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 . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 33-62 are pending. Claims 52-62 are withdrawn from consideration due to restriction. Claims 33-51 have been examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 52-62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/23/25.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 33-36, 38, 41-45 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20150203109 (“McClain”).
Claim 33
McClain discloses a system for navigating a host vehicle, the system comprising: at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to:
receive at least one image acquired by an image capture device, the at least one image being representative of an environment of the host vehicle (0006 analyzing an image from a camera, which provides a view of a driving direction for the vehicle);
analyze the at least one image to determine a predicted path of the host vehicle (0006 analyzing an image from a camera, which provides a view of a driving direction for the vehicle, to recognize a roadway path by identifying a roadway edge. The image analysis is performed by an ECU for the vehicle which determines a predicted vehicle path and compares the roadway path to the predicted vehicle path.);
determine, based on the at least one image, an indicator of comfort associated with the predicted path (0015 system 12, 112 may make use of tire pressure monitoring sensors (TPMS), for detecting road surface roughness changes and confirming road departure. Other secondary sensor for detecting road surface roughness and/or changes, such as cameras, inertia measuring units (IMU) and wheel speed sensors (WSS) may be used., 0005 The ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring when the predicted vehicle path differs from the roadway path by a predetermined threshold and determines at least one corrective action to return the vehicle path to the roadway path);
identify, based on the indicator of comfort, an alternative path of the host vehicle (0005 The ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring when the predicted vehicle path differs from the roadway path by a predetermined threshold and determines at least one corrective action to return the vehicle path to the roadway path. The safety system sends instructions to apply at least one corrective action with at least an electronic stability control system., 0021 The RDP feature 14, 114 may provide a specific trajectory control based upon the unique circumstances of the detected roadway departure (or impending roadway departure). The specific trajectory control for a situation may be to correct, or overcorrect, the vehicle path depending on the amount of departure which has occurred at the time of detection, the trajectory of the road, and the vehicle dynamics. The specific trajectory control to provide path correction may involve steering the vehicle 10, 110, in one of the manners described above, to a determined distance from the road edge., Fig. 3); and
output a control signal configured to modify an operation of a component of the host vehicle to follow the alternative path of the host vehicle (0005 The ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring when the predicted vehicle path differs from the roadway path by a predetermined threshold and determines at least one corrective action to return the vehicle path to the roadway path. The safety system sends instructions to apply at least one corrective action with at least an electronic stability control system., 0021 The RDP feature 14, 114 may provide a specific trajectory control based upon the unique circumstances of the detected roadway departure (or impending roadway departure). The specific trajectory control for a situation may be to correct, or overcorrect, the vehicle path depending on the amount of departure which has occurred at the time of detection, the trajectory of the road, and the vehicle dynamics. The specific trajectory control to provide path correction may involve steering the vehicle 10, 110, in one of the manners described above, to a determined distance from the road edge., Fig. 3, 0028 FIGS. 3A-G illustrate a plurality of situations where a vehicle 10, 110 road and roadway departure is detected by the RDP feature 14, 114. An uncorrected roadway departure course shown by a dashed arrow. The RDP feature 14, 114 corrects the vehicle 10, 110 path to keep the vehicle 10, 110 on the roadway 26, with the corrected path shown by solid arrow.).
Claim 34
McClain discloses:
wherein determining the indicator of comfort associated with the predicted path includes determining a vertical contour of a road along the predicted path (0022 Secondary confirmation of the roadway departure can be obtained via a measurement of the road surface roughness by additional sensor information such as that from IMU positioned on each side of the vehicle 10, WSS 16, 116, and/or the camera 20, 120. Road surface roughness may include repetitive variations in road surface, e.g. rumble strips, or may include recognition of a change in surface roughness, such as by one or more wheels contacting gravel alongside a paved road.).
Claim 35
McClain discloses:
wherein determining the indicator of comfort associated with the predicted path further includes determining an indicator of smoothness associated with the vertical contour (0022 Secondary confirmation of the roadway departure can be obtained via a measurement of the road surface roughness by additional sensor information such as that from IMU positioned on each side of the vehicle 10, WSS 16, 116, and/or the camera 20, 120. Road surface roughness may include repetitive variations in road surface, e.g. rumble strips, or may include recognition of a change in surface roughness, such as by one or more wheels contacting gravel alongside a paved road.).
