Detailed Office 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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 06/10/2025. The applicant has amended claims 1-2, 4-11, 13, 15-16, and 19. Applicant has cancelled Claims 14, 17, and 21. New Claims 22-24 have been added. Claims 1-13, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 06/10/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 06/10/2025 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections previously set forth. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Independent claim 1, as currently amended, recites a hardware processor. Independent claim 13, as currently amended, recites that the method steps are performed by a hardware processor. Accordingly, the claims can no longer be reasonably interpreted as covering mental processes that can be performed in the human mind”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mental processes whether performed by processors or not are still considered mental processes.
Further, regarding the applicant’s argument that “the claims, as currently amended, are not directed to "an abstract idea without significantly more"”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 06/10/2025, with regard to the rejections of Claim 1, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, the arguments have been rendered moot due to new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
101 Analysis - With respect to Claim 1
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed towards a system which is directed to the statutory category of a machine. Claim 13 is directed towards a method which is directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore Claims 1 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis- Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental process.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 13 recites, inter alai:
“A method of operation of an onboard hazard detection system installed on a vehicle,
the method comprising:
operating one or more mapping sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense a topography of a region in the vicinity of the vehicle;
at a hardware processor, receiving sensed data that is acquired by the one or more mapping sensors
at said hardware processor, generating a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed [[data;]] data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle
at said hardware processor, calculating one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff or safety barrier, based on the sensed data;
at said hardware processor, detecting when the calculated characteristics are indicative of hazard
performing, on said vehicle, (fl) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (f2) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that said video analysis of video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff
when an indication of the hazard is detected, performing an action”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “generating”, “calculating”, “detecting” and “processing” in the context of this claim, all encompass a person looking at available data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either manually or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As drafted, the above claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), that are merely completed via generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 13 recites, inter alai:
“A method of operation of an onboard hazard detection system installed on a vehicle,
the method comprising:
operating one or more mapping sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense a topography of a region in the vicinity of the vehicle;
at a hardware processor, receiving sensed data that is acquired by the one or more mapping sensors
at said hardware processor, generating a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed [[data;]] data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle
at said hardware processor, calculating one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff or safety barrier, based on the sensed data;
at said hardware processor, detecting when the calculated characteristics are indicative of hazard
performing, on said vehicle, (fl) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (f2) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that said video analysis of video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff
when an indication of the hazard is detected, performing an action”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “operating one or more mapping sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense a topography of a region in the vicinity of the vehicle ”, this limitation merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of “at a hardware processor, receiving sensed data that is acquired by the one or more mapping sensors” and “when an indication of the hazard is detected, performing an action “these limitations merely describes the sending, receiving, and setting of data which is in insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the act of collecting data and displaying data amounts to no more than merely storing and displaying information of the exception and thus is an extra-solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-24, no claim further adds a limitation that introduces any practical applications to the claimed invention, the dependent claims merely add more mental process, mathematical concepts, and post-solution activities and are thus not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-13, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al (US 20200071912 A1) in view of Blumenthal et al (KR 20200029049 A), and Lakehal-Ayat et al (DE 102015205076 A1). Hereafter referred to as Kennedy, Bluementhal, and Lakehal-Ayat respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Kennedy teaches the system comprising a hardware processor (see at least Kennedy [para.50] Functionality of the logic components of machine control system 112 can be executed by processor 104)
configured to receive sensed data that is acquired by one or more sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense a topography of a region in the vicinity of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.47, para.18, para.66] Proximity sensor 148 senses an area proximate work machine 102 for external objects…In addition to emphasizing objects to be avoided, objects or terrain can be emphasized to the operator to help complete their given task)
and detect when the calculated characteristics are indicative of a hazard (see at least Kennedy [para.19] the operator may be displayed an augmented reality where people, belowground hazards (e.g., drain tile or underground electrical), aboveground hazards (e.g., overhead utility lines or electrical extension cords) are emphasized)
and when an indication of the hazard is detected, perform an action (see at least Kennedy [para.32] an avoidance control system can be provided to automatically prevent the operator from controlling work machine 102 in such a way that would cause a collision between work machine 102 and another object).
