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 .
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagliano; Joseph (US 20240034232 A1) in view of Scaife et al. (US 20200346612 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Gagliano et al. teaches, A system for altering form factor of an autonomous vehicle, the system comprising: (See abstract, autonomous vehicle)
a movable member for mounting on the autonomous vehicle, the movable member configured to move between a closed position and an extended position, (See fig. 2-5, fig. 7, step 720, 740, paragraphs 63, 68, after the deployment controller 130 determines that the autonomous vehicle 10 is in an autonomous mode, detects that there is an emergency (e.g., receives the emergency signal 620), and detects that the autonomous vehicle 10 is stopped (e.g., receives the vehicle stop signal 624), the deployment controller 130 can open the warning device deployment system 100…the one or more controllers 604 close the warning device deployment system 100…)
an actuator coupled to the movable member and configured to move the movable member between the closed position and the extended position; (See paragraph 45-46, The locking mechanism 116 includes an electro-mechanical bolt or the like. The locking mechanism 116 can be controlled and actuated to lock and unlock the deployment case 108. For example, the locking mechanism 116 can be retracted to unlock the deployment case 108 and can be extended to lock the deployment case 108… The first power hinge 118 is an electro-mechanical hinge that can be controlled actuated to open and to close the deployment case 108. )
an processing system in communication with the actuator, the processing system configured to: (See fig. 2-3, vehicle controller 14, deployment controller 130, paragraph 47, The deployment controller 130 is in communication with the vehicle controller 14 and receives power from a power supply 22 of the autonomous vehicle 10…paragraph 48, the deployment controller 130 first unlocks and opens the locking mechanism 116. For example, the deployment controller 130 retracts the locking mechanism 116 to unlock the deployment case 108. )
receive, from at least one sensor of the autonomous vehicle, at least one sensor signal; (See fig. 7, steps 710-715, fig. 8, steps 805, paragraph 61, 71, the emergency can include inconsistencies in sensor readings (e.g., differences between the readings in the redundant sensors), faults in the vehicle controller 14, faults in the vehicle controls 16, faults in the sensors (e.g., no longer sending or receiving information), …the one or more controllers 604 receive sensor signals. For example, the one or more controllers 604 receive the first sensor signals 622 from the vehicle sensors 12 as the autonomous vehicle 10 is operating and navigating on the road 30 (FIG. 1). When the autonomous vehicle 10 is in an emergency or otherwise needs to stop, the vehicle controller 14 stops the autonomous vehicle 10,)
determine to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position based on the at least one sensor signal; and control the actuator to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position based on the determination. (See fig. 7, step 720, paragraphs 61-63, the one or more controllers 604 open the warning device deployment system 100. For example, after the deployment controller 130 determines that the autonomous vehicle 10 is in an autonomous mode, detects that there is an emergency (e.g., receives the emergency signal 620), and detects that the autonomous vehicle 10 is stopped (e.g., receives the vehicle stop signal 624), the deployment controller 130 can open the warning device deployment system 100…With reference to FIG. 2, the deployment controller 130 controls the locking mechanism 116 to unlock the deployment case 108. The deployment controller 130 then controls the first power hinge 118 to swing open the deployment case 108 to lower the deployment case 108, and controls the second power hinge 120 to lower the ramp 114.)
Gagliano does not specifically teach, wherein when in the extended position, the movable member extends in a transverse direction relative to forward motion of the autonomous vehicle;
Scaife further discloses wherein when in the extended position, the movable member extends in a transverse direction relative to forward motion of the autonomous vehicle; (See figs. 3-4, 5b, 6b, safety barrier extended on side of the vehicle)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the movable system of Gagliano to further comprise side extension taught by Scaife because safety space and/or distance between stopped vehicle (e.g. side of the road) and adjacent vehicle is achieved, thereby improving safety of pedestrian and driver nearby (Paragraphs 2-8).
