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 provision of the AIA
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed January 27th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1,4-13,15-17, and 19-21 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 are withdrawn.
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, 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, 4-13, 16-17, and 20-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210097858, to Morettiet al. (hereinafter Moretti), and further in view of U.S Patent Publication No. 20120158256 , to Kuboyama et al (hereinafter Kuboyama), and further in view of U.S Patent Publication No. 20210086695, to Mahnken al (hereinafter Mahnken).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claim 16, Moretti teaches, A method for analyzing travel path options for a vehicle, comprising: (See at least paragraph [0024] “a method for performing an assisted driving operation including, receiving a request, via a user interface, to calculate an off-road vehicle route over an off-road surface, capturing a depth map, using a lidar, of the off-road surface, capturing an image, using a camera, of the off-road surface, calculating the off-road vehicle route in response to the request and the depth map, generating a graphical representation of the off-road vehicle route, generating an augmented image in response to the image and graphical representation of the off-road vehicle route, and displaying the augmented image to a vehicle operator.”).
determining multiple travel path options (See at least paragraph [0050] “The method is next operative to calculate 330 a preferred off-road path in response to the three-dimensional point map. The preferred off-road route may be determined in response to the off-road surface characteristics, such as heights of vertical surfaces within the off-road surface, width of possible paths, widths of the vertical surfaces, size of obstructions such as rocks or logs, grade of the off-road surface and the like.”).
analyzing each of the travel path options with respect to at least one difference in a vertical dimension along each of the travel path options, (See at least paragraph [0050] “The method is next operative to calculate 330 a preferred off-road path in response to the three-dimensional point map. The preferred off-road route may be determined in response to the off-road surface characteristics, such as heights of vertical surfaces within the off-road surface, width of possible paths, widths of the vertical surfaces, size of obstructions such as rocks or logs, grade of the off-road surface and the like. The method may further be operative to determine unpassable areas of the off-road surface.”).
Moretti fails to explicitly discloses, however Kuboyama discloses, determining a current steering angle of the vehicle from information provided by a steering sensor of the vehicle; (See at least paragraph [0045] “The steering sensor 12 is a sensor device that detects the steering angle of the vehicle 100. The steering sensor 12 outputs the detected steering angle to the ECU 20. ”).
as a function of the current steering angle and the slope;(See at least paragraph [0059] “ when the steering angle of the vehicle 100 is inclined rightward or leftward from the straight direction, first, the ECU 20 calculates, as a turning center G of the vehicle 100, an intersection of an axis line Jh perpendicular to an axis line Jr indicating the direction of the acquired steering angle, and an axis line Jb passing through the center of the left rear wheel 53 and the center of the right rear wheel 54 of the vehicle 100, as shown in FIG. 7. FIG. 7 is a plane view showing the left front wheel travelling line TcL_f and the right front wheel travelling line Tck_f in the case where the steering angle of the vehicle 100 is inclined rightward from the straight direction. The ECU 20 calculates, as the left front wheel travelling line TcL_f, a circle centered on the turning center G of the vehicle 100 and passing through the center of the left front wheel 51. Similarly, the ECU 20 calculates, as the right front wheel travelling line TcR_f, a circle centered on the turning center G of the vehicle 100 and passing through the center of the right front wheel 52.”).
and providing a recommended travel path to a driver of the vehicle on a display including graphics representing the recommended travel path on a display, where the graphics show a path for the left front wheel and a different path for the right front wheel. (See at least paragraph [0056] “the ECU 20 generates a front route image. The front route image indicates a predicted route through which a left front wheel 51 and a right front wheel 52 of the vehicle 100 will travel in the front image. FIG. 5 shows an example of the front route image. As shown in FIG. 5, the ECU 20 displays, as a belt-like area, the predicted route through which each of the left front wheel 51 and the right front wheel 52 of the vehicle 100 will travel. In FIG. 5, a left front wheel route TL_f represents the predicted route through which the left front wheel 51 will travel, and a right front wheel route TR_f represents the predicted route through which the right front wheel 52 will travel.”).
