DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 18/749,000. All claims are pending.
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 .
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.
Claims 12-13 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 12 cites the limitation of being dependent on claim 12. As this claim is dependent on its self, it is unclear what the scope of this claim is. Examiner recommends amending claim 12 to be dependent on an earlier claim. Claim 13 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fonseca (US 20220161822).
Regarding claim 1, Fonseca teaches a system for collision detection (Fig. 5), comprising:
one or more sensors associated with a vehicle, the one or more sensors configured to detect an obstacle around the vehicle ([0024] discusses using sensors to detect objects around the vehicle); and
a processing device in communication with the one or more sensors, the processing device is configured to execute instructions stored in a memory ([0039] discusses the system which is interpreted as including communication with the sensors being executed using processor to execute instructions stored in a memory) to perform operations comprising:
generating a vehicle shape representative of and encompassing the vehicle ([0033] discusses representing the vehicle with at least one geometric primitive shape);
identifying a centroid of the vehicle shape ([0034] discusses the collision check being performed using the center of the vehicle shape);
generating an obstacle shape representative of and encompassing the obstacle ([0027] discusses the obstacle being represented visually within the model which is interpreted as a shape representative); and
generating an inflated obstacle boundary based on dimensions of the vehicle shape ([0045] discusses a dilated object border being based on the dimensions of the vehicle shape);
wherein the inflated obstacle boundary is dimensioned greater than the obstacle shape ([0045] discusses the dilated object border having a greater dimension than the obstacle); and
wherein the inflated obstacle boundary represents a path along which the centroid of the vehicle shape can move without collision between the vehicle and the obstacle ([0045] discusses the dilated object border being based on the radius of the geometric primitive representing the vehicle where the radius of the geometric primitive is equal to half of the vehicle’s width therefore the dilated object border would represent a path along which the centroid of the vehicle can move without collision).
Regarding claim 2, Fonseca teaches wherein the vehicle is at a non-parallel and non-perpendicular angle relative to the detected obstacle, and wherein the vehicle is a single body vehicle or a multi-body vehicle including a tractor and a trailer (Fig. 4 shows the vehicle is at a non-parallel and non-perpendicular angle relative to the detected obstacle and the body is a single body vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Fonseca teaches wherein the operations further comprise setting or adjusting a motion path of the vehicle to avoid entering or passing of the centroid of the vehicle shape through the inflated obstacle boundary to avoid the collision between the vehicle and the obstacle ([0034] discusses determining the risk of collision to determine the trajectory of a vehicle where the risk is determined based on the center of the vehicle with [0045] discussing the dilated object boundary being based on the center of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Fonseca teaches a computer-implemented method for collision detection (Fig. 5), comprising:
detecting an obstacle around a vehicle with one or more sensors associated with the vehicle ([0024] discusses using sensors to detect objects around the vehicle); and
executing instructions stored in a memory with a processing device in communication with the one or more sensors to perform operations ([0039] discusses the system which is interpreted as including communication with the sensors being executed using processor to execute instructions stored in a memory) comprising:
generating a vehicle shape representative of and encompassing the vehicle ([0033] discusses representing the vehicle with at least one geometric primitive shape);
identifying a centroid of the vehicle shape ([0034] discusses the collision check being performed using the center of the vehicle shape);
generating an obstacle shape representative of and encompassing the obstacle ([0027] discusses the obstacle being represented visually within the model which is interpreted as a shape representative); and
generating an inflated obstacle boundary based on dimensions of the vehicle shape ([0045] discusses a dilated object border being based on the dimensions of the vehicle shape);
wherein the inflated obstacle boundary is dimensioned greater than the obstacle shape ([0045] discusses the dilated object border having a greater dimension than the obstacle); and
wherein the inflated obstacle boundary represents a path along which the centroid of the vehicle shape can move without collision between the vehicle and the obstacle ([0045] discusses the dilated object border being based on the radius of the geometric primitive representing the vehicle where the radius of the geometric primitive is equal to half of the vehicle’s width therefore the dilated object border would represent a path along which the centroid of the vehicle can move without collision).
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.
Claims 3, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonseca in view of Silva (US 20210370921).
