DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 12/16/2025 regarding Application No. 18/181,864 originally filed on 03/10/2023. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-18, 20-23 are pending for consideration:
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues “Litvack is not directed to a land vehicle at all, let alone an underwater detection system for a land vehicle as set forth in claim 1. Thus, as an initial matter, a person of ordinary skill in this art would not consider an over-water navigation system to be useful to a land vehicle that cannot travel over water.” [Remarks, p. 8]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Litvack is relied upon for the display and route-depiction concept of presenting multiple alternative routes (e.g., a preliminary route and a modified route) as map graphics, rather than for the specific propulsion type (boat vs. land vehicle). Litvack expressly discloses that routes are communicated to a user in the form of a map displayed on the user’s monitor (as per “Generally, the recommended route is communicated to a user in the form of a map that is displayed on the user's computer monitor…” in ¶0011, as per “The recommended route is communicated to the user in the form of a map (See FIGS. 4, 5, 8, and 9) that is displayed on the monitor…” in ¶0080). Thus, Litvack is reasonably pertinent to the problem of communicating route alternatives to an operator via a display, which is exactly the portion for which Litvack is applied in the rejection.
The applicant argues “the entire point of the innovations in the present invention is that a land vehicle cannot travel over water. The land vehicle requires low water depth to enable travel through the water but a boat cannot travel through areas of low water depth.” [Remarks, p. 8]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Even accepting applicant’s characterization of vehicle type, both the present claims and Litvack address depth-constrained navigation through water regions and avoidance of unsafe segments based on thresholds. Litvack discloses determining routes that include only segments extending through operatively navigable areas (as per ¶9-¶10, ¶20) and explains that navigability depends on vessel requirements (as per “the term ‘operatively navigable’ … suitable for a particular user's specified requirements…” in ¶40, as per “whether a particular path is navigable … depends on … depth requirements” in ¶41). Accordingly, Litvack is not teaching away from threshold-based route selection; rather, it teaches selecting alternate route segments based on obstruction constraints, which is consistent with the claimed concept of altering a path when an environmental parameter exceeds a threshold.
The applicant argues “a ‘prior art reference must be considered in its entirety… including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention’… [and] the divergent teachings that would lead a skilled person away … cannot simply be ignored by plucking isolated portions.” [Remarks, p. 8]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection does not “pluck” an unrelated teaching; instead, Litvack is applied for its express disclosure of displaying route graphics and communicating those routes to a user on a displayed map, while Altman and Wan are relied upon for the wading sensing and underwater-environment-based path planning. Litvack’s display teachings are integral to Litvack’s system (not an isolated aside), because Litvack repeatedly discloses transmitting derived routes to users and displaying them as maps (as per ¶11, ¶56, ¶80). Thus, considering Litvack “as a whole” confirms that map-based route display is a central feature of the reference, and applicant’s “plucking” characterization is unsupported.
The applicant argues “FIG. 4 … illustrates a preliminary portion of the method that occurs when the system is ‘carrying out a route optimization method’ and does not show the results of a route optimization… all the preliminary routes … are not displayed to a user… FIG. 4 does not show information that is displayed to the user.” [Remarks, p. 8]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Litvack expressly ties the route depictions (including FIG. 4) to user communication. Litvack discloses: “FIG. 4 shows an example of a preliminary route (dotted lines)… [and] depicts a modified preliminary route (solid lines)” in ¶58, and further discloses that the recommended route is communicated to the user in the form of a map and specifically references the figures including FIG. 4 as being displayed (as per “The recommended route is communicated to the user in the form of a map (See FIGS. 4, 5, 8, and 9) that is displayed on the monitor…” in ¶80, as per “Recommended routes … may include maps that illustrate the routes…” in ¶56). Therefore, Litvack does not affirmatively limit FIG. 4 to an “internal-only” depiction; rather, Litvack expressly describes map display to the user and references FIG. 4 among the displayed route maps. Applicant’s assertion that FIG. 4 “does not show information that is displayed” is not supported by Litvack’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in further view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655).