Additionally, Mahnken discloses, determining a slope of the ground on which the vehicle is currently located and a vertical position of two front wheels of the vehicle based at least in part from information provided by one or more suspensions sensors of the vehicle; (See at least paragraph [0061] “The chassis sensor 430 operative to detect an orientation of a host vehicle. In an exemplary embodiment, the chassis sensor 430 is at least one of an inertial measurement unit, a steering angle sensor, a wheel speed sensor, a suspension sensor and an inclinometer. In one exemplary embodiment the orientation of the host vehicle is a six degrees of freedom orientation. Six degrees of freedom may include lateral position, longitudinal position, elevation, combined with changes in orientation through rotation about three perpendicular axes, such as yaw, pitch, and roll.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0052] “The method is next operative to estimate 340 a vehicle platform orientation in response to vehicle platform sensor data. In one exemplary embodiment the vehicle platform orientation may be a six degree of freedom platform pose estimation. The vehicle platform orientation may be estimated in response to vehicle platform data such as steering angle, inclinometer, suspension kinematics, accelerations and the like. The vehicle platform orientation may further be estimated in response to an IMU data. The vehicle platform orientation may further include vehicle wheel heights with respect to a vehicle body. For example, a vehicle wheel traversing an obstacle may have a greater vehicle height than other wheels on a flat surface.”).
wherein the vertical dimension relates to both the height of at least one feature within the travel path options and a difference in height of two front wheels of the vehicle at one or more locations in each of the travel path options; (See at least paragraph [0053] “The method is next operative to compare 350 the LIDAR three-dimensional representation of the FOV to the estimated vehicle platform orientation to estimate a LIDAR vehicle pose estimation. The LIDAR vehicle pose estimation is operative to estimate a vehicle platform orientation with respect to the three-dimensional representation of the FOV. For example, the vehicle platform orientation and location may be coordinated with the three-dimensional representation of the FOV generated in response to the LIDAR scan of the FOV. In one exemplary embodiment, the method may compare relative vehicle heights and a vehicle incline to locate a vehicle position on a three-dimensional representation of the off-road surface. The method may be further operative to detect potential contact points between the vehicle and the off-road surface in response to the static and dynamic model of the.”).
Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, ADAS systems. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote controlling racing vehicle as disclosed by Moretti to incorporate the teachings of Kuboyama, and Mahnken with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification the generalized off road path display of Moretti to include the independent left an right front wheel path from the steering angle as taught by Kuboyama, in order to provide the driver with exact wheel spatial awareness for precise tire placement of uneven rocks terrain. Further, by adding Mahnken dynamic wheel height and slope analysis would ensure accurate prediction whether the undercarriage will Strick a object.
Regarding claim 4, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Moretti fails to explicitly discloses, however Mahnken discloses, wherein the recommended travel path is one of the travel path options that has the least in the difference in height of two front wheels of the vehicle along each of the travel path options. (See at least paragraph [0055] “The LIDAR vehicle pose estimation is operative to estimate a vehicle platform orientation with respect to the three-dimensional representation of the FOV. For example, the vehicle platform orientation and location may be coordinated with the three-dimensional representation of the FOV generated in response to the LIDAR scan of the FOV. In one exemplary embodiment, the method may compare relative vehicle heights and a vehicle incline to locate a vehicle position on a three-dimensional representation of the off-road surface. The method may be further operative to detect potential contact points between the vehicle and the off-road surface in response to the static and dynamic model of the.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote controlling racing vehicle as disclosed by Moretti to incorporate the teachings of Kuboyama, and Mahnken for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 4, Moretti fails to explicitly discloses, however Kuboyama discloses, wherein the variance in the vertical dimension is evaluated for the path to be taken by each of two front wheels of the vehicle. (See at least paragraph [0005] “when a vehicle is travelling on an off-road ground such as a rocky path or a gravel path, a driver of the vehicle needs to drive being careful about the travelling routes of the wheels so that the wheels will not enter a treacherous ground or will not run off. However, if the driver is not used to driving, it is difficult for the driver to accurately predict the travelling routes of the wheels sitting on the driver seat while driving. In the drive supporting system disclosed in Patent Literature 1, although a driver can roughly recognize the positions of obstacles and the like that have high probabilities of coming into contact with the vehicle from the image indicating the circumference of the vehicle, the driver cannot confirm the routes through which the wheels of the vehicle will travel.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote controlling racing vehicle as disclosed by Moretti to incorporate the teachings of Kuboyama, and Mahnken for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Moretti further discloses, wherein, in the analyzing step, each of the travel path options is analyzed with regard to a maximum height of any feature within each of the travel path options. (See at least paragraph [0055] “The host vehicle characteristic may be a vehicle dimension, ground clearance, vehicle width, engine capacity, torque, or any other physical or performance characteristic of the host vehicle. In one exemplary embodiment, the vehicle path may be determined in response to a maximum vertical height of a portion of the off-road surface. The vehicle path may be determined in response to a slope or grade of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0037] “off-road vehicle operations must stop the off-road vehicle, exit, and physically see the path up close to see if there is clearance. Current front view cameras are unable to ascertain the depth information or resolution in detail to enable generation of three-dimensional map of the off-road surface 120. To overcome these limitations, the exemplary ADAS may receive a lidar depth map of the field of view generated by a lidar system. The ADAS may then calculate preferred off-road route 130 in response to the lidar depth map and host vehicle ground clearances, physical specifications and other vehicle capabilities. The ADAS may then correlate the lidar depth map with a camera image of the same field of view and overlay the calculated preferred off-road route 130 on the user interface for presentation on the display 105. The ADAS may update the preferred off-road route 130 at a calibratable frequency to continuously provide an updated preferred off-road route 130. In addition, the ADAS may calculate a region of the off-road surface that is impassable by the host vehicle considering the host vehicle clearances, physical specifications and other vehicle capabilities. The ADAS may then generate a warning indication 140 for presentation on the display 105 indicating the impassable area to the driver.”).