Regarding claim 3, Fonseca teaches representing the vehicle as a geometric primitive but does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle shape is a vehicle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, and a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length, and wherein the obstacle shape is an obstacle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length, and a vertex at each corner of the obstacle rectangle or square.
Silva teaches wherein the vehicle shape is a vehicle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, and a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length, and wherein the obstacle shape is an obstacle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length, and a vertex at each corner of the obstacle rectangle or square ([0031] discusses the bounding boxes representing the vehicles as being based on the respective sizes and shapes of the vehicles with [0033] discussing these being based on dimensions including length and width and with Figs. 2A and 2B showing the shapes as rectangular including edges and vertexes).
Fonseca teaches using geometric primitive shapes to represent vehicles. Silva teaches using bounding boxes to represent vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the bounding boxes of Silva as the use of rectangular boxes will allow the system to closely approximate the shape of the vehicle with a single shape improving the processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Fonseca teaches dilating object boundaries as discussed above but does not explicitly teach the operations further comprise generating a buffer zone along a perimeter of the inflated obstacle boundary; the buffer zone is an area offset perpendicularly from each side of the inflated obstacle boundary by a predetermined distance away from the obstacle; and the operations further comprise setting a border of the buffer zone as a limit for travel of the centroid of the vehicle shape to avoid the collision between the vehicle and the obstacle.
Silva teaches the operations further comprise generating a buffer zone along a perimeter of the inflated obstacle boundary; the buffer zone is an area offset perpendicularly from each side of the inflated obstacle boundary by a predetermined distance away from the obstacle; and the operations further comprise setting a border of the buffer zone as a limit for travel of the centroid of the vehicle shape to avoid the collision between the vehicle and the obstacle ([0033] discusses including a buffer zone around an obstacle boundary representative of a safe distance around the obstacles where the distance can be based on the object type which is interpreted as a predetermined distance).
Fonseca teaches using dilating object boundaries. Silva teaches using buffer zones based on object types. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the buffer zones of Silva as Silva teaches that this allows the system to modify the buffer zones for more vulnerable road users and to account for perception confidence making the system safer.
Regarding claim 17, Fonseca teaches representing the vehicle as a geometric primitive but does not explicitly teach the vehicle shape is a vehicle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, and a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length; and the obstacle shape is an obstacle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length, and a vertex at each corner of the obstacle rectangle or square.
Silva teaches the vehicle shape is a vehicle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, and a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length; and the obstacle shape is an obstacle rectangle or square including a top edge and an opposing bottom edge defining a width, a left edge and an opposing right edge defining a length, and a vertex at each corner of the obstacle rectangle or square ([0031] discusses the bounding boxes representing the vehicles as being based on the respective sizes and shapes of the vehicles with [0033] discussing these being based on dimensions including length and width and with Figs. 2A and 2B showing the shapes as rectangular including edges and vertexes).
Fonseca teaches using geometric primitive shapes to represent vehicles. Silva teaches using bounding boxes to represent vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the bounding boxes of Silva as the use of rectangular boxes will allow the system to closely approximate the shape of the vehicle with a single shape improving the processing efficiency.
Claims 4-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonseca in view of Silva and further in view of Xie (US 20210096565).
Regarding claim 4, Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions but does not explicitly teach wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a first set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in a direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square; connecting endpoints of the first set of lines with a boundary of the obstacle shape to represent a first part of the inflated obstacle boundary; transposing a second set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in the direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square, wherein the second set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective first set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the second set of lines with the first part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent a second part of the inflated obstacle boundary.
Xie teaches wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a first set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in a direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square; connecting endpoints of the first set of lines with a boundary of the obstacle shape to represent a first part of the inflated obstacle boundary; transposing a second set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in the direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square, wherein the second set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective first set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the second set of lines with the first part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent a second part of the inflated obstacle boundary ([0032] discusses generating polygons by dilating shapes that represent objects where the shapes of the objects are dilated by half the width of the vehicle where dilating by these dimensions is interpreted as transposing the lines from the dimensions of the vehicle to create the inflated boundaries).
Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions as described above. Xie teaches dilating objects by half the width and length of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the system of Xie as this allows the vehicle to determine if a projected trajectory will intersect with the object making the system safer for the user.
