DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant's amendment of 09 June 2026. Claims 11-20 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 1-10 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 11-18 and 20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 25 March 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 11-18 and 20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 25 March 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 11-20 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 25 March 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
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 11-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Shokonji WO2020090320A1 (English Translation) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 11, Rider teaches A method for classifying objects in an environment of a vehicle, the method comprising (see at least [Abstract, ¶01 & 068-073]):
receiving sensor data which describe the environment from an environmental sensor of the vehicle (Receiving sensor data that describes the environment around the vehicle from a sensor of the vehicle. see at least [¶027, 037 & 042-044]),
recognizing an object in a region of a roadway on which the vehicle is located based on the sensor data (Recognizing an object in a region of the road that the vehicle is located on based on the sensor data. see at least [¶034-037, 045, 052 & 078]),
determining an object region on the roadway, with which object region the object is associated (Determining an object region on the road, the object being associated with this object region. see at least [¶050-055, 061-062, 087, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]),
associating a base point with the object based on the sensor data (Associating a base point of the object/obstacle based on the sensor data. see at least [¶050-055, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]),
determining a height of the base point with reference to a vehicle vertical direction of the vehicle (Determining the height of the base point of the object/obstacle with reference to the vehicle vertical direction of the vehicle. see at least [¶050-055, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]),
and classifying the object as an object that can be driven under upon determining that a difference between the roadway height and the height of the base point exceeds a predefined threshold value (Classifying that an object/obstacle can be driven under safely upon determining that a difference between the road/ground height and the height of the base point of the object/obstacle exceeds a predefined threshold value (safety height). Furthermore, an object is being classified in this art as a determination is always made as to whether the object is safe to approach or if a safety measure must be activated. see at least [¶025, 057-060, 067-073 & 078-081]).
Rider does not explicitly teach determining a roadway height along the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region.
Shall be noted that Rider teaches to obtain a roadway height (in this case the ground) with reference to an obstacle, but does not go into explicitly detail on the grade of the road below the obstacle (see at least [“[¶054] According to various aspects, the determination of the distance from ground 235 of the obstacle 132 (see also FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B) may include determining the obstacle range 233 associated with a range of a respective obstacle 132 from the at least one lens 314 of the optical imaging system 300. Based on the sensor image 112i, an image distance from ground 225 may be determined for the image object 114 that corresponds to the obstacle 132.”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Hanert.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shokonji does teach determining a roadway height along the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region (A roadway height along the vehicle vertical direction in the object/rectangle region is determined. The roadway height is determined on the premise of the predetermined gradient of the roadway between the forward-zone region in front of the vehicle and the object region. The roadway height is found and used to determine the height to the object from the sloped road surface (height 90). see at least [¶0128-0135 & FIG 14]).
FIG 14.
Shokonji would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of detecting objects within a range of a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider to use the technique of determining a roadway height along the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region as taught by Shokonji. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle reaction to objects that could pose a problem due to their height (see at least [¶0119-0120]).
Rider and Shokonji do not explicitly teach and outputting control signals for an at least semi-automated maneuvering of the vehicle according to a classification of the object.
Hanert does teach and outputting control signals for an at least semi-automated maneuvering of the vehicle according to a classification of the object (The driving/collision assistance system can maneuver the vehicle in an autonomous manner according to the classification of the object/obstacle in the environment of the vehicle. see at least [¶033-035 & 059-060].
Hanert would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of classifying objects to be driven under by a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider to use the technique of outputting control signals for an at least semi-automated maneuvering of the vehicle according to a classification of the object as taught by Hanert. Doing so would lead to improved warning and reaction to unsafe obstacles that would be unsafe to drive under (see at least [¶014]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Rider teaches wherein the object is classified as a relevant object on the roadway upon determining that the difference between the roadway height and the height of the base point falls short of the predefined threshold value (Classifying that an object/obstacle is a relevant object upon determining that a difference between the road/ground height and the height of the base point of the object/obstacle falls short of a predefined threshold value (safety height). Furthermore, an object is being classified in this art as a determination is always made as to whether the object is safe to approach or if a safety measure must be activated. see at least [¶057-060, 067-073 & 078-081]).
Regarding Claim 17, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Shokonji teaches wherein the roadway height is determined by determining a height of a road surface of the roadway with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the forward-zone region based on the sensor data (A roadway height along the vehicle vertical direction in the object/rectangle region is determined by using vehicle sensor data. The roadway height is determined on the premise of the predetermined gradient of the roadway between the forward-zone region in front of the vehicle and the object region. The roadway height is found and used to determine the height to the object from the sloped road surface (height 90). see at least [¶0128-0135 & FIG 14]).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 14.