Regarding claim 7, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 6, Moretti further discloses, wherein the threshold for the maximum height is based at least in part on a predetermined ground clearance of the vehicle. (See at least paragraph [0037] [0059] “The ADAS may then calculate preferred off-road route 130 in response to the lidar depth map and host vehicle ground clearances”). (See at least paragraph [0055] “The host vehicle characteristic may be a vehicle dimension, ground clearance, vehicle width, engine capacity, torque, or any other physical or performance characteristic of the host vehicle. In one exemplary embodiment, the vehicle path may be determined in response to a maximum vertical height of a portion of the off-road surface. The vehicle path may be determined in response to a slope or grade of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0037] “off-road vehicle operations must stop the off-road vehicle, exit, and physically see the path up close to see if there is clearance. Current front view cameras are unable to ascertain the depth information or resolution in detail to enable generation of three-dimensional map of the off-road surface 120. To overcome these limitations, the exemplary ADAS may receive a lidar depth map of the field of view generated by a lidar system. The ADAS may then calculate preferred off-road route 130 in response to the lidar depth map and host vehicle ground clearances, physical specifications and other vehicle capabilities. The ADAS may then correlate the lidar depth map with a camera image of the same field of view and overlay the calculated preferred off-road route 130 on the user interface for presentation on the display 105. The ADAS may update the preferred off-road route 130 at a calibratable frequency to continuously provide an updated preferred off-road route 130. In addition, the ADAS may calculate a region of the off-road surface that is impassable by the host vehicle considering the host vehicle clearances, physical specifications and other vehicle capabilities. The ADAS may then generate a warning indication 140 for presentation on the display 105 indicating the impassable area to the driver.”).
Regarding claim 8, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Moretti fails to explicitly discloses, however Mahnken discloses, wherein, in the analyzing step, each of the travel path options is analyzed with regard to a threshold relating to a maximum difference in height between two front wheels of the vehicle at any point along each of the travel path options. (See at least paragraph [0062] “The processor 420 may be operative to estimate a host vehicle location with respect to the off-road surface in response to the orientation of the host vehicle and the depth map. The processor 420 may be further operative to estimate a contact point between the host vehicle and the off-road surface in response to the depth map, the orientation of the host vehicle and one or more physical characteristics of the host vehicle, such as clearance, wheel height, and/or driveline configuration.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote controlling racing vehicle as disclosed by Moretti to incorporate the teachings of Kuboyama, and Mahnken for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Moretti further discloses, wherein the vertical dimension is determined for terrain features along each of the travel path options.(See at least paragraph [0024] [0037]“to calculate an off-road vehicle route over an off-road surface, capturing a depth map, using a lidar, of the off-road surface”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0050] “The preferred off-road route may be determined in response to the off-road surface characteristics, such as heights of vertical surfaces within the off-road surface, width of possible paths, widths of the vertical surfaces, size of obstructions such as rocks or logs, grade of the off-road surface and the like. The method may further be operative to determine unpassable areas of the off-road surface.”).
