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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 16 April 2025. Claims 1-7, 21, 24, and 26-32 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment and/or Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections of Claims 1-7, 18, 21, 26-27 and 29-32 as set forth in the office action 30 December 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections of Claims 1-7, 18, 21, 26-27 and 29-32 as set forth in the office action 30 December 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, claim cancellations and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 30 December 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 30 December 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, claim cancellations and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-7 and 21-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 30 December 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-7 and 21-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 30 December 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejection of Claims 1 and 26 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 30 December 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically Applicant argues (Pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 04/15/2026):
PNG
media_image1.png
590
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Regarding Argument (I.): Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claimed steps of detecting an object, determining whether the object is within a projected path or proximity zone, and alerting a vehicle operator broadly recites observation, evaluation, and notification activities that reasonably can be characterized as mental processes, despite the claims additionally recite generic vehicle sensors, processors, and human-machine interface. The recited sensor merely gathers data regarding the presence of potentially hazardous objects, the processor generically analyzes that sensor information to determine object location relative to the off-road vehicle, and the human interface presents the resulting warning, all of which amount to using generic computer components and/or conventional sensors as tools to automate a process analogous to a passenger of an off-road vehicle observing a hazard in the vehicle operating environment and warning a driver of the off-road vehicle. The claims as recited do not recite any specific technological improvement in sensor operation/capability, data processing techniques, projected path calculation, or vehicle control functionality but instead recite desired results at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the additional technological elements (i.e. vehicle sensors, human-machine interface, and processor) do not remove the claims from characterization as an abstract mental process.
Regarding Argument (II.): Applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application is not persuasive because the claim merely uses generic vehicle components to collect information, analyze the information, and providing a warning/alert to a vehicle operator without reciting any specific improvement to vehicle control technology, sensor technology, processor functionality, or human-machine interface operation. Although the claims are limited to off-road vehicle operating in limited-visibility environments, limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application where the claims merely invoke conventional technology/activities to perform routine data gather and data analysis functions. The claimed sensor detections of potentially hazardous object, determination of whether the potentially hazardous object is within a projected path or a proximity zone, and generation of operator warnings through a vehicle human-machine interface constitute conventional vehicle safety monitoring activist that are well-understood, routine and previously performed using conventional sensing and warning systems. The claims as recited do not recite any particular sensing technique or new/improved sensors not known previously, improved visibility processing, specialized path prediction algorithm or automatic vehicle control functionality that improve the vehicle itself/operation technology. Instead, the claims merely use generic sensors and processors as tools to automate the conventional practice of identifying potential hazardous and notifying a vehicle operator for the operator’s own decision making, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities rather than a technological improvement under 35 U.S.C. 101 patent eligibility analysis.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims are NOT persuasive and the rejection is maintained. See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below for details.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejection of Claims 1, 5-6, 26 and 30-31 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lemke (US 2005/0190047 A1) as set forth in the office action of 30 December 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (Pages 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks dated 04/15/2026):
PNG
media_image3.png
616
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The newly recited limitation of “a sensor…configured to detect the potentially-hazardous object in a limited-visibility environment” does not impose a structural/operational distinction over prior art Lemke that expressly discloses a snowmobile collision avoidance system employing multiple sensing modalities, including ultrasonic sensors, pyroelectric sensors for detecting warm objects, and electromagnetic radiation based sensing, all of which are specifically suited for detecting obstacles in conditions such as snow, fog, darkness and airborne particulates. Accordingly, prior art Lemke’s snowmobile collision avoidance system necessarily functions in degraded or limited visibility environments as a consequences of its sensor architecture, rendering the “limited-visibility environment” limitation an inherent operating condition rather than a patentable distinction. Further, to the extend Applicant argues that Non-Final Action’s Page 17 (dated 12/30/2025) stated that Lemke does not expressly teach “detecting a limited-visibility environment…” is NOT persuasive because independent claims 1 and 26 does not require affirmative step of detecting a limited visibility (as required by dependent claim 2 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) but instead requires sensors that are configured to detect objects in a limited visibility environment. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument(s) is/are NOT persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejection of Claims 2-3 and 27-28 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Buell as set forth in the office action of 30 December 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (Page 10 of Applicant’s remarks dated 04/15/2026):
PNG
media_image4.png
610
773
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that secondary reference Buell merely detects precipitation for deployment of protective cover is acknowledged but is NOT persuasive. Prior art Lemke is relied upon for teaching main obstacle detection, processing, and operator warning functions of the claimed collision detection and warning system. Secondary art Buell is not relied upon to teach obstacle detection but rather for teaching active sensing of environmental conditions proximate the vehicle, including snow and rain precipitation, which are indicative of degraded visibility conditions. Although prior art Buell uses the detected environmental conditions to control deployment of protective covers, it nevertheless demonstrates that sensing precipitation and adverse environmental conditions near a snowmobile was known in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the known environmental condition sensing technique into Lemke’s collision avoidance system in order to improve operation and operator awareness during adverse weather and visibility conditions commonly encountered in snowmobile use.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 21, 24 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 26 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1 and 26 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method of detecting and warning an operator of an off-road vehicle of objects in limited-visibility environments, comprising:
detecting a potentially-hazardous object within a vicinity of the off-road vehicle, using a sensor of the off-road vehicle configured to detect the potentially-hazardous object in a limited-visibility environment;
transmitting data relating to the potentially-hazardous object to a vehicle processor;
determining whether the potentially-hazardous object is in a projected path of the vehicle or in a proximity zone of the off-road vehicle; and
alerting the operator of the off-road vehicle via a human-machine interface of the off-road vehicle as to the presence and location of the potentially- hazardous object when the potentially-hazardous object is in the projected path of the vehicle or in the proximity zone of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the “determining whether…a proximity zone of the vehicle” and “alerting the operator…” limitations recites a mental process of evaluating and making a judgement based on the observation, for example, a passenger riding in an off-road vehicle looks ahead/around the vehicle and notices a potential obstacle (e.g. fallen tree, rocks, or a deer, etc.) near the vehicle, and then mentally determines whether the obstacle is in the driver’s immediate path or close proximity requiring attention; the passenger then verbally alerts the driver (e.g., look out, there’s a rock right in front of us) upon the passenger concluding that it’s hazardous. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of detecting and warning an operator of an off-road vehicle of objects in limited-visibility environments, comprising:
detecting a potentially-hazardous object within a vicinity of the off-road vehicle, using a sensor of the off-road vehicle configured to detect the potentially-hazardous object in a limited-visibility environment;
transmitting data relating to the potentially-hazardous object to a vehicle processor;
determining whether the potentially-hazardous object is in a projected path of the vehicle or in a proximity zone of the off-road vehicle; and
alerting the operator of the off-road vehicle via a human-machine interface of the off-road vehicle as to the presence and location of the potentially- hazardous object when the potentially-hazardous object is in the projected path of the vehicle or in the proximity zone of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “detecting a potentially…using a sensor of the vehicle”, “transmitting data…a vehicle processor”, and “via human-machine interface…”, the examiner submits that these limitation are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the detecting step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data) and amounts to mere data gathering; and the transmitting step and alerting via HMI steps amounts to mere post solution activity; which is/are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the claim further recite “processor” and “sensor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise abstract ideas and/or additional limitations in a generic or general-purpose computer environment, where processor is recited as generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “a processor” and “sensor” of claim, the examiner submits that the processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component performing generic calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solutions activities.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 21, 24 and 27-32 do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial except and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 21, 24 and 27-32 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-7, 21, 24 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 26, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lemke (US 2005/0190047 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (similarly claim 26), Lemke disclose A method of detecting and warning an operator of an off-road vehicle of objects in limited-visibility environments (see at least Abstract), comprising:
detecting a potentially-hazardous object within the vicinity of the off-road vehicle, using a sensor of the off-road vehicle configured to detect the potentially hazardous object in a limited visibility environment; (see at least Fig. 1-6 [0019-0062]: a collision avoidance system 20 that can be mounted on or integrated into the conventional snowmobile 10. The system 20 includes an array of sensors A, B, C and are used to detect the presence and location of approaching obstacle. Each sensor pair A, B, C includes a pyroelectric heat sensor 22 and an ultrasonic speed sensor 23. The pyroelectric heat sensors 22 are configured to detect the presence of warm objects, such as people, animals or other vehicles. The ultrasonic speed sensors 23 are configured to only detect objects moving toward the snowmobile 10. By using both pyroelectric heat sensors 22 and ultrasonic speed sensors 23, the system 20 can determine when warm objects, such as people, animals or other vehicles, are approaching the snowmobile 10. Examiner notes that snowmobile operates in environment with limited visibility conditions such as falling snow, snow dust, fog and glare/whiteout conditions and they are specifically designed for winter and off-road environments.)
transmitting data relating to the potentially-hazardous object to a vehicle processor; (see at least Fig. 1-6 [0019-0062]: the control unit 25 is provided for processing signals received from the sensors for determining which zone an approaching obstacle is located based on which of the first, second and third pairs A-C of heat and speed sensors detect the approaching danger.)
