DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected in the official action dated 05/05/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARRERA (US 2024/0416899) in view of BUNKER (US 2025/0124775) and LENNARTSSON (US 2024/0375643).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15,
BARRERA teaches an interference deterrent system for an autonomous vehicle (fig. 1), the interference deterrent system comprising a processor configured to:
receive, from at least one sensor of the autonomous vehicle, sensor data including an actor ([0181] teaches Sensors, for example, including cameras, lidars, radars, and ultrasonic sensors, enable autonomous vehicles to detect and recognize objects, obstacles, and pedestrians on the road);
determine whether the potentially interfering actor is human ([0160] teaches The computer vision system is designed to perform a range of tasks, including object detection, lane detection, and pedestrian recognition wherein object detection algorithms shall identify pedestrians as well as other objects within the vehicle’s path);
determine a trajectory of the actor based on the sensor data ([0220] and fig. 4A teach predicting a trajectory of motion of the actor (see “target vehicle” by the processor as shown at 410);
identify the actor as a potentially interfering actor when the trajectory of the actor intersects with a location of the autonomous vehicle ([0220] teaches estimating, by the processor an expected turn radius of the actor, as shown at 408- as well as an impact zone to avoid as shown at 412);
and
when the actor is a potentially interfering actor, identify a response to be executed by the autonomous vehicle ([0160] teaches using information to calculate the vehicle’s speed and direction, adjust its trajectory to avoid collisions; [0219] teaches potential responses include: reverse or making a lane change).
Barrera fails to teach determining that the actor is a human or an animal; determining that the potentially interfering actor is an unauthorized human or the animal; and deterring interference from the potentially interfering actor by executing a deterrent response.
BUNKER teaches in [0021] and [0028] a system which may be implemented into a car and in [0046] teaches implementation into a smart car, the system:
determining that the actor is a human or an animal([0019] teaches that the system memory 112a may include an AI model 113a. The AI model 113a may be applied to or otherwise process data from the camera 110a, the radar sensor 114a, and/or the microphone 118a to detect and/or identify one or more objects (e.g., people, animals) and further determining a trajectory; [0028] teaches determining if the detected person is determined by the system to be approaching or looking into the window of a car parked in the camera's view);
determining that the potentially interfering actor is an unauthorized human or the animal ([0033] teaches that in response to determining that a combination of data and/or determinations from the multiple sensors indicates that a detected human (e.g., an entity) is unknown/unrecognized; [0056] teaches that the person/entity may be identified as an unknown or unrecognized entity based on a comparison of a face, movements, voice, or other biometrics of the entity to a repository of known entities); and
deterring interference from the potentially interfering actor by executing a deterrent response ([0028] teaches determining if the detected person is determined by the system to be approaching or looking into the window of a car parked in the camera's view, thus potentially preparing to break into the parked car, then the deterrence sound may be selected from a library of sounds to be an aggressive sound, such as a deep man’s voice yelling; [0033] teaches that in response to determining that a combination of data and/or determinations from the multiple sensors indicates that a detected human is continuing and/or persisting performance of one or more suspicious acts, the cameras 110 may escalate one or more deter actions, perform one or more additional deter actions (e.g., a more serious deter action), or the like.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the Barrera system per the teachings of Bunker and determine that the actor is a human or an animal and further determine that the potentially interfering actor is an unauthorized human or the animal for the purpose of prioritize human lives over animals and/or selecting an appropriate course of action based upon the determined actor. It would have been obvious to deter interference from the potentially interfering actor by executing a deterrent response for the purpose of ensuring the vehicle's safe operation, helping to maintain the vehicle control and avoiding being "tricked" into unsafe actions that could impact traffic flow, permit unauthorized access to the vehicle or cause an accident.
Barrera, modified by Bunker, fails to expressly teach that when the actor is not a potentially interfering actor, initiating standby to await receipt of additional sensor data.