However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach a processor configured to calculate one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff based on sensor data and
perform, on said vehicle, (A) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (B) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that video analysis of the video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff.
Blumenthal, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a processor configured to calculate one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff based on sensor data (see at least Blumenthal [English Translation pg.24 para.1] The gamma map or height map of the road plane can be used to distinguish sharp vertical edge boundary stones, smoothly sloped boundary stones, or shoulders (eg, points where the road falls). Thereafter, the host vehicle can be controlled such that the distance from the sharp edge stone or the edge is kept larger than from the gently inclined edge stone)
perform, on said vehicle, (A) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (B) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that video analysis of the video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff (see at least Blumenthal [English Translation pg.23 para.7, pg.24 para.1] the system is used to accurately detect a model (eg, shape) of a road surface shape, such as a vertical contour, using a camera 2112 mounted on the host vehicle. Using the systems and methods provided herein, surface features such as bumps or holes, speed bumps, boundary stones or manhole covers can be used for road surfaces (e.g., flat surfaces) with sub-pixel accuracy (e.g., on the order of 1-2 centimeters) ) Can be measured or modeled as a vertical deviation from. These techniques can be similarly applied to the front, side or rear camera 2112. Gamma maps can be useful in determining the driveable area of a vehicle in front or side and rear. The gamma map can be used by itself to determine where the surface slope is too steep to drive…The gamma map or height map of the road plane can be used to distinguish sharp vertical edge boundary stones, smoothly sloped boundary stones, or shoulders (eg, points where the road falls)) The disclosure teaches detecting from a rear camera holes and steep surfaces that are too steep to drive on, which are analogous to cliffs. Further, the system is configured to distinguish between vertical boundary stones and road shoulders (steep surfaces, cliffs), therefore, when the system determines that the area behind it is a road shoulder is a cliff, it is also determining that absence of a boundary stone, or else it would determine it to be a boundary stone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a system for a processor configured to calculate one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff based on sensor data and for performing, on said vehicle, (A) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (B) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that video analysis of the video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the vehicle by successfully determining a surface behind the vehicle that may be undrivable or cause the vehicle to fall.
Further, while Kennedy teaches generating a map of the surroundings, it does not explicitly teach a processor configured to analyze the received data to: generate a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle.
Lakehal-Ayat, in the same field of the endeavor, teaches a processor configured to analyze the received data to: generate a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle (see at least Lakehal-Ayat [English Translation pg.2 para.1, pg.2 para.3, pg.3 para.3] A processing unit 34 is used to process image data or video signals 35 that of the camera sensor 32 to be provided…the calculation of the position of the object points detected on a video image in three-dimensional space is understood here and below as creating a three-dimensional map. As a result, a three-dimensional map can be used in the calculation of the respective distance between the camera and the image-wise detected object…data from a plurality of images of different focus position. Furthermore, the distance detection device according to the invention preferably has a video generation unit which sends the images to the processing unit at the desired frame rate and the desired focus position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a processor configured to analyze the received data to: generate a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving obstacle and hazard avoidance of the vehicle, as if the detected obstacles can be placed into a generated 3D map, the vehicle knows what areas to avoid or drive cautiously around.
Regarding Claim 13, Kennedy teaches a method comprising: operating one or more mapping sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense a topography of a region in the vicinity of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.47, para.18, para.66] Proximity sensor 148 senses an area proximate work machine 102 for external objects…In addition to emphasizing objects to be avoided, objects or terrain can be emphasized to the operator to help complete their given task)
the method comprising:
operating one or more mapping sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense a topography of a region in the vicinity of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.47, para.18, para.66] Proximity sensor 148 senses an area proximate work machine 102 for external objects…In addition to emphasizing objects to be avoided, objects or terrain can be emphasized to the operator to help complete their given task)
at said hardware processor, detecting when the calculated characteristics are indicative of hazard (see at least Kennedy [para.19] the operator may be displayed an augmented reality where people, belowground hazards (e.g., drain tile or underground electrical), aboveground hazards (e.g., overhead utility lines or electrical extension cords) are emphasized)
and when an indication of the hazard is detected, perform an action (see at least Kennedy [para.32] an avoidance control system can be provided to automatically prevent the operator from controlling work machine 102 in such a way that would cause a collision between work machine 102 and another object).