Shokonji would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of detecting objects within a range of a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider and Hanert to use the technique of having the roadway height be determined by determining a height of a road surface of the roadway with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the forward-zone region based on the sensor data as taught by Shokonji. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle reaction to objects that could pose a problem due to their height (see at least [¶0119-0120]).
Regarding Claim 18, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches A computing device for a driver assistance system of a vehicle, wherein the computing device is configured to perform the method according to claim 11 (see at least [¶026, 035, 042 & 068]). */Please see the rejection of independent claim 11 for the rejection of those limitations/*
Regarding Claim 19, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 18 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches wherein the driver assistance system is configured to maneuver the vehicle in the at least semi-automated manner according to the classification of the object in the environment of the vehicle (The driving/collision assistance system can maneuver the vehicle in an autonomous manner according to the classification of the object/obstacle in the environment of the vehicle. see at least [¶033-035 & 059-060].
Hanert would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of classifying objects to be driven under by a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider and Shokonji to use the technique of having the driver assistance system be configured to maneuver the vehicle in the at least semi-automated manner according to the classification of the object in the environment of the vehicle as taught by Hanert. Doing so would lead to improved warning and reaction to unsafe obstacles that would be unsafe to drive under (see at least [¶014]).
Regarding Claim 20, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches A computing device for a driver assistance system of a vehicle, wherein the computing device is configured to perform the method according to claim 11 (see at least [¶0129-0130]). */Please see the rejection of independent claim 11 for the rejection of those limitations/*
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Shokonji WO2020090320A1 (English Translation) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Kook (US 20200156618 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein the grade is predetermined on the premise of at least one of a predetermined maximum grade or a predetermined maximum change in curvature for the roadway.
However, Kook does teach wherein the grade is predetermined on the premise of at least one of a predetermined maximum grade or a predetermined maximum change in curvature for the roadway (The road grade is predetermined on the premise of the predetermined maximum grade for the road. see at least [¶018, 092 & 095]).
Kook would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle control based on road grade information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider, Shokonji and Hanert to use the technique of having the grade be predetermined on the premise of at least one of a predetermined maximum grade for the roadway as taught by Kook. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle control by taking into account road grade information (see at least [¶092]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Shokonji WO2020090320A1 (English Translation) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Schmidt (US 20200156630 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein the grade is predetermined based on digital map data describing the grade of the roadway between the forward-zone region and the object region.
However, Schmidt does teach wherein the grade is predetermined based on digital map data describing the grade of the roadway between the forward-zone region and the object region (The road grade/inclination is predetermined based on a digital navigation map that describes the grade/inclination of the road between where the vehicle is and the object region. see at least [¶033-034 & FIG 3]).
Schmidt would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of classifying objects to be driven under by a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider, Shokonji and Hanert to use the technique to of having the grade be predetermined based on digital map data describing the grade of the roadway between the forward-zone region and the object region as taught by Schmidt. Doing so would lead to improved safety control to evade collisions with overhead objects while keeping in mind the road inclination (see at least [¶055]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Shokonji WO2020090320A1 (English Translation) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Kambe (US 20130002470 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein the threshold value is determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of objects which is able to be detected based on the sensor data.
However, does teach wherein the threshold value is determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of objects which is able to be detected based on the sensor data (The threshold value is determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of elevation-view structures/objects that are detected based on the sensor data. For example, the threshold value is set to evade classification of normal objects as elevation type object/structures. see at least [¶0505, 0636, 0683 & 0715-0716]).
Kambe would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of obstacle detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider, Shokonji and Hanert to use the technique of having the threshold value be determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of objects which is able to be detected based on the sensor data as taught by Kambe. Doing so would lead to improved notification of a collision danger with an overhead object (see at least [¶0648]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Shokonji WO2020090320A1 (English Translation) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Pfeiffer (US 10929711 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider, Shokonji and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein at least one of uncertainties in the sensor data or tolerances when determining the roadway height are also taken into account when determining the threshold value.
However, Pfeiffer does teach wherein at least one of uncertainties in the sensor data or tolerances when determining the roadway height are also taken into account when determining the threshold value (The uncertainties/noise of sensor data are taken into account when determining a threshold values. The uncertainties/ noise of sensor data are also found when measuring the road height. see at least [Column 2-3, Lines 54-14 & Column 9, Lines 22-30]).
Pfeiffer would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of processing vehicle sensor data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider, Shokonji and Hanert to use the technique of having at least one of uncertainties in the sensor data or tolerances when determining the roadway height are also taken into account when determining the threshold value as taught by Pfeiffer. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle control from processed sensor data (see at least [Column 4, Lines 3-31]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights