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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-7 and 21-32 are currently pending, as discussed below.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05/14/2024 and 05/09/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-7, 18, 21, 26-27 and 29-32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Lines 3-4, and 6-10: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 1, Line 5: “a vehicle processor” should read –an off-road vehicle processor—
Claim 2, Line 1: “a limited” should read –the limited—
Claim 2, Line 2: “a vicinity of the vehicle” should read –the vicinity of the off-road vehicle--
Claim 2, Line 2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 3, Line 2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 4, Line 2: “a projected path” should read –the projected path—
Claim 4, Lines 2-3: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 5, Line 2: “a proximity zone” should read—the proximity zone---
Claim 5, Lines 2-3: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 6, Line 1-2: “a proximity zone…a geographical region” should read –the proximity zone…the geographical region—
Claim 6, Lines 2-3: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 7, Line 2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 18, Line 1: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 21, Line 1: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 26, Lines 3-4, 7-8 and 10: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 26, Line 5: “a vehicle processor” should read –an off-road vehicle processor—
Claim 27, Line 2: “a limited-visibility environment” should read –the limited-visibility environment—
Claim 27, Line 2: “a vicinity of the vehicle” should read –the vicinity of the off-road vehicle--
Claim 27, Line 2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 29, Lines 1-2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 30, Line 1-2: “a proximity zone” should read—the proximity zone---
Claim 30, Lines 1-3: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 31, Line 1-2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Claim 32, Line 1: “system of claim 21” should read –system of claim 26—
Claim 32, Line 2: “the vehicle” should read –the off-road vehicle—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 21 recites limitation “wherein the vehicle employs a fusion of radar and optical camera data to determine ramp orientation…for alignment confirmation” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings. The original specification briefly mentions (in [0085]) “an autonomous ramp load-unload assist system…utilizes artificial intelligence, machine learning and camera vision techniques to provide ramp-assist feature for convenient vehicle 100 loading and unloading but is completed silent and makes no mention of “wherein the vehicle employs a fusion of radar and optical camera data to determine ramp orientation…for alignment confirmation” Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 22 recites limitation “dynamically adjusting sensor confidence weights in the fusion algorithm based on ambient light or detected precipitation” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings. The original specification is completed silent and makes no mention of “dynamically adjusting sensor confidence weights in the fusion algorithm based on ambient light or detected precipitation” Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 23 recites limitation “wherein the control unit ignores data from any sensor having a confidence value below a threshold computed from variance of consecutive readings” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings. The original specification is completed silent and makes no mention of “wherein the control unit ignores data from any sensor having a confidence value below a threshold computed from variance of consecutive readings” Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 24 recites limitation “correcting orientation using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) in response to a determination that one or more visual markers are temporarily occluded” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings. The original specification is completed silent and makes no mention of visual markers or visual markers being occluded let alone correcting orientation using an IMU in regards to the limitation “correcting orientation using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) in response to a determination that one or more visual markers are temporarily occluded” Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 25 recites limitation “modifying one or more parameters in response to detection of an environmental condition” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings. The original specification (in [0199]) mentions “system 510 may be configured to control an amount of braking power applied to vehicle 100 when a potentially-hazardous object 504 is detected, such as modifying or overriding braking inputs applied by the operator, such as by applying a smoother, more linear braking force when an object 504 is detected, overriding a more abrupt and potentially dangerous braking force applied by the operator, such as in a panic situation”, that is, the system modifying operating parameters of the vehicle in response to a detection of obstacle but it is completed silent and makes no mention of “modifying one or more parameters in response to detection of an environmental condition”. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claim 26) recites the limitation "the vicinity" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claim 27), the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a fusion of radar and optical camera data…determine ramp orientation…edge features for alignment confirmation” is indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner for at least the following reason: (i) how a fusion of radar and optical camera is done because claim 1 only recites “a sensor of the vehicle”; (ii) what this “ramp” is referring to or being oriented and relative to what?; (iii) “alignment confirmation” is indefinite because it is unclear (and lacks antecedent basis) what is being aligned when claim 1 does not mention alignment or ramp detection, as such, claim 21 introduces alignment confirmation with no prior references. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the fusion algorithm…detected precipitation" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the control unit" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “correcting orientation using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) in response to a determination that one or more visual markers are temporarily occluded” is indefinite for at least the following reasons: (i) correcting orientation of what? (e.g., the vehicle, sensor frame, or something else); (ii) what are the visual markers referring to (e.g., painted lines, fiducial markers, natural features or something else, since the specification has no mentions of visual markers); (iii) “temporarily occluded” is a subjective/relative term and what does/doesn’t constitute as temporarily; hence, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “modifying one or more parameters in response to detection of an environmental condition” is indefinite because it is unclear and confusing to the Examiner parameter(s) of what? (e.g. sensor, vehicle, processor, system, or something else), hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim 1-7 and 21-32 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 the vicinity of the vehicle, using a sensor of the vehicle;
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 vehicle; and
alerting the operator of the vehicle 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 the vicinity of the vehicle, using a sensor of the vehicle;
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 vehicle; and
alerting the operator of the vehicle 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” and “transmitting data…a vehicle processor”, 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 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, 21-25 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, 21-25 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 and 21-32 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 vehicle, using a sensor of the vehicle; (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. )
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 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 vehicle 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. (see at least Fig. 1-6 [0019-0062]: an interface 27 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 a proximity zone of the vehicle includes defining a proximity zone that defines a geographical region around 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.)