However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach at said hardware processor, calculating one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff based on sensor data and
performing, on said vehicle, (f1) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (f2) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that video analysis of the video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff.
Blumenthal, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a processor configured to calculate one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff based on sensor data (see at least Blumenthal [English Translation pg.24 para.1] The gamma map or height map of the road plane can be used to distinguish sharp vertical edge boundary stones, smoothly sloped boundary stones, or shoulders (eg, points where the road falls). Thereafter, the host vehicle can be controlled such that the distance from the sharp edge stone or the edge is kept larger than from the gently inclined edge stone)
performing, on said vehicle, (f1) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (f2) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that video analysis of the video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff (see at least Blumenthal [English Translation pg.23 para.7, pg.24 para.1] the system is used to accurately detect a model (eg, shape) of a road surface shape, such as a vertical contour, using a camera 2112 mounted on the host vehicle. Using the systems and methods provided herein, surface features such as bumps or holes, speed bumps, boundary stones or manhole covers can be used for road surfaces (e.g., flat surfaces) with sub-pixel accuracy (e.g., on the order of 1-2 centimeters) ) Can be measured or modeled as a vertical deviation from. These techniques can be similarly applied to the front, side or rear camera 2112. Gamma maps can be useful in determining the driveable area of a vehicle in front or side and rear. The gamma map can be used by itself to determine where the surface slope is too steep to drive…The gamma map or height map of the road plane can be used to distinguish sharp vertical edge boundary stones, smoothly sloped boundary stones, or shoulders (eg, points where the road falls)) The disclosure teaches detecting from a rear camera holes and steep surfaces that are too steep to drive on, which are analogous to cliffs. Further, the system is configured to distinguish between vertical boundary stones and road shoulders (steep surfaces, cliffs), therefore, when the system determines that the area behind it is a road shoulder is a cliff, it is also determining that absence of a boundary stone, or else it would determine it to be a boundary stone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a system for a processor configured to calculate one or more characteristics of an approach of the vehicle toward a cliff based on sensor data and for performing, on said vehicle, (A) processing of video captured by a rear-facing camera of said vehicle, and (B) determining, by said processor which is located in said vehicle, that video analysis of the video captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle indicates a lack of a safety barrier between the vehicle and the cliff with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the vehicle by successfully determining a surface behind the vehicle that may be undrivable or cause the vehicle to fall.
Further, while Kennedy teaches generating a map of the surroundings, it does not explicitly teach at a hardware processor, receiving sensed data that is acquired by the one or more mapping sensors and at said hardware processor generating a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle.
Lakehal-Ayat, in the same field of the endeavor, teaches at a hardware processor, receiving sensed data that is acquired by the one or more mapping sensors (see at lease Lakehal-Ayat [English Translation pg.4 para.2] A video production unit 23 generates that for the processing unit 14 needed video stream from video signals 16 with the desired frame rate and the desired focus position)
at said hardware processor generating a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle (see at least Lakehal-Ayat [English Translation pg.2 para.1, pg.2 para.3, pg.3 para.3] A processing unit 34 is used to process image data or video signals 35 that of the camera sensor 32 to be provided…the calculation of the position of the object points detected on a video image in three-dimensional space is understood here and below as creating a three-dimensional map. As a result, a three-dimensional map can be used in the calculation of the respective distance between the camera and the image-wise detected object…the invention provides a calculation unit with an image processing unit for calculating the three-dimensional map data from a plurality of images of different focus position. Furthermore, the distance detection device according to the invention preferably has a video generation unit which sends the images to the processing unit at the desired frame rate and the desired focus position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a processor configured to receive sensed data that is acquired by a mapping sensor and to analyze the received data to: generate a three-dimensional map of the region based on the sensed data, wherein the three-dimensional map of the region is generated in said onboard hazard detection system based on video data sensed by one or more cameras that are located on said vehicle with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving obstacle and hazard avoidance of the vehicle, as if the detected obstacles can be placed into a generated 3D map, the vehicle knows what areas to avoid or drive cautiously around.