Regarding claim 5, Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions but does not explicitly teach wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a third set of lines having a dimension of half the length and extending in a direction parallel to the left and right edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary; transposing a fourth set of lines having a dimension of half the length and extending in a direction parallel to the left and right edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary, wherein the fourth set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective third set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the third and fourth set of lines with the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent the inflated obstacle boundary.
Xie teaches wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a third set of lines having a dimension of half the length and extending in a direction parallel to the left and right edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary; transposing a fourth set of lines having a dimension of half the length and extending in a direction parallel to the left and right edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary, wherein the fourth set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective third set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the third and fourth set of lines with the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent the inflated obstacle boundary ([0032] discusses generating polygons by dilating shapes that represent objects where the shapes of the objects are dilated by half the width of the vehicle where dilating by these dimensions is interpreted as transposing the lines from the dimensions of the vehicle to create the inflated boundaries).
Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions as described above. Xie teaches dilating objects by half the width and length of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the system of Xie as this allows the vehicle to determine if a projected trajectory will intersect with the object making the system safer for the user.
Regarding claim 18, Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions but does not explicitly teach wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a first set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in a direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square; and connecting endpoints of the first set of lines with a boundary of the obstacle shape to represent a first part of the inflated obstacle boundary.
Xie teaches wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a first set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in a direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square; and connecting endpoints of the first set of lines with a boundary of the obstacle shape to represent a first part of the inflated obstacle boundary ([0032] discusses generating polygons by dilating shapes that represent objects where the shapes of the objects are dilated by half the width of the vehicle where dilating by these dimensions is interpreted as transposing the lines from the dimensions of the vehicle to create the inflated boundaries).
Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions as described above. Xie teaches dilating objects by half the width and length of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the system of Xie as this allows the vehicle to determine if a projected trajectory will intersect with the object making the system safer for the user.
Regarding claim 19, Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions but does not explicitly teach wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a second set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in the direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square, wherein the second set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective first set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the second set of lines with the first part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent a second part of the inflated obstacle boundary.
Xie teaches wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a second set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in the direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square, wherein the second set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective first set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the second set of lines with the first part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent a second part of the inflated obstacle boundary ([0032] discusses generating polygons by dilating shapes that represent objects where the shapes of the objects are dilated by half the width of the vehicle where dilating by these dimensions is interpreted as transposing the lines from the dimensions of the vehicle to create the inflated boundaries).
Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions as described above. Xie teaches dilating objects by half the width and length of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the system of Xie as this allows the vehicle to determine if a projected trajectory will intersect with the object making the system safer for the user.
Regarding claim 20, Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions but does not explicitly teach wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a third set of lines having a dimension of half the length and extending in a direction parallel to the left and right edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary; transposing a fourth set of lines having a dimension of half the length and extending in a direction parallel to the left and right edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary, wherein the fourth set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective third set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the third and fourth set of lines with the second part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent the inflated obstacle boundary.
Xie teaches wherein generating the inflated obstacle boundary comprises: transposing a second set of lines having a dimension of half the width and extending in the direction parallel to the top and bottom edges of the vehicle rectangle or square from each vertex of the obstacle rectangle or square, wherein the second set of lines extend from the vertex away from the respective first set of lines; and connecting endpoints of the second set of lines with the first part of the inflated obstacle boundary to represent a second part of the inflated obstacle boundary ([0032] discusses generating polygons by dilating shapes that represent objects where the shapes of the objects are dilated by half the length of the vehicle where dilating by these dimensions is interpreted as transposing the lines from the dimensions of the vehicle to create the inflated boundaries).
Fonseca teaches dilating objects based on vehicle dimensions as described above. Xie teaches dilating objects by half the width and length of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Fonseca with the system of Xie as this allows the vehicle to determine if a projected trajectory will intersect with the object making the system safer for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Baba (US 20230406355) teaches a vehicle with a buffer zone and safety envelope; Boydston (US 20220185330) teaches adjusting a safety area for a large truck; and Larsson (US 20220250644) teaches a bounding box of a vehicle based on the centroid of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657