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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 21, 2022. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on November 21, 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 19 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the received input data and the input data. It is unclear if these claim terms are intended to refer to the same claim element or different claim elements. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting them to refer to the same claim elements.
Each of claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 19 recites IoT sensors after reciting one or more IoT sensors in the corresponding independent claim from which each depends. It is unclear if the second recitation is intended to refer back to the one or more IoT sensors of the independent claims or not. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting the claim elements to refer to the same claim element.
Each of claims 6, 13, and 19 recites, essentially, monitoring, via IoT sensors, a change in ground vibration pattern in addition to historically learned data related to soil, ground vibration, wind, tree age, and tree fall history. It is unclear if the monitoring is of a change in ground vibration pattern and a change in historically learned data related to soil, ground vibration, wind, tree age, and tree fall history or if the monitoring is a change in ground vibration pattern based the historically learned data. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the monitoring is of a change in ground vibration pattern and a change in historically learned data related to soil, ground vibration, wind, tree age, and tree fall history.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, 14-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102014210259 (hereinafter, “Lagner”). Examiner notes that the English translation, attached as an NPL file, is used for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Lagner discloses A computer-implemented method for improving impact prevention in autonomous vehicles (see at least p. 4; a processor (i.e., computer equivalent) may be used to implement the methods disclosed in the publication), the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a knowledge corpus based on data collected, from one or more internet of thing (IoT) sensors, associated with one or more predetermined risk factors of one or more predefined risks over time (see at least p. 4; environmental data may be collected, including captured vertical data above a vehicle. A risk of collision analysis may be performed between falling objects and the vehicle based on the captured data);
receiving, from the one or more IoT sensors, input data to observe a vertical space above a vehicle (see at least p. 4; vertical data above a vehicle may be received from environmental sensors);
identifying an object in a predetermined area based on the received input data and the knowledge corpus (see at least p. 4; vertical data above a vehicle may be received from environmental sensors, and corresponding objects in the observed space may be identified);
utilizing the knowledge corpus and the input data to generate a risk score for the identified object (see at least p. 4; a risk of collision analysis may be performed between falling objects and the vehicle based on the captured data); and
responsive to the risk score being above a predetermined threshold, issuing a command for the vehicle to continue to drive or to progress to a predetermined safe zone (see at least p. 7; in response to a detected collision risk (i.e., the risk is greater than a zero threshold), the vehicle may be controlled to avoid the object (i.e., move the vehicle to a safe zone)).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Examiner notes that the p. 4 additionally discloses a storage medium comprising a software program set to run on the processor.
Regarding claim 4, Lagner discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Lagner discloses further comprising: instructing the vehicle to autonomously move to the predetermined safe zone (see at least p. 7 and p. 9; in response to a detected collision risk (i.e., the risk is greater than a zero threshold), the vehicle may be controlled to avoid the object (i.e., move the vehicle to a safe zone). The process may be performed automatically).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Lagner discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Lagner discloses identifying one or more objects that line a roadside of a current road that the vehicle is traveling (see at least p. 6; a roadside bridge and/or pedestrian may be identified); and
identifying a potential risk of the one or more objects impacting the vehicle (see at least p. 6; a potential risk of something falling onto the road from for example, a roadside bridge, may be identified).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagner, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0372428 (hereinafter, “Liu”).
Regarding claim 2, Lagner discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Lagner does not explicitly teach all of the limitations of claim 2. Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: receiving permission to track and monitor the vehicle (see at least [0020]; permission from users may be obtained to track and monitor the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lagner with the teachings of Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for communication between entities; see at least Liu at [0020] and [0023].
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langner, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0291815 (hereinafter, “Smith”).
Regarding claim 3, Lagner discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Lagner does not explicitly teach all of the limitations of claim 3. Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: tracking, by IoT sensors, the object in the predetermined area (see at least [0082]; the objects in the environment (i.e., predetermined area) may be continuously tracked).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lagner with the teachings of Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide for data collection of event causes; see at least Smith at [0003].
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Lagner discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Lagner does not explicitly teach all of the limitations of claim 5. Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: dynamically adjusting the risk score and quantification of the risk score based on a received change to the object, the vertical space, or the predetermined area (see at least [0082]; the objects in the environment (i.e., predetermined area) may be continuously tracked and updated based on new information).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lagner with the teachings of Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide for data collection of event causes; see at least Smith at [0003].
Claim 12 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, and 19 contain allowable subject matter and may be found allowable after the above objections and rejections are remedied. Examiner will provide reasons for indicating allowable subject matter and/or allowability after the above rejections are remedied.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0124314 which relates to tracking of objects relative to a given vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666