determining whether the potentially-hazardous object is in a projected path of the vehicle or in a proximity zone of the off-road vehicle; (see at least Fig. 1-6 [0019-0062]: the control unit 25 is provided for processing signals received from the sensors for determining which zone an approaching obstacle is located based on which of the first, second and third pairs A-C of heat and speed sensors detect the approaching danger.) and
alerting the operator of the off-road vehicle via a human-machine interface of the off-road vehicle as to the presence and location of the potentially- hazardous object when the potentially-hazardous object is in the projected path of the vehicle or in the proximity zone of the off-road vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1-6 [0019-0062]: an interface 27 (i.e. human-machine interface) between the control unit 25 and the driver provides a warning to the driver that an approaching obstacle has been detected on one or more of the sensors A-C. The interface 27 of the present invention sounds a warning tone (within the helmet) in such a way as to indicate the direction of the dangerous obstacle. For example, if an obstacle is perceived to the left of the snowmobile's present course, a tone will sound more loudly in the driver's left ear than the right. The driver's natural tendency is to interpret this as a single sound coming from the left and instinctively turn the head in that direction. This will enable the driver to be alerted in the first few critical seconds in which evasive action can still be taken.)
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 30), Lemke disclose The method of claim 1 (similarly claim 26), Lemke further discloses wherein determining whether the potentially-hazardous object is in the proximity zone of the off-road vehicle includes defining a proximity zone that defines a geographical region around the off-road vehicle. (see at least Fig. 3 [0019-0062]: The sensors A, B, C are arranged to detect approaching obstacles in a plurality of danger zones 1-5 using a beam splitting arrangement and logic circuit 24 in the control unit 25, as explained below. In the preferred embodiment, the danger zones 1-5 include five zones arranged from left to right across a forward-looking danger detecting area 26. The danger zones include a first zone 1 at a left portion of the detecting area, a second zone 2 at a front left portion, a third zone 3 at a front center portion, a fourth zone 4 at a front right portion, and a fifth zone 5 at a right portion. Additional danger zones (not shown) can be monitored by positioning additional sensors at the sides or rear of the snowmobile 10.)
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 31), Lemke disclose The method of claim 5 (similarly claim 30), Lemke further discloses wherein defining the proximity zone that defines the geographical region around the off-road vehicle includes defining a geographical area in front of, and behind, the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 3 [0019-0062]: The sensors A, B, C are arranged to detect approaching obstacles in a plurality of danger zones 1-5 using a beam splitting arrangement and logic circuit 24 in the control unit 25, as explained below. In the preferred embodiment, the danger zones 1-5 include five zones arranged from left to right across a forward-looking danger detecting area 26. The danger zones include a first zone 1 at a left portion of the detecting area, a second zone 2 at a front left portion, a third zone 3 at a front center portion, a fourth zone 4 at a front right portion, and a fifth zone 5 at a right portion. Additional danger zones (not shown) can be monitored by positioning additional sensors at the sides or rear of the snowmobile 10.)
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Buell et al. (US 2013/0168170 A1 hereinafter Buell).
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claim 27), Lemke teaches The method of claim 1 (similarly claim 26), further comprising
Lemke does not explicitly teach detecting a limited-visibility environment in the vicinity of the off-road vehicle, the limited-visibility environment caused by airborne particle, the airborne particles including one or more of airborne dust, snow or rain.
Buell is directed a ridden vehicle such as snowmobiles, Buell teaches detecting a limited-visibility environment in the vicinity of the off-road vehicle, the limited-visibility environment caused by airborne particle, the airborne particles including one or more of airborne dust, snow or rain. (see at least Fig. 2, 4, 5 [0006, 0029, 0067]: The ridden vehicle (e.g. snowmobile) with a protective cover structure, weather sensor(s), such as a rain or snow sensor, may be mounted on the vehicle, typically on the control sol. The weather sensor senses rain or snow, by detecting precipitation falling onto or near the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lemke’s snowmobile’s collision avoidance system to incorporate the technique of detecting limited visibility environment in the vicinity of the off-road using a weather sensor vehicle as taught by Buell with reasonable expectation of success because snowmobiles routinely operate in harsh weather where precipitation reduces visibility and adding weather sensors would improve rider’s awareness and safety.
Regarding claim 3 (similarly claim 28), the combination of Lemke in view of Buell teaches The method of claim 2 (similarly claim 27),
Lemke does not explicitly teach wherein detecting airborne dust, snow or rain includes using a sensor of the off-road vehicle other than the sensor of the off-road vehicle used to detect the potentially-hazardous object.
Buell is directed a ridden vehicle such as snowmobiles, Buell teaches wherein detecting airborne dust, snow or rain includes using a sensor of the off-road vehicle other than the sensor of the off-road vehicle used to detect the potentially-hazardous object. (see at least Fig. 2, 4, 5 [0006, 0029, 0067]: The ridden vehicle (e.g. snowmobile) with a protective cover structure, weather sensor(s), such as a rain or snow sensor, may be mounted on the vehicle, typically on the control sol. The weather sensor senses rain or snow, by detecting precipitation falling onto or near the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lemke’s snowmobile’s collision avoidance system to incorporate the technique of detecting limited visibility environment in the vicinity of the off-road using a weather sensor vehicle as taught by Buell with reasonable expectation of success because snowmobiles routinely operate in harsh weather where precipitation reduces visibility and adding weather sensors would improve rider’s awareness and safety.