As per Claim 1, Altman discloses of measuring the depth of water ahead of a user’s position (as per Abstract), comprising:
a submersion sensor that is responsive to being submerged in water, and is adapted to determine when at least part of a vehicle is submerged in water; (as per “two parallel fording event indicator sensors, 13 are disposed on the vehicle 10. It is desirable for the fording event indicator sensors 13 to be mounted as low as possible so that an earlier indication of the presence of water in the path of vehicle 10 can be given. … may exhibit a change in response. when entering the water, and thus may provide an indication of the vehicle being in a fording situation.” in ¶35, as per “water surface sensor 50 and/or one or more water indication sensors 13 on the rear of the vehicle 10 and as such the described detection of fording; detection of current fording depth and prediction of ahead fording depth may equally to forwards and reverse vehicle 10 movement, optionally using sensors at the leading edge of the vehicle.” in ¶45)
an underwater sensor capable of detecting an underwater environmental parameter; (as per “The proximity sensor or water sensor 125 is activated by the processor 121 when the parallel water level sensors detect the presence of water. Therefore, the proximity sensor is only activated once it is submerged.” in ¶78, as per “second fording depth sensor to determine the angle in water and angle relating to the proximity sensor, a proximity sensor to determine road angle ahead of the vehicle” In ¶9)
a controller coupled to both the submersion sensor and the underwater sensor, (as per “The proximity sensor can be activated by the processor 121 when the parallel water level sensors detect the presence of water. The proximity sensor is submerged during its operation.” in ¶62, as per “The proximity sensor or water sensor 125 is activated by the processor 121 when the parallel water level sensors detect the presence of water.” in ¶78)
Altman fails to expressly disclose
wherein when the submersion sensor is submerged in water, the controller is configured to determine a current vehicle path in the water towards a destination and when the underwater environmental parameter that is within the current vehicle path is beyond a predetermined threshold, the controller is configured to determine a new vehicle path in the water towards the destination where the underwater environmental parameter is within the predetermined threshold; and
a display communicated with the controller, wherein the controller is adapted to provide on the display the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path, wherein both the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path are presented concurrently and as graphics on the display.
Wan discloses of a wading method (as per Abstract), comprising:
wherein when the submersion sensor is submerged in water, (as per “if it is detected that the wading mode is opened, then obtaining the underwater road information through the at least one sonar detecting unit.” in P2¶19) the controller is configured to determine a current vehicle path in the water towards a destination (as per “after obtaining the underwater road information through the at least one sonar detection unit, the method further comprises: planning the path according to the underwater road surface information;” in P2¶20) and when the underwater environmental parameter that is within the current vehicle path is beyond a predetermined threshold, (as per “determining driving fault danger level… judging the driving fault danger level, and sending the pre-judging driving prompting information to the interactive system. interaction system, driving mode system according to the vehicle driving information and underwater road information provided to the user of the driving prompt information… the driving fault danger level meets the preset standard, then generating the driving prompting information.” in P4¶9-¶14, as per “display driving prompting information to the user, surrounding environment, underwater environment and/or geographic information and display navigation information of feasible path planning.” in P5¶7, as per “wherein the path planning is mainly for the target vehicle in the water-related area to find a non-obstacle or obstacle from the current point to the end point but does not cause the vehicle cannot travel of the safety wherein the current point can be the place before entering the wading area” in P3¶22, as per “if meeting the target obstacle, will be reflected back, the reflected sound wave is received by the transducer, and becomes electric signal, after amplifying processing, it can be displayed on the fluorescent screen or changed into sound in the earphone” in P2¶22) the controller is configured to determine a new vehicle path in the water towards the destination where the underwater environmental parameter is within the predetermined threshold; (as per “also can be the area in the wading area, the end point is the water-related area of the end safety. wherein the number of the safety path can be one, also can have two and three, and display all the path planning result through the display or projector in the vehicle. when there are multiple pieces, prompting the user to select one of the user through the way of character, and planning one path selected by the user in the vehicle display or projector display” in P4¶1)
In this way, Wan operates to use underwater road information to finish wading driving safely (as per Abstract). Like Altman, Wan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman with the wading mode as taught by Wan to enable another standard means of determining a path and presenting the path to a user when the vehicle is submerged (P4¶9-¶14).
Altman and Wan fail to expressly disclose:
a display communicated with the controller, wherein the controller is adapted to provide on the display the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path, wherein both the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path are presented concurrently and as graphics on the display.
