then issue a confirmation for the recommended adjustments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maise with Cazanas and Basu. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling collision avoidance when vehicle adjustments can allow for a vehicle to safely pass through an obstacle, thereby reducing the chances of vehicles colliding with overhead obstacles.
With regard to Claim 10, Maise teaches that the control unit determines 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 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.
Maise teaches at [0022] that a server transmits available data regarding a state of a road to vehicles approaching a respective position. Vehicles use the received data to derive suitable recommendations for adjustment of their chassis. Optimum values can be compared to current values for all adjustment parameters related to the suspension system, stabilizers, shock absorbers, and body position with respect to an available clearance height in a parking garage, or in an approaching bridge or tunnel. If the optimum adjustment in any case does not correspond to a current vehicle setting for a particular parameter, recommendations for the adjustments are made to the vehicle driver. The driver can then issue a confirmation for the recommended adjustments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maise with Cazanas and Basu. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling collision avoidance when vehicle adjustments can allow for a vehicle to safely pass through an obstacle, thereby reducing the chances of vehicles colliding with overhead obstacles.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas, in view of Basu, in view of Maise, 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, Maise 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.
Claims 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas, in view of Basu, in view of Maise, 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 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 message ([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 a report in response to the comparison ([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.
Maise teaches comparing to determine whether at least one current transportation vehicle setting effects at least one of the current dimensions of the transportation vehicle such 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 and precludes traversing the restricted passage geometry; generating a report in response to the comparison revealing that at least one of the current transportation vehicle dimensions is greater than the extent of the restricted passage geometry at a position along the current route, a report that includes advice that indicates which at least one setting of the transportation vehicle is to be adapted, and a required adaptation, to ensure that resulting adapted transportation vehicle dimensions are sufficient to enable traversing the restricted passage geometry; and outputting, on an output display, the 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.
Maise teaches at [0022] that a server transmits available data regarding a state of a road to vehicles approaching a respective position. Vehicles use the received data to derive suitable recommendations for adjustment of their chassis. Optimum values can be compared to current values for all adjustment parameters related to the suspension system, stabilizers, shock absorbers, and body position with respect to an available clearance height in a parking garage, or in an approaching bridge or tunnel. If the optimum adjustment in any case does not correspond to a current vehicle setting for a particular parameter, recommendations for the adjustments are made to the vehicle driver. The driver can then issue a confirmation for the recommended adjustments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maise with Cazanas, Pohl and Basu. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling collision avoidance when vehicle adjustments can allow for a vehicle to safely pass through an obstacle, thereby reducing the chances of vehicles colliding with overhead obstacles.
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 newly cited Maise reference cures the alleged deficiencies with regard to the previously cited prior art references teaching or suggesting the elements of the claims which have been added by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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
12/17/2025
Prosecution Insights