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 31), Lemke disclose The method of claim 5 (similarly claim 30), Lemke further discloses wherein defining a proximity zone that defines a geographical region around the 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 a vicinity of the vehicle, the limited-visibility environment caused by airborne particle such as airborne dust, snow or rain.
Buell is directed a ridden vehicle such as snowmobiles, Buell teaches detecting a limited-visibility environment in a vicinity of the vehicle, the limited-visibility environment caused by airborne particle such as 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 further provide a weather sensor 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 vehicle other than the sensor of the 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 vehicle other than the sensor of the 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 further provide a weather sensor 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 a projected path of the vehicle includes determining the projected path of the vehicle using a geolocation device of the 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 a projected path of the vehicle includes determining the projected path of the vehicle using a geolocation device of the 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 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 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 vehicle employs a fusion of radar and optical camera data to determine ramp orientation, the radar providing distance and contour data and the camera providing color or edge features for alignment confirmation.
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 vehicle employs a fusion of radar and optical camera data to determine ramp orientation, the radar providing distance and contour data and the camera providing color or edge features for alignment confirmation. (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 reliable object detection 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) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Schmidt and Adam et al. (US 2021/0229681 hereinafter Adam).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lemke in view of Schmidt teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising
The combination of Lemke in view of Schmidt does not explicitly teach dynamically adjusting sensor confidence weights in the fusion algorithm based on ambient lighting or detected precipitation.
Adam is directed to system and method for object tracking in an autonomous vehicle having multiple sensors, Adam teaches dynamically adjusting sensor confidence weights in the fusion algorithm based on ambient lighting or detected precipitation. (see at least [0036-0052]: the system processes data from the sensor system 28 in order to detect and track objects within the navigable environment of the autonomous vehicle 10. The one or more instructions process the data based on fusion methods and weights that are dynamically adjusted based on detected environmental conditions that may affect sensor information (e.g., rain, snow, fog, sun glare, etc.).)
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 Schmidt to incorporate the technique of dynamically adjusting sensor confidence weights in the fusion algorithm based on detected environmental conditions affecting sensor information as taught by Adam with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improves robustness, accuracy, and reliability in multi-sensor perception system such that the most reliable sensors are used for making decision.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Arditti Ilitzky et al. (US 2020/0278665 A1 hereinafter Ilitzky).
Regarding claim 23, Lemke discloses The method of claim 1,
Lemke does not explicit teach wherein the control unit ignores data from any sensor having a confidence value below a threshold computed from variance of consecutive readings.
Ilitzky is directed to multimodal sensing in autonomous vehicle, Ilitzky teaches wherein the control unit ignores data from any sensor having a confidence value below a threshold computed from variance of consecutive readings. (see at least Fig. 2-3 [0046-0068]: The sensor suite supervisor process 216 analyzes all the synchronized sensor data flows 214 in parallel with the multimodal classification stage 204 and estimates the confidence level of each of the sensors 208A-208N with respect to the data received from all the other statistically related sensors. In one embodiment, the sensor suite supervisor process 216 needs to take into account the confidence of the sensors 208A-208N when calculating confidence of other sensors 208A-208N. That is, sensors with low-confidence should be lowly pondered (or discarded) when estimating the confidence of other sensors.)
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 ignoring data from any sensor having a confidence value below a threshold computed from variance of consecutive readings as taught by Ilitzky with reasonable expectation of success to prevent degraded inputs from corrupting the sensor fusion output and reducing noise that would otherwise lead to erroneous decision.
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 in response to a determination that one or more visual markers are temporarily occluded.
Roumeliotis is directed to vision-aided inertial navigation, Roumeliotis teaches correcting orientation using an inertial measurement unit in response to a determination that one or more visual markers are temporarily occluded. (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.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke in view of Fields et al. (US 10,157,423 B1 hereinafter Fields).
Regarding claim 25, Lemke discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising
Lemke does not explicit teach modifying one or more parameters in response to detection of an environmental condition.
Fields is directed to autonomous vehicle operation style and mode monitoring, Fields teaches modifying one or more parameters in response to detection of an environmental condition. (Col. 31 Lines 8-27, Col. 44 Lines 16-32: The vehicle operator profile or vehicle operator behavior data may indicate how well the specific vehicle operator drives in rain, snow, sleet, ice, heavy traffic, road construction, stop-and-go traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic, country or rural traffic, and/or city or downtown street traffic. The current environment (or condition) may include or be rain, ice, snow, fog, heavy traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic, road construction, city traffic, country or rural traffic, and/or may be associated with a type of road, such as a two-lane or four-lane highway, and/or downtown city street or other street having several traffic lights. The on-board computer 114 may monitor vehicle operations and/or adjust the vehicle operator profile or autonomous operation feature settings.)
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 modifying one or more parameters in response to detection of an environmental condition as taught by Fields with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would reduce the likelihood of skidding, collision and hazardous maneuvers.
Conclusion
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