Regarding claim 10, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Moretti further discloses, wherein information relating to the terrain features is obtained from one or more of a camera, radar sensor or lidar sensor. (See at least paragraph [0024] [0037]“to calculate an off-road vehicle route over an off-road surface, capturing a depth map, using a lidar, of the off-road surface”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0050] “The preferred off-road route may be determined in response to the off-road surface characteristics, such as heights of vertical surfaces within the off-road surface, width of possible paths, widths of the vertical surfaces, size of obstructions such as rocks or logs, grade of the off-road surface and the like. The method may further be operative to determine unpassable areas of the off-road surface.”).
Regarding claim 11, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Moretti further discloses, which also includes determining if any of the travel path options is impassable by comparing the vertical dimensions of features along each of the travel path options against one or more thresholds. (See at least paragraph [0050] “to calculate 330 a preferred off-road path in response to the three-dimensional point map. The preferred off-road route may be determined in response to the off-road surface characteristics, such as heights of vertical surfaces within the off-road surface, width of possible paths, widths of the vertical surfaces, size of obstructions such as rocks or logs, grade of the off-road surface and the like. The method may further be operative to determine unpassable areas of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0044] “The off-road surface characteristics are compared to the host vehicle characteristics and capabilities to determine any unpassable areas of the off-road surface. Bounded regions around these unpassable areas may be generated and the bounded regions saved to the memory 245. In response to the off-road surface characteristics and the bounded regions of unpassable areas, the processor 240 may next generate a preferred off-road route across the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0035] “The exemplary display is further operative to display a preferred off-road route 130 for the host vehicle to traverse the potential off-road surface 120 and may further include a warning indication 140 of an area of the off-road surface 120 that may not be traversable by the host vehicle 110.”).
Regarding claim 12, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 11, Moretti further discloses, wherein the one or more thresholds includes one or both of a maximum size threshold and a threshold for a maximum difference in height between two front wheels of the vehicle. (See at least paragraph [0055] “the vehicle path may be determined in response to a maximum vertical height of a portion of the off-road surface. The vehicle path may be determined in response to a slope or grade of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0044] “The off-road surface characteristics are compared to the host vehicle characteristics and capabilities to determine any unpassable areas of the off-road surface. Bounded regions around these unpassable areas may be generated and the bounded regions saved to the memory 245. In response to the off-road surface characteristics and the bounded regions of unpassable areas, the processor 240 may next generate a preferred off-road route across the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0035] “The exemplary display is further operative to display a preferred off-road route 130 for the host vehicle to traverse the potential off-road surface 120 and may further include a warning indication 140 of an area of the off-road surface 120 that may not be traversable by the host vehicle 110.”).
Regarding claim 13, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 11, Moretti further discloses, which also includes providing a notice in the vehicle when the vehicle is determined to be traveling on a travel path that has been determined to be impassable. (See at least paragraph [0022] “determining an unpassable area in response to the point cloud, generating a graphical representation of the unpassable area and wherein the augmented image includes the graphical representation of the unpassable area.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0044] “The off-road surface characteristics are compared to the host vehicle characteristics and capabilities to determine any unpassable areas of the off-road surface. Bounded regions around these unpassable areas may be generated and the bounded regions saved to the memory 245. In response to the off-road surface characteristics and the bounded regions of unpassable areas, the processor 240 may next generate a preferred off-road route across the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0035] “The exemplary display is further operative to display a preferred off-road route 130 for the host vehicle to traverse the potential off-road surface 120 and may further include a warning indication 140 of an area of the off-road surface 120 that may not be traversable by the host vehicle 110.”).
Regarding claim 17, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 16, Moretti fails to explicitly discloses, however Mahnken discloses, wherein the one or more vehicle sensors includes at least one terrain sensor capable of determining a vertical height of features and obstacles in an area of the vehicle, and wherein the at least one terrain sensor includes one or more of a camera, radar device or lidar device. (See at least paragraph [0039-0043] “The system is operative to use various sensors such as a camera 220, IMU 233 and LIDAR 222 capable of detecting and mapping various external surfaces, objects and obstacles. Sensor fusion algorithms may be used to provide accurate detection and tracking of external objects as well as calculation of appropriate attributes such as relative velocities, accelerations, and the like. The camera 220 is operative to capture an image of a FOV which may include static and dynamic objects proximate to the vehicle. Image processing techniques may be used to identify and locate objects within the FOV. These objects may then be bounded and identified as an undesirable driving area and stored in a memory or added to a reference map for the ADAS..”).