In regards to claim 2, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 1, wherein to determine to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position, the processing system is further configured to: determine, by applying the at least one sensor signal to one or more predefined rules, whether it is feasible to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position; and determine to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position when it is feasible to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position. (See Gagliano fig. 7, step 710, paragraph 61, The vehicle controller 14 can send the emergency signal 620 to the deployment controller 130. In this way, the deployment controller 130 detects that the autonomous vehicle 10 is in an emergency…paragraph 62, when the vehicle controller 14 detects an emergency, the vehicle controller 14 can control the autonomous vehicle to stop (e.g., by controlling the brakes and the steering of the autonomous vehicle 10)…paragraph 63, after the deployment controller 130 determines that the autonomous vehicle 10 is in an autonomous mode, detects that there is an emergency (e.g., receives the emergency signal 620), and detects that the autonomous vehicle 10 is stopped (e.g., receives the vehicle stop signal 624), the deployment controller 130 can open the warning device deployment system 100. Upon satisfying that vehicle is in (i) emergency and that (ii) vehicle is stopped, deployment case 108 is extended/opened)
In regards to claim 4, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to identify a vehicle operation to be performed by the autonomous vehicle. (See Gagliano fig. 7, step 715, paragraph 62, when the vehicle controller 14 detects an emergency, the vehicle controller 14 can control the autonomous vehicle to stop (e.g., by controlling the brakes and the steering of the autonomous vehicle 10))
In regards to claim 5, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 4, wherein to determine to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position, the processing system is further configured to: determine whether the identified vehicle operation is associated with extending the movable member; and determine to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position when the autonomous vehicle is engaging in the vehicle operation. (See Gagliano fig. 7, step 715, paragraph 62, when the vehicle controller 14 detects an emergency, the vehicle controller 14 can control the autonomous vehicle to stop (e.g., by controlling the brakes and the steering of the autonomous vehicle 10)…fig. 7, step 720, paragraph 63, after the deployment controller 130 determines that the autonomous vehicle 10 is in an autonomous mode, detects that there is an emergency (e.g., receives the emergency signal 620), and detects that the autonomous vehicle 10 is stopped (e.g., receives the vehicle stop signal 624), the deployment controller 130 can open the warning device deployment system 100.)
In regards to claim 6, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to: when the movable member is in the extended position, determine to move the movable member from the extended position to the closed position based on the at least one sensor signal; and control the actuator to move the movable member from the extended position to the closed position. (See Gagliano fig. 7, step 735-740 and paragraphs 67-68, when the emergency has been resolved (e.g., the fault has been fixed), the deployment controller 130 shifts the deployment vehicle 102 to a neutral setting and controls the spool arm 112 to retract the wire 106, thus retracting the warning devices 104 and the deployment vehicle 102. As the spool arm 112 retracts the wire 106, the wire 106 moves the warning devices 104 and moves the deployment vehicle 102 towards the deployment case 108… the one or more controllers 604 close the warning device deployment system 100.)
In regards to claim 7, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the movable member comprises a signaling device configured to display one or more display patterns. (See Scaife paragraphs 75, 77, 91, 94, The barriers deploy left or right (or both), with LED's coming on instantly to provide visual confirmation of this. The LEDs operate on a rapid burst sequence.)
In regards to claim 8, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the processing system is further configured to: select a display pattern of the one or more display patterns based on the at least one sensor signal; and cause the signaling device to display the selected display pattern. (See Scaife paragraphs 75, 77, 91, 94, The barriers deploy left or right (or both), with LED's coming on instantly to provide visual confirmation of this. The LEDs operate on a rapid burst sequence…Barriers in accordance with the present invention can be deployed automatically when the indicator is used and this raise awareness of danger for an approaching cyclist who may be in the blind spot of a driver of the vehicle. The LED lights on the barrier can be made to operate at the same time as the flashing vehicle indicator, more preferably in synchronization therewith.)
In regards to claim 9, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the signaling device comprises an array of light emitting diodes. (See Scaife paragraphs 75, 77, 91, 94, The barriers deploy left or right (or both), with LED's coming on instantly to provide visual confirmation of this. The LEDs operate on a rapid burst sequence.)
In regards to claim 10, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the movable member comprises one of a flap or a boom. (See Scaife figs. 3-4, 5b)
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claims 7 and 8, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 2, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 4, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagliano; Joseph (US 20240034232 A1) in view of Scaife et al. (US 20200346612 A1), and further in view of Cook et al. (US 7559575 B1).
In regards to claim 3, Gagliano-Scaife teaches the system of claim 2.
Gagliano-Scaife does not specifically teach, wherein the one or more predefined rules includes a maximum speed threshold, and wherein to determine whether it is feasible to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position, the processing system is configured to compare a current speed of the autonomous vehicle to the maximum speed threshold.
Cook further teaches, wherein the one or more predefined rules includes a maximum speed threshold, and wherein to determine whether it is feasible to move the movable member from the closed position to the extended position, the processing system is configured to compare a current speed of the autonomous vehicle to the maximum speed threshold. (See fig. 4, step 402, determining whether vehicle speed falls below of minimum velocity threshold. If it is yes, the flowchart can further proceed and reach step 408, which is deployment of the barrier.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the movable system of Gagliano-Scaife to further comprise maximum speed metric taught by Cook because setting a specific minimum speed limit before deployment allows the movable member to be safely extended and operated, further ensuring that driver is safe to perform his/her duties around the vehicle. Also, safety of the driver is further improved by considering temperature of the exhaust area.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swisshelm; Tom (US 20180194261 A1) discloses: An device for moving a construction barrier includes a connection member, an alignment member, and an engagement member. The connection member is configured to removably attach the device to a vehicle. The alignment member is configured to attach to the connection member and to the engagement member, and the engagement member extends at an angle away from the vehicle. When the device is attached to the vehicle and engages a construction barrier, the engagement member is configured to move the construction barrier behind the vehicle and toward a path of travel of the vehicle (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668