DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected as cited below.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “METHOD, SYSTEM, AND VEHICLE FOR AUTOMATICALLY DEPLOYING WARNING DEVICES FROM THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE.”
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites multiple embodiments aside from the claimed embodiment. The abstract of this application should only recite limitations related to the automated placement of emergency signaling devices. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Price et al. (US Pub. 2022/0001798 A1, hereafter Price).
Regarding claim 1, Price teaches:
A method to deploy a warning device from an autonomously driven truck (ADT), the method comprising:
causing, using an ADT control system (vehicle control system 146), the ADT (vehicle 105) to initiate a deceleration (At least ¶ [0136] “At block 1010, the method 1000 involves reducing the speed of autonomous vehicle 105.”);
causing the warning device (first one of the signaling devices 304a) to be released from the ADT and make contact with a roadway (At least ¶ [0137] “the autonomous vehicle 105 can be configured to drop one or more of the signaling devices 304 from the housing 302 such that the signaling devices 304 land on the roadway 310 in accordance with the predefined criteria for the placement of the signaling devices 304.”); and
controlling the deceleration of the ADT to bring the ADT to a stop at a distance from the warning device that is within a range of target distances (At least ¶ [0139] “At block 1030, the method 1020 involves stopping the autonomous vehicle 105.” Also, see ¶ [0138] “the system may determine the timing at which to drop the signaling devices 304 based on one or more of the following: a current speed of the autonomous vehicle 105, a rate of deceleration of the autonomous vehicle 105, a distance between a current location of the autonomous vehicle 105 and the first location …”. Finally, see FIG. 8 which shows the ADT stopped at 10, 100, and 200 feet from the respective three markers. This indicates that the deceleration rate is controlled to stop the ADT at a distance from the signaling devices within a range of target distances (e.g. 10’-200’)).
Regarding claim 2, Price teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the warning device comprises a depiction of a regulation-mandated warning sign (At least ¶ [0133] “one or more of the size, reflectivity, color, stability (e.g., in windy or other adverse conditions), luminance, configuration, and storage of the signaling device 304 may be compliant with traffic regulations (e.g., DOT FMVSS requirements).”), and wherein the warning device has at least one of a spheroidal shape or a cylindrical shape (FIG. 15D shows both a spheroidal base and a cylindrical extruded portion.).
Regarding claim 3, Price teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the warning device has an asymmetric distribution of mass (At least ¶ [0148] “the signaling devices 304 can include one or more of a reflector or light (e.g., LED) 1304, a weighted bottom 1306 …”. See FIG. 13D.).
Regarding claim 4, Price teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the warning device is made of one or more materials capable of restoring shape after deformation (At least ¶ [0154] “the signaling device 304 further includes a spring loaded tube 1502 …”. Also see FIG. 15A-15B which shows material 1502 restoring shape.).
Regarding claim 7, Price teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing an additional warning device to be released from the ADT after releasing the warning device (At least ¶ [0026] “a second location for a second one of the plurality of signaling devices to be placed at about 100 feet from the stopped location in a center of the traffic lane or shoulder of the stopped location and in the direction of approaching traffic” and ¶ [0139] “the method 1020 involves placing the signaling devices 304 according to the predefined criteria. In some implementations, the placing of the signaling devices 304 may include dropping the signaling devices 304 at the timings determined in block 1026.” Additionally, see FIG. 8 which shows device 304b placed after the first signaling device.);
causing the ADT to make a provisional stop on the roadway (At least ¶ [0141] “the method 1040 involves stopping the autonomous vehicle 105 on the roadway 310 (e.g., on the shoulder of the roadway 310 or within a lane on the roadway 310).”); and
causing the ADT to move to a position between the warning device and the additional warning device (See FIG. 6 which shows the ADT (vehicle 105) which has moved in between signaling device 304c and signaling device 304a.).
Claims 8-11 and 14 describe a system designed to perform the method detailed in claims 1-4 and 7, respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 15-18 and 20 describe a vehicle designed to perform the method detailed in claims 1-4 and 7, respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price in view of YU et al. (US Pub. 2021/0078599 A1, hereafter YU).
Regarding claim 5, Price teaches The method of claim 1.
Price does not explicitly teach monitoring, using a sensing system of the ADT, a distance from the ADT to the warning device after releasing the warning device.
However, YU, within the same field of endeavor, teaches monitoring, using a sensing system of the ADT, a distance from the ADT to the warning device after releasing the warning device (At last ¶ [0067] “X represents the preset parking distance that the target vehicle continues to move after placing the warning sign, and the preset parking distance may be determined based on a moving distance of the head, tail, or center position of the vehicle body.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the distance from the warning device (i.e. warning sign) to the ADT (i.e. target vehicle) would need to be measured by sensors of the ADT until the preset parking distance (X) was reached. Additionally, see ¶ [0042] which describes the sensors of the target vehicle “sensors deployed on the target vehicle may be configured to obtain the driving environment information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Price with YU. This modification would have been obvious as both Price and YU contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous deployment of warning devices) and Price ¶ [0003] notes “If such a fully-autonomous vehicle experiences a mechanical failure, the control system must be able to safely park the autonomous vehicle until the mechanical failure can be addressed.”. Introducing YU to the Price system helps achieve this goal. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that controlling a faulty vehicle to park a preset distance away from the deployed warning marker would increase the safety of both the vehicle’s passengers as well as other road users. A following vehicle may need time to react to the warning marker in order to avoid the faulty vehicle. The preset parking distance gives the following vehicle the time needed to react and avoid the stopped vehicle. This would increase the safety of the Price system.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Price and YU teaches The method of claim 5. YU further teaches changing the deceleration of the ADT based on the monitored distance from the ADT to the warning device (At last ¶ [0069] “At block S207, the target vehicle is controlled to continue to move the preset parking distance before the target vehicle stops.” Stopping the vehicle at the preset parking distance is analogous to changing the deceleration of the vehicle based on the monitored distance between the vehicle and the warning device (i.e. when the distance X is reached, the deceleration increases to a maximum value (e.g. approaching 0 ft/s2) to stop the vehicle at the preset parking distance X).).
Claims 12 and 13 describe a system designed to perform the method detailed in claims 5 and 6, respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 19 describes a vehicle designed to perform the method detailed in claim 6, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668