LENNARTSSON teaches an impending collision detection system for use in an autonomous vehicle wherein when the actor is not a potentially interfering actor, initiate standby to await receipt of additional sensor data (Lennartsson teaches in [0036] a system 100 which can include autonomous vehicles or semi-autonomous vehicles; [0080] and in Fig. 20 teach that if a defined primary impact probability threshold is not satisfied (i.e., if an actor is not potentially interfering) the process can return to 2002 which comprises determining whether a collision is likely to occur based upon sensed data, interpreted as corresponding to “standby to await receipt of additional sensor data”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the Barrera system per the teachings of Lennartsson, such that the system initiates a standby to await receipt of additional sensor data when the actor is not a potentially interfering actor, for the purpose of continuously operating to mitigate collisions.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARRERA (US 2024/0416899) in view of BUNKER (US 2025/0124775) and LENNARTSSON (US 2024/0375643) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 and further in view of JAGBRANT (US 2024/0359621).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17,
Barrera modified by Bunker and Lennartsson, teaches the system of claims 1, 8 and 15 but fails to further teach the features recited in claims 3, 10 and 17.
JAGBRANT teaches a vehicular system wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to determining the potentially interfering actor is not human ([0089] teaches the processor may perform a recognition process to identify an animal detected in proximity to the vehicle wherein the vehicle processing system may apply information received from vehicle sensors to a trained AI model that is trained provide an identification of an animal as an output.), determine whether an animal response is in progress ([0037] teaches providing as an output a selected stimulus mode to implement in response to detecting an animal by the side of the road i.e., “in progress” as broadly claimed).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to further modify the Barrera system per the teachings of Jagbrant, identifying animals in proximity to the vehicle, for the purpose of reducing risks of colliding with an animal entering the roadway.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18,
Jagbrant teaches that the processor is further configured to activate an ultrasound when an animal response is not in progress ([0096] teaches that the processor may control the vehicle signal devices to producing the selected stimulus including ultrasound, without restriction, so as to cause the animal to react- therefore teaching that the ultrasound may be emitted even in instances when an animal response is not in progress).
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARRERA (US 2024/0416899) in view of BUNKER (US 2025/0124775) and LENNARTSSON (US 2024/0375643) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 and further in view of KUEHNER (US 2023/0339431).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19,
Barrera modified by Bunker and Lennartsson, teaches the system of claims 1, 8 and 15 but fails to further teach the features recited in claims 5, 12 and 19.
KUEHNER teaches the interference deterrent system of claim 2, 8 and 16 wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to determining the potentially interfering actor is human([0059] teaches facial recognition circuitry is used to determine that an object which is detected in the digital images is another human/person, and not an inanimate object), determine whether a human response is in progress ([0059] teaches performing additional in order to determine whether proximity between two humans is within a defined proximity threshold to satisfy a first “proximity association” parameter.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to further modify the Barrera system per the teachings of Kuehner, identifying a potentially interfering actor as human and determining whether a human response is in progress, for the purpose of determining the likelihood that one or more humans are passengers of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20,
Kuehner teaches that the processor is further configured to initiate a response when a human response is not in progress ([0064] teaches that the system 520 performs automatic entry control functions based on trajectory analysis (e.g., the identified driver and passenger(s) are approaching the vehicle 510), the passenger's movement can trigger remote unlocking/opening of the doors 511-514, without any additional input from the driver.)
Regarding claims 7 and 14,
Kuehner teaches that the processor is further configured to determine whether the potentially interfering actor has a radio frequency identification (RFID) key ([0023] teaches that the trajectory analysis entry control system 120 can initiate the identification and trajectory tracking functions upon receiving a signal from a remote device that is known to be associated with the vehicle 110, such as a corresponding remote key fob device (as shown in FIG. 3), or remote ultra-wideband (UWB) device (as shown in FIG. 2)); and
unlock a door of the autonomous vehicle when the potentially interfering actor has an RFID key([0064] teaches that the system 520 performs automatic entry control functions based on trajectory analysis (e.g., the identified driver and passenger(s) are approaching the vehicle 510), the passenger's movement can trigger remote unlocking/opening of the doors 511-514, without any additional input from the driver.)
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 DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689