Litvack discloses of navigation assistance, comprising:
a display communicated with the controller, wherein the controller is adapted to provide on the display the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path, wherein both the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path are presented concurrently and as graphics on the display. (as per “FIG. 4 shows an example of a preliminary route (dotted lines) generated by preliminary route module 26 as a user digitized route, i.e., in response to a suggestion from a user computer 18 a, 18 b, . . . 18 n. FIG. 4 shows how the preliminary route traverses an area of shallow or low-depth water and depicts a modified preliminary route (solid lines) that avoids the shallow water” in ¶58, as per “Recommended routes that are derived or determined by server computer 14 may include maps that illustrate the routes relative to land masses, and optionally indicate surface and underwater features of potential interest to users, such as land formations, man-made structures, water current and tide information, fuel stations, marine life attractions, polluted waters, dangerous reefs, etc” in ¶56, as per Fig. 4)
In this way, Litvack operates to derive recommended over-water route(s) (¶9). Like Altman and Wan, Litvack is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman and the wading mode as taught by Wan with the navigation assistance of Litvack to enable another standard means of displaying/overlaying current and adjusted paths of a vehicle (¶58).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Altman further discloses a wherein the display shows data or graphics derived from data obtained from the submersion sensor or the underwater sensor. (as per “the processor 121 enables sending alerts to the display 122, allowing the user to monitor safety levels by audio or visual alerts. A color-coding system indicating safe levels can also be used. For example, certain levels and readings might be displayed in green to indicate safe levels, where the depth is well below the maximum water threshold, yellow values might indicate a depth nearing the maximum threshold, where the user should proceed with caution, and red might indicate that the depth exceeds the maximum threshold and that the user should not proceed.” in ¶71)
As per Claim 4, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Altman further discloses wherein the underwater environmental parameters include depth of the water, or the location, size, or shape of an obstacle. (as per “the software 110 uses certain known values relating to the position of the two mounted water level sensors to calculate the wading depth ahead of the vehicle.” in ¶51, as per “proximity sensor detects the variations in incline and changes in topography ahead of the vehicle” in ¶66, as per “wherein a portion of the at least three sensors are located on the front half of the vehicle indicating the presence of water, first water fording depth at the first sensor location on the vehicle,” in ¶7)
As per Claim 5, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Altman further discloses a display, wherein the underwater environmental parameter including the location and size of objects or water depth surrounding the vehicle is displayed to a vehicle occupant. (as per “includes a display 122 that provides the user with three important numbers: the depth around or about the apparatus and vehicle, the depth ahead of the apparatus, and the distance between the vehicle and the depth… if the maximum wading depth for a particular vehicle is 2 feet (ft) and the apparatus calculates a depth of 1 ft ahead of the vehicle, display 122 would show 50% of maximum safe wading depth.. The depth ahead may be displayed in the same color or a different color such as yellow, which may indicate to a driver that the water depth ahead of the vehicle comes close to the maximum wading/fording threshold, or red, which may indicate that the water ahead exceeds the vehicle's maximum wading/fording threshold. Display 122 might also show pop up warnings relating to the depth ahead of the vehicle, such as “Proceed with caution!” or “Do not proceed!”” in ¶83-¶87)
As per Claim 6, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Altman further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to communicate with a vehicle control system that is configured to alter speed, direction, power application, or braking of the vehicle. (as per “system of fording and/or depth sensing may be operational only below a predetermined fording speed, and the vehicle speed may be limited to a pre-set maximum during fording.” in ¶47, as per “brake the car before the car enters water above a predetermined depth.” in Claim 5, as per “wherein the computer is configured to activate the vehicle's brakes before the vehicle enters a predetermined depth of water.” in Claim 18)
As per Claim 7, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Altman fails to expressly disclose a global positioning system coupled to the controller.
See Claim 1 for teachings of Wan. Wan further discloses a global positioning system coupled to the controller. (as per “wherein the geographic information can be obtained through global positioning system (Global Positioning System, GPS)” in P5¶4)
In this way, Wan operates to use underwater road information to finish wading driving safely (as per Abstract). Like Altman and Litvack, Wan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman and the navigation assistance of Litvack with the wading mode as taught by Wan to enable another standard means of determining a path and presenting the path to a user when the vehicle is submerged (P4¶9-¶14).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655) in further view of Myers (US Pub. No. 20180341265).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Altman, Wan, and Litvack fail to expressly disclose wherein the vehicle control system is capable of navigating the vehicle from the current vehicle path to the new vehicle path.
Myers discloses of vehicle wading safety (as per Abstract), wherein the vehicle control system is capable of navigating the vehicle from the current vehicle path to the new vehicle path. (as per "process 600 may involve processor 510 controlling the vehicle to autonomously wade through the waterbody via the wading route. In some embodiments, at 660, process 600 may further involve processor 510 controlling the vehicle to autonomously wade through the waterbody safely via the wading route at the wading speed." in ¶45, as per “under-water sensors 560(1)-560(M) may detect that there is a rock of a significant size on the right side of road 20 submerged beneath top water surface 33. Processor 510 may thus determine the wading route to be going slightly to the left of road” in ¶34, as per “In some embodiment, processor 510 of wading safety apparatus 500 may further control vehicle 10 to wade through waterbody 30 via the wading route according to the wading speed or speed profile." in ¶37))
In this way, Myers operates to autonomously wade the waterbody via the wading route (as per Claim 11). Like Altman, Wan, and Litvack, Myers is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman, the wading mode as taught by Wan, and the navigation assistance of Litvack with the vehicle wading safety system of Myers to enable another standard means of controlling a vehicle through a wading route in response to determining that it is safe for the vehicle to wade through the waterbody (as per ¶34).