Claim(s) 4 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Buell and Bruneau (US 2023/0117358 A1).
Regarding claim 4 (similarly claim 29), the combination of Lemke in view of Buell teaches The method of claim 2 (similarly claim 27),
The combination of Lemke in view of Buell does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the potentially hazardous object is in the projected path of the off-road vehicle includes determining the projected path of the off-road vehicle using a geolocation device of the off-road vehicle.
Bruneau is directed to system and method for facilitating travel of an electric off-road vehicle, Bruneau teaches wherein determining whether the potentially hazardous object is in the projected path of the off-road vehicle includes determining the projected path of the off-road vehicle using a geolocation device of the off-road vehicle. (see at least Fig. 2-16 [0009-0062]: receiving an identification of a starting location for the electric off-road vehicle and an identification of a destination for the electric off-road vehicle; determining, using the map data, a path of the uncharted off-road route between the starting location and the destination, the map data defining one or more obstacles for the electric off-road vehicle, the uncharted off-road route avoiding the one or more obstacles; and communicating the uncharted off-road route to the operator of the electric off-road vehicle. The electric snowmobile may comprise a global positioning system (GPS) receiver operatively connected to the one or more controllers, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to, using a current location of the electric snowmobile determined using the GPS receiver, cause the operator interface to guide the operator of the electric snowmobile along the uncharted off-road route.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lemke and Buell to incorporate the technique of GPS-based projected path determination as taught by Bruneau with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would provide enhanced functionality by allowing the snowmobile to determine whether a detected obstacle lies in the projected path of the vehicle using a geolocation device.
Claim(s) 7 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Bruneau.
Regarding claim 7 (similarly claim 32), Lemke teaches The method of claim 1 (similarly claim 26), further comprising
Lemke does not explicitly teach displaying the potentially-hazardous object on a display screen of a human-machine interface of the off-road vehicle, including displaying a map of the vicinity and displaying the potentially-hazardous object on the map.
Bruneau is directed to system and method for facilitating travel of an electric off-road vehicle, Bruneau teaches displaying the potentially-hazardous object on a display screen of a human-machine interface of the off-road vehicle, including displaying a map of the vicinity and displaying the potentially-hazardous object on the map. (see at least Fig. 1, 2, 8, 11-14, 16)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lemke’s snowmobile’s collision avoidance system to further provide a human-machine interface on a snowmobile that display and obstacle information as taught by Bruneau with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would enhance safety by showing hazards early and support better user decision through situational awareness.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2025/0230023 A1 hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 21, Lemke discloses The method of claim 1,
Lemke does not explicit teach wherein the off-road vehicle employs radar and optical camera data to determine location and orientation of the vehicle relative to a ramp.
Schmidt is directed to system and method in the field of autonomous vehicle configured to interact with infrastructure to pick up/drop off payload, Schmidt teaches wherein the off-road vehicle employs radar and optical camera data to determine location and orientation of the vehicle relative to a ramp. (see at least Fig. 2-5 [0050-0070]: the robotic vehicle may use and/or include a pose validation module that cause the robotic vehicle to determine a pose of the payload to be picked based on the real time sensor data from the sensors 150 (one or more of cameras, radar, lidar). The robotic vehicle can determine the pose of the payload and adjust its pose in real-time to properly align the forks with pocket openings of the pallet. The sensor data acquired in real-time from sensors 156 and/or 158 can be combined with sensor data previously acquired and/or other real-time information about the environment from one or more of the other sensors 150. That is, sensor fusion is performed using multiple sensors including cameras, radar, lidar to determine a pose for proper alignment.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lemke to incorporate the technique of using sensor fusion to determine relative pose of a robotic device in order to pick up a payload as taught by Schmidt with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve object detection accuracy leading to higher accuracy, robustness, and reliability especially in safety critical operation.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Roumeliotis et al. (US 2022/0082386 A1 hereinafter Roumeliotis).
Regarding claim 24, Lemke discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising
Lemke does not explicit teach correcting orientation using an inertial measurement unit.
Roumeliotis is directed to vision-aided inertial navigation, Roumeliotis teaches correcting orientation using an inertial measurement unit. (see at least [0080-0100]: a navigation system that combines camera data with IMU data to determine pose (position and orientation). Visual features are tracked and the IMU’s inertial data helps fill in motion or pose estimation including when visual tracking degrades/fails due to feature loss or occlusion.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lemke to incorporate the technique of correcting vehicle orientation/pose using an IMU when visual features are not available due to occlusion as taught by Roumeliotis with reasonable expectation of success to maintain accurate orientation when visual information degrades and provide more consistent pose and orientation estimation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights