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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. IN202221006464 filed on 02/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is blurry/illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: multiple instances of “an at least a” are not grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “focused” is misspelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensing member”, “motion sensing member”, “pot-hole sensing member”, “acceleration sensing member”, “radio detecting and ranging sensing member”, “control member”, “alert generating member”, in claim 1, and “image capturing member” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear and indistinct how one may implement a pothole detector that requires physical contact with the detected obstacle to be used to proactively control the vehicle prior to contacting the obstacle.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2019/0317512) in view of Shibata (US 2023/0271548) and Strobel (US 2022/0169260).
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang teaches an apparatus, for the patrolling of manoeuvring locomotory devices (autonomous vehicle 101), comprising:
an at least a sensing member (sensor system 115, Fig. 1, ¶0030), said at least one sensing member: facilitating sensing of an at least a parameter, of a manoeuvring locomotory device, in real-time; and including:
an at least a motion sensing member (Radar unit 214, LIDAR 215, Cameras 211, GPS, ¶0030) and an at least a sound navigation and ranging sensing member (sonar sensor, see ¶0031), said at least one motion sensing member and said at least one sound navigation and ranging sensing member sensing objects, along a path, on which, said locomotory device is manoeuvring, in real-time, with sensed data being transmitted, to an at least a control member (see at least ¶0036-0038);
an at least an acceleration sensing member (IMU 213, ¶0030) said at least one acceleration sensing member sensing acceleration of said locomotory device (101), in real-time, with sensed data being transmitted, to said at least one control member (¶0030); and
an at least a radio detection and ranging sensing member (Radar, 214, ¶0030) said at least one radio detection and ranging sensing member (105) sensing long-range objects, along said path, on which, said locomotory device (101) is manoeuvring, in real-time, with sensed data being transmitted, to said at least one control member (108);
said at least one control member (control system 111) that is configured to facilitate monitoring and controlling of said apparatus, said at least one control member (108):
being communicatively associated with at least three actuators, said at least three actuators including: brakes; accelerator; steering; (see at least ¶0032, 201, 202, 203);
comparing said data received, from said at least one sensing member, to an at least a threshold value, or an at least a threshold range (at least comparing trajectory to a reference trajectory, alternately distance to an object, alternately comparing acceleration to a comfort cost, see at least ¶0023, ¶0047, ¶0067, ¶0078-0079) ; and
transmitting instructions, to said apparatus, to manoeuvre said locomotory device (101), based on the results of said comparison (see at least ¶0037, ¶0078-0079); and
an alert generating member that generates an at least an alert, upon said at least one control member's (108) instructions, with:
said brakes being actuated, when: a vehicle that is manoeuvring ahead of said locomotory device (101) is determined to be slowing down; a pot- hole is detected, on said path; or an obstruction is detected, on said path (following behavior, see at least ¶0058-0059);
said accelerator being actuated, when: said vehicle that is manoeuvring ahead of said locomotory device (101) is determined to be increasing its speed; said detected pot-hole has been crossed; or said detected obstruction no longer exists (following behavior, see at least ¶0058-0059);
said steering being actuated, when: said vehicle that is manoeuvring ahead of said locomotory device (101) is determined to be turning; said vehicle that is manoeuvring ahead of said locomotory device (101) is determined to be changing lanes; said pot-hole is detected, on said path; or said obstruction is detected, on said path (see at least obstacle avoidance, ¶0050-0051).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a pot-hole sensing member or indicator lights being actuated.
Shibata teaches a system and method of operating a vehicle, including wherein an autonomous vehicle automatically actuates indicator lights when the vehicle turns (see at least ¶0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle as taught by Zhang with the well-known technique of automatically actuating indicator lights on the vehicle as taught by Shibata in order to automate the manual activity usually operated by a driver and to comply with traffic laws.
Strobel teaches a system and method of control of an autonomous vehicle including a pothole sensing member said at least one pot- hole sensing member sensing height of a detected hole and height of a detected bump, along said path, on which, said locomotory device (101) is manoeuvring, in real-time, with sensed data being transmitted, to said at least one control member (See at least ¶0042, ¶0048, ¶0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle as taught by Zhang and Shibata with the pothole sensor as taught by Strobel in order to provide road quality data in order to mitigate potential unpleasant accelerations via avoidance maneuvers or suspension adjustments for the purpose of optimizing passenger comfort and/or minimizing damage to the vehicle and/or cargo.
Regarding claim 2:
Zheng further teaches wherein: said at least one parameter includes: distance, direction, and speed, of said vehicle that is manoeuvring ahead of said manoeuvring locomotory device; and conditions of said path, on which, said locomotory device (101) is manoeuvring (see at least ¶0058-0059).
Regarding claims 3-5:
Zheng teaches wherein the control member may be instantiated in any known type of processor (see at least ¶0082-0083).
Additionally, any other processor device would be an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing
Regarding claim 6:
Zhang further teaches wherein: said apparatus is configured, monitored, and controlled remotely, through an application on a computing device (see at least servers 103, ¶0033-0038).
Regarding claim 7:
Zhang teaches the Sonar sensor as in claim 1 above.
Zhang is silent as to what frequency of soundwaves are covered by the sensor.
The Examiner notes that in vehicle applications, sonar sensors conventionally operate in the ultrasonic frequency range.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to utilize an ultrasonic sensor for the sonar sensor as taught by Zhang in order to accurately detect nearby obstacles using an appropriate frequency that is not audible to humans, so as not to contribute to noise pollution.
Regarding claim 8:
Zhang teaches the limitations as above. Zhang additionally teaches the vehicle comprising an IMU which may sense position and orientation changes, and is therefore capable of detecting potholes and/or bumps.
Zhang does not explicitly teach the pothole detector utilizing the IMU.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to utilize any known sensor type for detecting potholes and bumps, including the IMU as taught by Zhang as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 9:
Zhang further teaches wherein: said at least one acceleration sensing member is an Inertial Measurement Unit sensor (see at least ¶0030).
Regarding claim 11:
Zhang teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Zhang does not explicitly teach retrofitting the apparatus. However, the Examiner notes, that broadly interpreted, any device designed for use in a vehicle is capable of being retrofitted into another vehicle, and there is no standard for retrofitting. Therefore device as taught by Zhang meets the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Shibata, and Strobel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mimar (US 2014/0139655).
Regarding claim 10:
Zhang teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Zhang further teaches a plurality of image capturing members (cameras 211).
Zhang is silent as to sensing attention levels of a driver.
Mimar teaches a system and method of detecting driver attention including
two image capturing members, with:
one image capturing member, among said two image capturing members, sensing attention levels of a driver, in real-time, with sensed data being transmitted, to said at least one control member (108); and
another image capturing member, among said two image capturing members, sensing visual signals, in real-time, with sensed data being transmitted, to said at least one control member (108), with: said at least one control member (108) transmitting instructions, to said alert generating member, to generate said at least one alert, if: said driver's eyes are determined as being closed; or if said driver's eyeballs are determined as not being focused (see at least Fig. 8, 43, ¶0053, ¶0157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vehicle control system and method as taught by Zheng, Shibata, and Strobel with the driver monitoring system and method as taught by Mimar in order to determine if a driver is not paying attention, or is otherwise incapacitated to allow for a warning, or other maneuver to avoid potential collision or other unsafe condition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619