Claim(s) 9-11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655) in view of Myers (US Pub. No. 20180341265) in further view of Clark (US Pub. No. 20170083771).
As per Claim 9, Altman discloses a method of navigating a land vehicle through water (as per Abstract), comprising:
determining that at least part of the vehicle is submerged in water when a submersion sensor is submerged in water; (as per “two parallel fording event indicator sensors, 13 are disposed on the vehicle 10. It is desirable for the fording event indicator sensors 13 to be mounted as low as possible so that an earlier indication of the presence of water in the path of vehicle 10 can be given. … may exhibit a change in response. when entering the water, and thus may provide an indication of the vehicle being in a fording situation.” in ¶35, as per “water surface sensor 50 and/or one or more water indication sensors 13 on the rear of the vehicle 10 and as such the described detection of fording; detection of current fording depth and prediction of ahead fording depth may equally to forwards and reverse vehicle 10 movement, optionally using sensors at the leading edge of the vehicle.” in ¶45)
determining an underwater environmental parameter from an underwater sensor; (as per “The proximity sensor or water sensor 125 is activated by the processor 121 when the parallel water level sensors detect the presence of water. Therefore, the proximity sensor is only activated once it is submerged.” in ¶78, as per “second fording depth sensor to determine the angle in water and angle relating to the proximity sensor, a proximity sensor to determine road angle ahead of the vehicle” In ¶9)
Altman fails to expressly disclose:
determining a current vehicle path in the water towards a destination and when the underwater environmental parameter is beyond a predetermined threshold, determining a new vehicle path in the water towards the destination where the underwater environmental parameter is within the predetermined threshold; and
both a) controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter
b) displaying, by providing graphics on a display, the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path to a driver of the vehicle such that the graphics for both the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path are provided on the display at the same time
and also providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera
Wan discloses of a wading method (as per Abstract), comprising:
determining a current vehicle path in the water towards a destination (as per “after obtaining the underwater road information through the at least one sonar detection unit, the method further comprises: planning the path according to the underwater road surface information;” in P2¶20) and when the underwater environmental parameter is beyond a predetermined threshold, (as per “determining driving fault danger level… judging the driving fault danger level, and sending the pre-judging driving prompting information to the interactive system. interaction system, driving mode system according to the vehicle driving information and underwater road information provided to the user of the driving prompt information… the driving fault danger level meets the preset standard, then generating the driving prompting information.” in P4¶9-¶14, as per “display driving prompting information to the user, surrounding environment, underwater environment and/or geographic information and display navigation information of feasible path planning.” in P5¶7, as per “wherein the path planning is mainly for the target vehicle in the water-related area to find a non-obstacle or obstacle from the current point to the end point but does not cause the vehicle cannot travel of the safety wherein the current point can be the place before entering the wading area” in P3¶22, as per “if meeting the target obstacle, will be reflected back, the reflected sound wave is received by the transducer, and becomes electric signal, after amplifying processing, it can be displayed on the fluorescent screen or changed into sound in the earphone” in P2¶22) determining a new vehicle path in the water towards the destination where the underwater environmental parameter is within the predetermined threshold; (as per “also can be the area in the wading area, the end point is the water-related area of the end safety. wherein the number of the safety path can be one, also can have two and three, and display all the path planning result through the display or projector in the vehicle. when there are multiple pieces, prompting the user to select one of the user through the way of character, and planning one path selected by the user in the vehicle display or projector display” in P4¶1)
In this way, Wan operates to use underwater road information to finish wading driving safely (as per Abstract). Like Altman, Wan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman with the wading mode as taught by Wan to enable another standard means of determining a path and presenting the path to a user when the vehicle is submerged (P4¶9-¶14).