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 13 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the characteristics are selected from a group of characteristics consisting of: a speed of the vehicle toward the cliff or the safety barrier, an angle of approach of the vehicle toward the cliff or a safety barrier, a distance from the cliff or the safety barrier, and a time to impact with the cliff or the safety barrier (see at least Kennedy [para.77-79] mobile object data 318 can include pose data of the objects in worksite 100. For example, pose data for an object includes positions and dimensions of its components…to prevent collisions between objects with greater precision than standard dimensions alone...Mobile object data 318 can also include a speed and direction of movement of objects in worksite 100) Because the disclosed invention can prevent collisions it is therefore able to also calculate the time to collision of objects and hazards such as safety barriers.
Regarding Claim 3, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to detect an obstacle based on the sensed data (see at least Kennedy [para.47] Proximity sensor 148 senses an area proximate work machine 102 for external objects…For example, a camera or stereo camera can be used to locate and identify objects proximate work machine 102).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 13 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the processor is configured to detect a defect in a safety barrier (see at least Kennedy [para.82] Terrain data 322 includes data related to the various surfaces, ground or terrain in worksite 100. Specifically, terrain data 322 can include position and height data of the various surfaces in worksite 100) Because the disclosed terrain data includes the height of various surfaces in a worksite, therefore Kennedy also discloses the system detecting the height of a safety barrier on the worksite. And Further, because an insufficient height of a safety barrier is analogous to a defect, it is also disclosing the system’s ability to detect defects within a safety barrier.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 13 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive sensed data from one or more movement sensors of the vehicle that are configured to sense a characteristic of movement of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.37] To aid in operation of work machine 102 there may be sensors 110 to sense various aspects of operation….there is a position sensor used to sense the location of work machine 102. There is also a linear displacement transducer (LDT) mounted on a hydraulic cylinder coupled to blade 136 which can be used to sense the angular position of blade 136, relative to frame 103).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 13 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive data from one or more navigation sensors of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.37] To aid in operation of work machine 102 there may be sensors 110 to sense various aspects of operation. Some examples of sensors 110 include….global positioning system (GPS) receiver).
Regarding Claim 9, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 8 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the processor is configured to analyze the received sensed data only when the vehicle is within a predefined geographic region as indicated by the one or more navigation sensors of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.52] Location logic 156 receives sensor signals from sensors 110 and determines a location of work machine 102. This location can be relative to an object in worksite 100 or can be a more absolute value (such as GPS coordinates). The position of work machine 102 can be useful in determining if work machine 102 will collide with another object) Because GPS coordinates are used to know the location of the vehicle and because the vehicle can then use those GPS coordinates to determine if the vehicle will collide with a hazard, then Kennedy is disclosing where the sensed data is analyzed only when the vehicle is within a predefined region (near an obstacle).
Regarding Claim 10, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to analyze the sensed data which is acquired by one or more sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense the topography of the region in the vicinity of the vehicle only when the vehicle is travelling in reverse.
However, Bluementhal, in the same field as the endeavor, wherein the processor is configured to analyze the sensed data which is acquired by one or more sensors that are installed on the vehicle and that are configured to sense the topography of the region in the vicinity of the vehicle (see at least Bluementhal [English Translation Abstract, pg.13 para.9, pg.14 para.1] A system and technology for modeling a vehicle environment using a camera are described. A time sequence image sequence representing a road surface can be obtained. The image in this sequence is the current image. Thereafter, a data set may be provided to an artificial neural network (ANN) to create a three-dimensional structure of the scene. Here, the data set includes a portion of an image sequence including the current image, the motion of the sensor from which the image was acquired, and an epipole. The road surface is then modeled using the three-dimensional structure of the scene…operation of the DNN generates a road structure map such as a gamma map as described above. With DNN, for example, you can travel up to 50 km per hour (50 km / h or about 31 miles per hour) in a vehicle, within 1 centimeter (1 cm), or even 10 to 10 meters (10 mm) in half a millimeter (0.5 mm). ) Can generate topographic measurements of accuracy.).