Claim 36
McClain discloses:
wherein determining the indicator of comfort associated with the predicted path includes identifying an obstacle along the predicted path, and wherein the indicator of comfort is based on the obstacle (0031 The RDP feature 14, 114 may utilize other systems such as a lane departure warning to detect the departure in this type of situation. Oncoming traffic may also be used as objects to assist/confirm lane detection and departure. Similar to FIG. 3F, FIG. 3G illustrates an example of a correction for the vehicle 10, 110 traveling down a straight road where the vehicle 10, 110 is departing from the marked lane 29 into oncoming traffic., 0028 Additionally, if the vehicle 10, 110 is equipped with a lane departure warning, this could be used as secondary confirmation for the RDP feature 14, 114. FIG. 3C is an example of a correction for the vehicle 10, 110 traveling down a straight road where the side of the road does not have a road line 29 to mark the edge 28 of the road. The RDP feature 14, 114 identifies the road edge 28 to identify the roadway 26. In FIG. 3C, objects such as bushes, trees, parked cars, guardrails, etc. are located along the roadside, which help identify the roadway path. When the road line 29 is present, as in FIG. 3C, the road line 29 may also be used to provide secondary confirmation of the road edge 28 for the RDP feature 14, 114.).
Claim 38
McClain discloses wherein the memory further includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to:
determine, based on the at least one image, an additional indicator of comfort associated with the alternative path (0005 The ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring when the predicted vehicle path differs from the roadway path by a predetermined threshold and determines at least one corrective action to return the vehicle path to the roadway path. The safety system sends instructions to apply at least one corrective action with at least an electronic stability control system., 0021 The RDP feature 14, 114 may provide a specific trajectory control based upon the unique circumstances of the detected roadway departure (or impending roadway departure). The specific trajectory control for a situation may be to correct, or overcorrect, the vehicle path depending on the amount of departure which has occurred at the time of detection, the trajectory of the road, and the vehicle dynamics. The specific trajectory control to provide path correction may involve steering the vehicle 10, 110, in one of the manners described above, to a determined distance from the road edge., Fig. 3);
compare the indicator of comfort associated with the predicted path with the additional indicator of comfort associated with the alternative path (0005 The ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring when the predicted vehicle path differs from the roadway path by a predetermined threshold and determines at least one corrective action to return the vehicle path to the roadway path. The safety system sends instructions to apply at least one corrective action with at least an electronic stability control system., 0021 The RDP feature 14, 114 may provide a specific trajectory control based upon the unique circumstances of the detected roadway departure (or impending roadway departure). The specific trajectory control for a situation may be to correct, or overcorrect, the vehicle path depending on the amount of departure which has occurred at the time of detection, the trajectory of the road, and the vehicle dynamics. The specific trajectory control to provide path correction may involve steering the vehicle 10, 110, in one of the manners described above, to a determined distance from the road edge., Fig. 3, 0022); and
select the alternative path based on the comparison (0005 The ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring when the predicted vehicle path differs from the roadway path by a predetermined threshold and determines at least one corrective action to return the vehicle path to the roadway path. The safety system sends instructions to apply at least one corrective action with at least an electronic stability control system., 0021 The RDP feature 14, 114 may provide a specific trajectory control based upon the unique circumstances of the detected roadway departure (or impending roadway departure). The specific trajectory control for a situation may be to correct, or overcorrect, the vehicle path depending on the amount of departure which has occurred at the time of detection, the trajectory of the road, and the vehicle dynamics. The specific trajectory control to provide path correction may involve steering the vehicle 10, 110, in one of the manners described above, to a determined distance from the road edge., Fig. 3, 0022 Secondary confirmation of the roadway departure can be obtained via a measurement of the road surface roughness by additional sensor information such as that from IMU positioned on each side of the vehicle 10, WSS 16, 116, and/or the camera 20, 120. Road surface roughness may include repetitive variations in road surface, e.g. rumble strips, or may include recognition of a change in surface roughness, such as by one or more wheels contacting gravel alongside a paved road. Additional confirmation of the driving situation/condition of the vehicle 10 relative to the roadway 26 may be achieved by the use of additional sensors 16, 116 used by advanced driver assistance systems, such as a radar or LIDAR, or by other driver assistance systems, such as lane departure warning using lane markings 29.).
Claim 41
McClain discloses:
wherein the alternative path at least partially overlaps with the predicted path (Fig. 3, 0028 FIGS. 3A-G illustrate a plurality of situations where a vehicle 10, 110 road and roadway departure is detected by the RDP feature 14, 114. An uncorrected roadway departure course shown by a dashed arrow. The RDP feature 14, 114 corrects the vehicle 10, 110 path to keep the vehicle 10, 110 on the roadway 26, with the corrected path shown by solid arrow.).