Altman and Wan fail to expressly disclose:
a) controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter
b) displaying, by providing graphics on a display, the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path to a driver of the vehicle such that the graphics for both the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path are provided on the display at the same time
and also providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera
Litvack discloses of navigation assistance, comprising:
b) displaying, by providing graphics on a display, the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path to a driver of the vehicle such that the graphics for both the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path are provided on the display at the same time. (as per “FIG. 4 shows an example of a preliminary route (dotted lines) generated by preliminary route module 26 as a user digitized route, i.e., in response to a suggestion from a user computer 18 a, 18 b, . . . 18 n. FIG. 4 shows how the preliminary route traverses an area of shallow or low-depth water and depicts a modified preliminary route (solid lines) that avoids the shallow water” in ¶58, as per “Recommended routes that are derived or determined by server computer 14 may include maps that illustrate the routes relative to land masses, and optionally indicate surface and underwater features of potential interest to users, such as land formations, man-made structures, water current and tide information, fuel stations, marine life attractions, polluted waters, dangerous reefs, etc” in ¶56, as per Fig. 4)
In this way, Litvack operates to derive recommended over-water route(s) (¶9). Like Altman and Wan, Litvack is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman and the wading mode as taught by Wan with the navigation assistance of Litvack to enable another standard means of displaying/overlaying current and adjusted paths of a vehicle (¶58).
Altman, Wan, and Litvack fail to expressly disclose:
a) controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter
and also providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera
Myers discloses of vehicle wading safety (as per Abstract), comprising:
a) controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter (as per "process 600 may involve processor 510 controlling the vehicle to autonomously wade through the waterbody via the wading route. In some embodiments, at 660, process 600 may further involve processor 510 controlling the vehicle to autonomously wade through the waterbody safely via the wading route at the wading speed." in ¶45, as per “under-water sensors 560(1)-560(M) may detect that there is a rock of a significant size on the right side of road 20 submerged beneath top water surface 33. Processor 510 may thus determine the wading route to be going slightly to the left of road” in ¶34, as per “In some embodiment, processor 510 of wading safety apparatus 500 may further control vehicle 10 to wade through waterbody 30 via the wading route according to the wading speed or speed profile." in ¶37))
In this way, Myers operates to autonomously wade the waterbody via the wading route (as per Claim 11). Like Altman, Wan, and Litvack, Myers is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman, the wading mode as taught by Wan, and the navigation assistance of Litvack with the vehicle wading safety system of Myers to enable another standard means of controlling a vehicle through a wading route in response to determining that it is safe for the vehicle to wade through the waterbody (as per ¶34).
Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Myers fail to expressly disclose:
and also providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera
Clark discloses of a vehicle mounted side camera system, comprising:
and also providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera (as per “a display screen integral in the vehicle's dashboard is operatively connected to one or more cameras mounted on the exterior of the vehicle such that when desired, the display screen displays real time video as it is captured by the exterior cameras” in ¶4, as per “The vehicle mounted side camera system includes four camera members mounted to the exterior of a vehicle and in communication with a wireless display screen disposed on the dash of the vehicle” in ¶7, as per “and the camera members 10 may be operatively connected through conventional Bluetooth bonding such that the video from the camera members 10 is viewable on the display screen 30 in real time and manual inputs from the display screen 30 may be transmitted to the camera members 10” in ¶16)
In this way, Clark operates to use cameras mounted to the exterior of a vehicle to communicate with a wireless display screen disposed on the dash of the vehicle (¶7). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Myers, Clark is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Myers with the vehicle mounted side camera system of Clark to enable another standard means of displaying the feed of video from each camera and selectively display the feed of video captured by the cameras (Claim 1).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Altman, Wan, and Litvack fail to expressly disclose wherein one or more of a vehicle speed and a vehicle direction is controlled as a function of the current vehicle path or the new vehicle path.
See Claim 9 for teachings of Myers. Myers further discloses wherein one or more of a vehicle speed and a vehicle direction is controlled as a function of the current vehicle path or the new vehicle path. (as per “Depending on specific topography of bottom profile 35 of waterbody 30, it may be safer to wade through waterbody 30 at a certain speed, or according to a certain speed profile. For example, if ground surface 26 as shown in FIG. 4 is very bumpy, it may be safer to drive at a low speed” in ¶34, as per "process 600 may involve processor 510 controlling the vehicle to autonomously wade through the waterbody via the wading route. In some embodiments, at 660, process 600 may further involve processor 510 controlling the vehicle to autonomously wade through the waterbody safely via the wading route at the wading speed." in ¶45)
In this way, Myers operates to autonomously wade the waterbody via the wading route (as per Claim 11). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Clark, Myers is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Clark with the vehicle wading safety system of Myers to enable another standard means of controlling a vehicle through a wading route in response to determining that it is safe for the vehicle to wade through the waterbody (as per ¶34).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Altman fails to expressly disclose wherein displaying the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path to a driver of the vehicle is accomplished by providing a visual display that is viewable by the driver.
See Claim 9 for teachings of Wan. Wan further discloses wherein displaying the current vehicle path and the new vehicle path to a driver of the vehicle is accomplished by providing a visual display that is viewable by the driver. (as per “also can be the area in the wading area, the end point is the water-related area of the end safety. wherein the number of the safety path can be one, also can have two and three, and display all the path planning result through the display or projector in the vehicle. when there are multiple pieces, prompting the user to select one of the user through the way of character, and planning one path selected by the user in the vehicle display or projector display” in P4¶1, as per “displaying the route planning result through the display in the car or the projector.” in P3¶20, as per “vehicle driving information and underwater road information provided to the user of the driving prompt information, through the display or projector, displaying the driving prompt information to the user, underwater environment and vehicle driving information and displaying the feasible path planning of navigation information.” in P4¶13)
In this way, Wan operates to use underwater road information to finish wading driving safely (as per Abstract). Like Altman, Litvack, Myers, and Clark, Wan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Litvack, Myers, and Clark with the wading mode as taught by Wan to enable another standard means of determining a path and presenting the path to a user when the vehicle is submerged (P4¶9-¶14).
As per Claim 13, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Altman further discloses wherein the depth of water in the current vehicle path is compared to a predetermined threshold (as per “Continual measurement of actual immersion depth D may be made and compared with a maximum fording depth Dmax of the vehicle 10. Depth calculation D(R) ahead of vehicle 10 may be carried out for single distance R ahead of the vehicle, for example, 1 meter (m), or at several discrete points” in ¶43, as per “Maximum safe fording depth can be an important metric for the apparatus when it is used in certain applications, such as on a vehicle for water wading/fording... this information enables the processor 121 to make its recommendations and to prepare and relay safety and warning information.” in ¶73) and, to determine the new vehicle path, the depth of water outside the current vehicle path is also compared to the predetermined threshold. (as per “a depth of water at a location ahead of the vehicle substantially in the direction of vehicle movement and/or the distance, ahead of the vehicle substantially in the direction of vehicle movement is compared to determine future maximum wading depth.” in ¶7, as per “activate the vehicle's brakes before the vehicle enters a predetermined depth of water.” in Claim 18)
As per Claim 14, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 13. Altman, Wan, and Litvack fail to expressly wherein the vehicle is controlled to change the current vehicle path to a new vehicle path when the depth of water in the new vehicle path is less than the predetermined threshold and the depth of water in the current vehicle path exceeds the predetermined threshold.
See Claim 13 for teachings of Myers. Myers further discloses wherein the vehicle is controlled to change the current vehicle path to a new vehicle path (as per “as bottom profile 35 of waterbody 30 is rather smooth, critical trajectory 44 pretty much follows bottom profile 35 (or equivalently, ground surface 26 underneath waterbody 30) at a constant distance H, which is essentially the distance between critical component 40 and roadway 20. Theoretically, as long as distance H is larger than maximum water depth D, it may be determined that it is safe for vehicle 10 to wade through waterbody 30 without damaging critical component 40. In reality, due to possible waves, ripples or water splashes at top surface 33 of waterbody 30, it may be determined that it is safe for vehicle 10 to traverse waterbody 30 if distance H is larger than maximum water depth D by a safety margin that accounts for the possible waves, ripples or water splashes.” in ¶22) when the depth of water in the new vehicle path is less than the predetermined threshold and the depth of water in the current vehicle path exceeds the predetermined threshold. (as per “On the other hand, when it is determined that a portion of any critical trajectories may likely be below top surface 33 of waterbody 30, it may be determined unsafe for vehicle 10 to wade through waterbody 30.” in ¶22, as per “At this time, vehicle 10 may determine that it is unsafe to continue the wading, and end up backing up and out of waterbody 30.” in ¶28)
In this way, Myers operates to autonomously wade the waterbody via the wading route (as per Claim 11). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Clark, Myers is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Clark with the vehicle wading safety system of Myers to enable another standard means of controlling a vehicle through a wading route in response to determining that it is safe for the vehicle to wade through the waterbody (as per ¶34).
As per Claim 15, Myers the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Altman further discloses wherein controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter includes one or more of controlling acceleration, braking, and steering or direction of the vehicle. (as per “activate the vehicle's brakes before the vehicle enters a predetermined depth of water.” in Claim 18)
As per Claim 16, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Altman fails to expressly disclose wherein the underwater environmental parameter is used to detect that an obstacle is within the current vehicle path.