Therefore, the combination of Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the data is only sensed when the vehicle is travelling in reverse. It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have limited the topography sensing to only be completed when the vehicle is travelling in reverse since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worked in the art to select such a requirement based on its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 13 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the hazard is selected from a group of hazards consisting of: an unsafe speed of the approach, an unsafe angle of the approach (see at least Kennedy [para53-54] Collision logic 160 is operably or communicatively coupled to control logic 154, location logic 156, machine geometry logic 158 and a source of external object locations (e.g., worksite server 300) to gather information used to determine if work machine 102 will collide with another object)
a defect in a safety barrier (see at least Kennedy [para.82] Terrain data 322 includes data related to the various surfaces, ground or terrain in worksite 100. Specifically, terrain data 322 can include position and height data of the various surfaces in worksite 100
an unsafe distance from the cliff, an unsafe distance from a downward slope, a negative slope in a surface (see at least Kennedy [para.120] Below grade indicator 724, as shown, is an area of worksite 100 where the worksite surface is below final, finish grade) Because any unfinished grade can be a steep drop-off (cliff) or a downward negative slope, then Kennedy is disclosing hazards being an unsafe distance from a cliff, downward slope or negative slope
Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the group of hazards consists of a presence of an obstacle (see at least Kennedy [para.54] Before control logic 154 sends a control signal to actuator 142, collision logic 160 determines if the potential action will cause a collision with an external object).
Regarding Claim 12, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 1 as set forth above. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches wherein the action comprises issuing a warning or controlling operation of the vehicle (see at least Kennedy [para.69] Nonvisual alert generator logic 184 can generate nonvisual alerts (e.g., audible, haptic, etc.). For example, nonvisual alert generator logic 184 can access a model generated by virtual model generator logic 176 and determine where objects are in the worksite relative to work machine 102).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al (US 20200071912 A1) in view of Blumenthal et al (KR 20200029049 A), Lakehal-Ayat et al (DE 102015205076 A1), and Wu et al (US 20120162415 A1). Hereafter referred to as Kennedy, Bluementhal, Lakehal-Ayat, and Wu respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teach all limitations of Claim 4 as set forth above. However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach wherein the defect comprises an insufficient width of the safety barrier.
Wu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the defect comprises an insufficient width of the safety barrier (see at least Wu [¶ 48] the processing device 14 uses the distance calculation algorithm to calculate the distance between the image capture unit 11 and the barrier. Refer to FIG. 7C. When the detected barrier height and width are not greater than the preset thresholds, it is determined that the volume of the barrier is insufficient to retard the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a system for wherein the defect comprises an insufficient width of the safety barrier with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the vehicle by allowing it to detect when a barrier is not able to stop its movement due it its insufficient width as discussed in Wu (see at least Wu [¶ 9, 48] improve convenience and safety of backing the vehicle, and which warns the driver of dangers to reduce probability of accidents…it is determined that the volume of the barrier is insufficient to retard the vehicle).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al (US 20200071912 A1) in view of Blumenthal et al (KR 20200029049 A), Lakehal-Ayat et al (DE 102015205076 A1), and Dunbabin et al (US 20100223008 A1). Hereafter referred to as Kennedy, Bluementhal, Lakehal-Ayat, and Dunbabin respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teaches all the limitations of the system of Claim 6 as set forth above. However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the three-dimensional map of the region using the data received from the one or more movement sensors of the vehicle.
Dunbabin, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the three-dimensional map of the region using the data received from the one or more movement sensors of the vehicle (see at least Dunbabin [para.45] A map generation subsystem to receive data from an array of disparate and complementary sensors to generate a 3-dimensional digital terrain and obstacle map…The collision detection subsystem 230 uses the terrain and obstacle map generated by map generation subsystem 232, and further refined by the obstacle detection subsystem 234, and its knowledge of the machine's 100 position and movements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a system for using the vehicle’s movement sensors to aid in generating the 3D obstacle map with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of allowing the vehicle to more accurately avoid collision with hazards as discussed by Dunbabin (see at least Dunbabin [para.45] to determine possible collisions with itself or other obstacles).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al (US 20200071912 A1) in view of Blumenthal et al (KR 20200029049 A), Lakehal-Ayat et al (DE 102015205076 A1), and Yu (KR 20080056697 A). Hereafter referred to as Kennedy, Bluementhal, Lakehal-Ayat, and Yu respectively.