Claim(s) 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50
Claim(s) 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 33, 35, 36, 38, 33, 35, 36 and 38, respectively, and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 37 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over McClain in view of US20130030685 (“Goetting”).
Claim 37
McClain discloses:
wherein identifying the obstacle along the predicted path includes: determining a vertical contour of a road along the predicted path (0022 Secondary confirmation of the roadway departure can be obtained via a measurement of the road surface roughness by additional sensor information such as that from IMU positioned on each side of the vehicle 10, WSS 16, 116, and/or the camera 20, 120. Road surface roughness may include repetitive variations in road surface, e.g. rumble strips, or may include recognition of a change in surface roughness, such as by one or more wheels contacting gravel alongside a paved road.).
McClain fails to disclose wherein identifying the obstacle along the predicted path includes: detecting the obstacle based on a difference in smoothness of at least two points along the vertical contour. However, McClain does disclose determining a vertical contour of a road along the predicted path (0022). Furthermore, Goetting teaches a system for navigating a host vehicle (abstract), including:
wherein identifying the obstacle along the predicted path includes: detecting the obstacle based on a difference in smoothness of at least two points along the vertical contour (0044 laser scanner on a vehicle could also safeguard the roadway 4 m ahead from a height of 2 m, for example. Thus, depending on the braking action and carriageway condition, even speeds of more than 15 km/h are optionally admissible., Fig. 1, Fig. 3, 0098, 0037 Instead of laser scanners, other optical runtime-measuring methods can also be used, also ultrasound and radar with certain restrictions and, depending on the nature of the carriageway, also cameras and stereo cameras with corresponding image processing., Fig. 4, 0118 FIG. 3 relates to FIG. 2 and shows over the width of the carriageway the difference between the measured values and the reference values. If the measured values correspond to the expected reference values, no discrepancy can be found. However, the discrepancies caused by the obstacle (9), the hole (10), the black object (14) and the floating particles (11) can be seen.).
McClain and Goetting both disclose systems of navigating a host vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to apply the known element(s) of Goetting to the known system of McClain, the latter having been ready for improvement. The combination would have done no more than yield the predictable results of wherein identifying the obstacle along the predicted path includes: detecting the obstacle based on a difference in smoothness of at least two points along the vertical contour.
Claims 39, 40, 46 and 51 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over McClain in view of US20110130956 (“Tracton”).
Claim 39
McClain fails to disclose wherein identifying the alternative path of the host vehicle includes: identifying a plurality of alternative paths of the host vehicle, and selecting the alternative path from among the plurality of alternative paths. However, McClain does disclose determining an alternative path (Fig. 3). Furthermore, Tracton teaches a system of navigating a vehicle (abstract), including wherein identifying the alternative path of the host vehicle includes:
identifying a plurality of alternative paths of the host vehicle (claim 7: retrieving comfort data corresponding to each the candidate routes, the comfort data including topographical data, point of interest data, or a combination thereof; and weighting the candidate routes based on the comfort data, wherein the selecting of the route is further based on the weighting of the comfort data.), and
selecting the alternative path from among the plurality of alternative paths (claim 7: retrieving comfort data corresponding to each the candidate routes, the comfort data including topographical data, point of interest data, or a combination thereof; and weighting the candidate routes based on the comfort data, wherein the selecting of the route is further based on the weighting of the comfort data.).
McClain and Tracton both disclose systems of navigating a vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to apply the known element(s) of Tracton to the known system of McClain, the latter having been ready for improvement. The combination would have done no more than yield the predictable results of wherein identifying the alternative path of the host vehicle includes: identifying a plurality of alternative paths of the host vehicle, and selecting the alternative path from among the plurality of alternative paths.
Claim 40
McClain fails to disclose wherein selecting the alternative path includes determining a plurality of indicators of comfort associated with the plurality of alternative paths. However, McClain does disclose determining an alternative path (Fig. 3). Furthermore, Tracton teaches a system of navigating a vehicle (abstract), including:
wherein selecting the alternative path includes determining a plurality of indicators of comfort associated with the plurality of alternative paths (claim 7: retrieving comfort data corresponding to each the candidate routes, the comfort data including topographical data, point of interest data, or a combination thereof; and weighting the candidate routes based on the comfort data, wherein the selecting of the route is further based on the weighting of the comfort data.).
See prior art rejection of claim 39 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim(s) 46 and 51
Claim(s) 46 and 51 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 40 and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892. Specifically, US20110264366 discusses determining an alternative route for a vehicle user to improve user comfort.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663