See Claim 9 for teachings of Wan. Wan further discloses wherein the underwater environmental parameter is used to detect that an obstacle is within the current vehicle path. (as per “the user is running on the road with water, and opening the wading mode, when the vehicle detects there is no obstacle in front, the vehicle can generate driving prompting information without obstacle, normal driving, when the vehicle detects the front with an obstacle, and will generate an obstacle” in P3¶12, as per “it can determine the distance between the vehicle and the target obstacle according to the signal round trip time, it can determine whether there is an obstacle around the vehicle according to the signal round trip time; it also can judge the property of the target according to the high and low condition of the tone; for example, the target is moving, the tone of the echo is changed, the tone is continuously high, the target forward vehicle is closed, the tone is continuously reduced, The target is far away from the vehicle.” in P3¶20-¶23)
In this way, Wan operates to use underwater road information to finish wading driving safely (as per Abstract). Like Altman, Litvack, Myers, and Clark, Wan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Litvack, Myers, and Clark with the wading mode as taught by Wan to enable another standard means of determining a path and presenting the path to a user when the vehicle is submerged (P4¶9-¶14).
As per Claim 18, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 16. Altman, Wan, and Litvack fail to expressly disclose wherein controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter includes altering one or both of vehicle speed and vehicle direction as a function of the detection of the obstacle.
See Claim 16 for teachings of Myers. Myers further discloses wherein controlling the vehicle as a function of the underwater environmental parameter includes altering one or both of vehicle speed and vehicle direction as a function of the detection of the obstacle. (as per “process 600 may involve processor 510 determining a wading route via which the vehicle is able to wade through the waterbody safely. In some embodiments, at 650, process 600 may further involve processor 510 determining a wading speed at which the vehicle is able to wade through the waterbody safely via the wading route.” in ¶44, as per “under-water sensors 560(1)-560(M) may detect that there is a rock of a significant size on the right side of road 20 submerged beneath top water surface 33. Processor 510 may thus determine the wading route to be going slightly to the left of road 20 so as to avoid the submerged rock.” in ¶34)
In this way, Myers operates to autonomously wade the waterbody via the wading route (as per Claim 11). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Clark, Myers is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Clark with the vehicle wading safety system of Myers to enable another standard means of controlling a vehicle through a wading route in response to determining that it is safe for the vehicle to wade through the waterbody (as per ¶34).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655) in view of Myers (US Pub. No. 20180341265) in view of Clark (US Pub. No. 20170083771) in further view of Cao (CN Pat. No. 109677266).
As per Claim 17, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark fail to expressly disclose wherein the underwater environmental parameter is used to detect an obstacle outside of the current vehicle path.
Cao discloses of a wading state display (as per Abstract), wherein the underwater environmental parameter is used to detect an obstacle outside of the current vehicle path. (as per “obtaining a surrounding roadway obstacles data and/or ambient road sunken data; the obstacle and/or sunken drawing in the first 3D scene.” in P2¶7-¶8, as per “according to the relative data of the vehicle draws the first 3D object and the first 3D object placed in the first 3D scene, capable of presenting wading state of vehicle at a different viewing angle.” in P2¶37, as per Fig. 4)
In this way, Cao operates to present the wading state of a vehicle at different viewing angle (as per Abstract). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark, Cao is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, and Clark with the wading state display of Cao to enable another standard means of displaying a wading situation in a 3D model via a display to the driver to ensure driving safety and avoid serious damage to the vehicle (as per Abstract).
As per Claim 20, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, Myers, Clark, and Cao teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Myers fail to expressly disclose wherein the new vehicle path avoids the obstacle outside of the current path of travel.
See Claim 17 for teachings of Wan. Wan further discloses wherein the new vehicle path avoids the obstacle outside of the current path of travel. (as per “also can be the area in the wading area, the end point is the water-related area of the end safety. wherein the number of the safety path can be one, also can have two and three, and display all the path planning result through the display or projector in the vehicle. when there are multiple pieces, prompting the user to select one of the user through the way of character, and planning one path selected by the user in the vehicle display or projector display” in P4¶1, as per “according to the underwater road information for route planning, and displaying the route planning result through the display or projector in the vehicle, namely by providing safety driving planning path, so that the user can avoid the obstacle safety through the wading area.” in P4¶2)
In this way, Wan operates to use underwater road information to finish wading driving safely (as per Abstract). Like Altman, Litvack, Myers, Clark, and Cao, Wan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Litvack, Myers, Clark, and Cao with the wading mode as taught by Wan to enable another standard means of determining a path and presenting the path to a user when the vehicle is submerged (P4¶9-¶14).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655) in further view of Poreda (US Pub. No. 20080133131).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Altman, Wan, and Litvack teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Altman, Wan, and Litvack fail to expressly disclose wherein the current vehicle path is provided on the display as a first graphic, and the new vehicle path is provided on the display as a second graphic that is different than the first graphic so that the new vehicle path is distinguishable from the current vehicle path.