Regarding Claim 22, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teach all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach a processor configured to perform (I) processing of video captured by the rear-facing camera of said vehicle and (II) determining that said video analysis of video, that was captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle, indicates an unsafe angle of approach of the vehicle toward the cliff.
Yu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a processor configured to perform (I) processing of video captured by the rear-facing camera of said vehicle and (II) determining that said video analysis of video, that was captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle, indicates an unsafe angle of approach of the vehicle toward the cliff (see at least Yu [English Translation pg.3 para.1, pg.1 para.2] the cameras 14 respectively installed in front and rear of the roof panel of the vehicle…The present invention relates to a sensor-integrated camera device, and further generates another warning signal when a distance greater than a reference value with respect to the ground is detected so as to warn the driver of the presence of a puddle, manhole or cliff in more detail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a processor configured to perform (I) processing of video captured by the rear-facing camera of said vehicle and (II) determining that said video analysis of video, that was captured by the rear-facing camera of the vehicle, indicates an unsafe angle of approach of the vehicle toward the cliff with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the vehicle when moving in reverse, as to determine if the backing up vehicle is approaching a dangerous drop off or cliff.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al (US 20200071912 A1) in view of Blumenthal et al (KR 20200029049 A), Lakehal-Ayat et al (DE 102015205076 A1), and Tanaka et al (EP 3000681 A1). Hereafter referred to as Kennedy, Bluementhal, Lakehal-Ayat, and Tanaka respectively.
Regarding Claim 23, Kennedy in view of Blumenthal and Lakehal-Ayat teach all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach (i) detecting a downward slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at an unsafe distance from the cliff and (ii) detecting a horizontal slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at an unsafe distance from the cliff since a weight of the vehicle can cause ground to collapse.
Blumenthal, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches (i) detecting a downward slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at an unsafe distance from the cliff (see at least Blumenthal [English Translation pg.24 para.1] The gamma map can be used by itself to determine where the surface slope is too steep to drive…The gamma map or height map of the road plane can be used to distinguish sharp vertical edge boundary stones, smoothly sloped boundary stones, or shoulders (eg, points where the road falls). Thereafter, the host vehicle can be controlled such that the distance from the sharp edge stone or the edge is kept larger than from the gently inclined edge stone) Blumenthal teaches identifying slopes that are too steep to drive and and controlling the vehicle to then be kept a distance away from the slope, if a slope is not detected until the vehicle is within said distance, the system will then be controlled to exceed that distance, a process that is analogous to determining the vehicle is at an unsafe distance from the cliff.
Tanaka, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches (ii) detecting a horizontal slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at an unsafe distance from the cliff since a weight of the vehicle can cause ground to collapse (see at least Tanaka [English Translation pg.11 para.3] FIG. 14 shows the state that the dump truck 1020 is approaching the bund 400 for earth discharging. In the figure, the symbol R represents the radius of the rear wheels 820, and the symbol Ds represent a horizontal distance from the external sensor 231 to the center of the rear wheel axle 875. Further, the symbol L1 is defined as a measured distance to the first bund angle changing position 401 detected by the external sensor 231. Because the bund 400, where formed through the stacking of earth and sand or the like as shown in the figure, is approximately determined by an angle called repose angle that enables the shape to be kept stably without the collapse of the earth and sand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Kennedy to contain a system for (i) detecting a downward slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at an unsafe distance from the cliff and (ii) detecting a horizontal slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at an unsafe distance from the cliff since a weight of the vehicle can cause ground to collapse with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the vehicle by determining a distance that should be kept by the vehicle in relation to dangerous terrain conditions such as downward slopes, cliffs, and collapsable features.
However, Kennedy does not explicitly teach a processor configured to perform (iii) detecting an upward slope, and as a result, determining that the vehicle is located at a safe distance from the cliff. However, because Blumenthal teaches detecting a downward slope to determine that the vehicle is an unsafe distance from a cliff (see at least Blumenthal [English Translation pg.24 para.1]) it would have