Regarding claim 20, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 16, Moretti further discloses, wherein, in the analyzing step, each of the travel path options is analyzed with regard to one or more of a threshold for a maximum height of any feature within each of the travel path options, or a threshold relating to a maximum difference in height between two front wheels of the vehicle at any point along each of the travel path options. (See at least paragraph [0050] “to calculate 330 a preferred off-road path in response to the three-dimensional point map. The preferred off-road route may be determined in response to the off-road surface characteristics, such as heights of vertical surfaces within the off-road surface, width of possible paths, widths of the vertical surfaces, size of obstructions such as rocks or logs, grade of the off-road surface and the like. The method may further be operative to determine unpassable areas of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0055] “the vehicle path may be determined in response to a maximum vertical height of a portion of the off-road surface. The vehicle path may be determined in response to a slope or grade of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0007] “the vehicle path is determined in response to a maximum vertical height of a portion of the off-road surface.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0036] “the ADAS algorithm is operative to determine the preferred off-road route 130 in response to a continuous LiDAR scan of path forward and calculating if vehicle has clearance and capability to traverse the route”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0055] “The vehicle path may be determined in response to a slope or grade of the off-road surface. The processor 420 may then generate a graphical representation of the vehicle path in response to a path width and the host vehicle characteristic. The graphical representation of the vehicle path may then be overlaid with the image captured by the camera 410 to generate an augmented image. The processor 420 may then couple the augmented image to the display 440. In addition, the processor 420 may be further operative for determining an unpassable area in response to the depth map and the host vehicle characteristic. The processor 420 may generate a graphical representation of the unpassable area in response to the determination. The augmented image may further be generated to include the graphical representation of the unpassable area.”).
Regarding claim 21, Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 16, Moretti fails to explicitly discloses, however Mahnken discloses, wherein the vehicle includes a skid plate and the plane is defined by the skid plate, and the orientation and vertical height of the skid plate plane is analyzed when each of the travel paths is analyzed. (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “A static and dynamic model of the vehicle underbody is compared vs the 3-D terrain model to identify contact points between the underbody and terrain are highlighted.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote controlling racing vehicle as disclosed by Moretti to incorporate the teachings of Kuboyama, and Mahnken for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Claims 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210097858, to Moretti et al. (hereinafter Moretti), and further in view of U.S Patent Publication No. 20120158256 , to Kuboyama et al (hereinafter Kuboyama), and further in view of U.S Patent Publication No. 20210086695, to Mahnken al (hereinafter Mahnken).and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080158096, to Breed et al (hereinafter Breed).
Regarding claim 15, Moretti as modified by discloses Kuboyama, and Mahnken the claimed features of claim 13, Moretti fails to explicitly teach, However, Breed discloses, which also includes determining a viewing angle of a driver and wherein the position of the graphics on the display is determined as a function of the viewing angle. (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “The control system can also direct the heads-up display system to place directional arrows or an outline of a path for future travel of the vehicle into a field of view of the occupant based on the determined location of the eyes of the occupant.”).
Moretti as modified by Breed, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, path planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Moretti as modified by Kuboyama, and Mahnken to incorporate the teachings of Breed for the purposes of sustaining navigational directions to the driver at any given time to avoid entering a path which the vehicle does not have enough height clearance.
Regarding claim 19, Moretti as modified by discloses Kuboyama, and Mahnken discloses the claimed features of claim 16, Moretti discloses, wherein the displav is a heads-up display provided on a vehicle windshield, and wherein driver sensor is provided (See at least paragraph [0036] “Displaying the preferred off-road route 130 may enable the driver to control the off-road vehicle in response to the displayed off-road route 130 to traverse the off-road surface 120.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0055] “the vehicle path may be determined in response to a maximum vertical height of a portion of the off-road surface. The vehicle path may be determined in response to a slope or grade of the off-road surface. The processor 420 may then generate a graphical representation of the vehicle path in response to a path width and the host vehicle characteristic. The graphical representation of the vehicle path may then be overlaid with the image captured by the camera 410 to generate an augmented image.”).
Moretti fails to explicitly teach, However, Breed discloses, which includes a driver sensor that is communicated with the control system to permit determination of a viewing angle of a driver of the vehicle relative to the display, (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “The control system can also direct the heads-up display system to place directional arrows or an outline of a path for future travel of the vehicle into a field of view of the occupant based on the determined location of the eyes of the occupant.”).
Moretti as modified by Breed, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, path planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Moretti to incorporate the teachings of Breed for same motivation reasons in claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666