Poreda discloses of a route-planning interactive navigation system, wherein the current vehicle path is provided on the display as a first graphic (as per “The planned route 120 of the host ship 102 and the predicted route 130 of the sensed object(s) 110 are conveyed to an operator as visual information upon the display 206” in ¶33, as per “a route illustrated as a dotted line 120 indicates at least one planned route for host ship 102 from initial location 104 to destination 106” in ¶25) and the new vehicle path is provided on the display as a second graphic that is different than the first graphic so that the new vehicle path is distinguishable from the current vehicle path. (as per “To avoid the proximate convergence 302 as predicted, an alternate route 304 is generated” in ¶63, as per “RPINS 100 has further determined that an improved route 400 is available. For ease of illustration the revised portion of route 400 is shown in heavy dotted line, whereas previous portion of predicted route 304 is shown in light dotted line” in ¶65, as per “RPINS may also display simply the planned and predicted routes without animation, rather simply displaying the planned and predicted routes upon the display as, for example, different colored lines” in ¶52)
In this way, Poreda operates to indicate to the operator that an improved planed route has been determined, and is available for adoption (¶60). Like Altman, Wan, and Litvack, Poreda is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman, the wading mode as taught by Wan, and the navigation assistance of Litvack with the interactive navigation system of Poreda to enable another standard means of displaying the current and new vehicle path (¶52, ¶65).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655) in view of Poreda (US Pub. No. 20080133131) in further view of Pedersen (US Pub. No. 20190339701).
As per Claim 22, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 21. Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda fail to expressly disclose wherein the first graphic and the second graphic are provided on the display on top of a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera so that the first graphic and second graphic are viewable in relation to the video feed.
Pedersen discloses of solution path overlay interfaces for autonomous vehicles, wherein the first graphic and the second graphic are provided on the display on top of a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera so that the first graphic and second graphic are viewable in relation to the video feed. (as per “the solution path overlay interface can include a combination of images based on sensor outputs from the vehicle data or the external data (e.g., video images) and images that are superimposed over the images based on the sensor outputs. For example, optical sensors in the vehicle or in the external objects can output a video stream which can be included in the respective vehicle data or external data. The video stream can be used as a backdrop for the solution path overlay interface that can be combined with generated portions of the solution path overlay interface” in ¶99, as per “The solution path overlay interface 4000 includes an environment representation 4010, a roadway portion indicator 4012, a vehicle indicator 4020 that can represent the vehicle that will follow a solution path, a solution path indicator 4022 (also referred to as a solution path), an external object indicator 4030 that can represent another vehicle, an external object boundary indicator 4032, an external object indicator 4040 that can represent a pedestrian, an external object indicator 4050 that can represent an obstruction, and an external object indicator 4060 that can represent a building” in ¶78, ¶79)
In this way, Pedersen operates to improve the situational awareness of vehicle operators through usage of the solution path overlay interface, thereby resulting in more efficient and safe vehicle operation (¶21). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda, Pedersen is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the depth measuring vehicle system of Altman, the wading mode as taught by Wan, the navigation assistance of Litvack, and the interactive navigation system of Poreda with the solution path overlay interface(s) of Pedersen to enable another standard means of overlaying interface graphics on a vehicle-camera video feed so the graphics are viewable relative to the video (¶99).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Pub. No. 20210171043) in view of Wan (CN Pub. No. 113859261) in view of Litvack (US Pub. No. 20110313655) in view of Poreda (US Pub. No. 20080133131) in further view of Clark (US Pub. No. 20170083771).
As per Claim 23, the combination of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 21. Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda fail to expressly disclose providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera.
Clark discloses of a vehicle mounted side camera system, comprising providing on the display a video feed from a vehicle mounted camera. (as per “a display screen integral in the vehicle's dashboard is operatively connected to one or more cameras mounted on the exterior of the vehicle such that when desired, the display screen displays real time video as it is captured by the exterior cameras” in ¶4, as per “The vehicle mounted side camera system includes four camera members mounted to the exterior of a vehicle and in communication with a wireless display screen disposed on the dash of the vehicle” in ¶7, as per “and the camera members 10 may be operatively connected through conventional Bluetooth bonding such that the video from the camera members 10 is viewable on the display screen 30 in real time and manual inputs from the display screen 30 may be transmitted to the camera members 10” in ¶16)
In this way, Clark operates to use cameras mounted to the exterior of a vehicle to communicate with a wireless display screen disposed on the dash of the vehicle (¶7). Like Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda, Clark is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Altman, Wan, Litvack, and Poreda with the vehicle mounted side camera system of Clark to enable another standard means of displaying the feed of video from each camera and selectively display the feed of video captured by the cameras (Claim 1).
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 TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ramón Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658