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
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “at least one third point which” One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if Applicant is referring to at least a third point or 1/3 point? Appropriate correction is required.
If the claim limitation is “at least a third point”, Applicant must provide support for the amendment in the original Specifications.
a boundary line of the driveable area, no support for widening or narrowing of boundaries.
Selecting a point on the boundary can be to the left of the vehicle or to the right or cross the vehicle. i.e. point on the right side of vehicle to be matched with point on the left side of the vehicle.
Defining at least one third point on the edge of the driving corridor of the vehicle; which edge? Corridor has three detentions. Even if we select a top view corridor has multiple edges along the rear, sides. Support for front corner only.
Checking how? What if we use the front right corner of the vehicle to match with the left boundary lines i.e. crossing the vehicle.
Rotation directions would change based on the points selected i.e. crossing the vehicle or selection points on edge not in the front adjacent to the boundary lines.
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 1-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: relationship between the points of the vehicle and the points relating to the road.
Claim 1 describes:
a boundary line of the driveable area, one of ordinary skill in the art can select right or left, right curve, left curved or straight, boundaries can be parallel, widening or narrowing.
Selecting a point on the boundary can be to the left of the vehicle or to the right or cross the vehicle. i.e. point on the right side of vehicle to be matched with point on the left side of the vehicle.
Defining at least one third point on the edge of the driving corridor of the vehicle; which edge? Corridor has three detentions with 12 edges. Even if we select a top view corridor has multiple edges along the rear, sides, or front.
Checking how? What if we use the front right corner of the vehicle to match with the left boundary lines i.e. crossing the vehicle.
Rotation directions would change based on the points selected i.e. crossing the vehicle or selection points on edge not in the front adjacent to the boundary lines.
“wherein the first point is behind the second point in a direction of travel of the vehicle”, how far behind? Is it behind the vehicle as the claim mentions driving direction, points behind the vehicle are also driving directions.
“checking a position of the at least third point relative to a line between the first point and the second point”; do the points have to be checked in order? If the points do not have to be checked in order, how can one determine rotation?
Claim 2:
Rotation changes based on crossing points over the vehicle or not or if the curve turns right or left.
Claim 3:
Same argument made to claim 2 applies.
Claim 4:
“Vehicle vertex” Which vertex as vehicles have multiple cures and edges, where some vehicles do not have a corner and are shaped like an egg or tier drop for ultra-aerodynamics where others have multiple edges beyond corners.
Claim 5:
“With respect to vehicle vertex”; does not address the problem of claim 4;
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 recites the limitation " the verified rotation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the verified rotation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claim of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of copending Application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
Claims 1-8 of the instant application with claims 1-11 of the co-pending application 20250290756.
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicated to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statue does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent. MPEP 804.02.
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 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.
(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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura US 20180261094.
1) A computer-implemented method for monitoring whether a vehicle traveling along a trajectory has crossed a boundary of a driveable area, the method comprising:
a) receiving, by computer hardware, information on at least one boundary line of the driveable area; Fig.2 Lec and Rec.
b) receiving, by the computer hardware, information on a driving corridor of the vehicle; Fig.2 W and Fig. 2 FR
c) selecting, by the computer hardware, a first point and a second point on the at least one boundary line of the driveable area, wherein the first point is behind the second point in a direction of travel of the vehicle; Fig.2 FP1-FP6
d) defining, by the computer hardware, at least one third point which is located on an edge of the driving corridor of the vehicle; Fig.2 PO
e) checking, by the computer hardware, a position of the at least third point relative to a line between the first point and the second point, to check that at least for the at least one third point a rotation direction Fig. 2 points PO between FP6 and FP5.
determination is carried out and to check whether the determined rotation direction is oriented clockwise or counterclockwise; Para 159; FR” is a counterclockwise direction, and the continuous structure angle θcp is the negative value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR at the intersection point is a clockwise direction.
f) ascertaining, by the computer hardware on the basis of the checked rotation direction of the at least one third point, Fig.2 PO FP6 and FP5; Also, Para 159; where the approximate line AL intersects with the longitudinal axis direction FR” is a counterclockwise direction, and the continuous structure angle θcp is the negative value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR at the intersection point is a clockwise direction. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR is the counterclockwise direction. Therefore, the continuous structure angle θcp1 at the time point t1 is the positive value.
whether the vehicle crosses the at least one boundary line of the driveable area; and Fig. 2 PO crosses LEC also OP crosses BL. Fig.3 PO crosses AL; Fig.5 PO crosses REC. Fig.6B PO crosses all three i.e. right boundary and left boundary.
g) controlling the vehicle based upon the ascertaining. Para 3; a control for braking a vehicle automatically
2) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determination of the rotation direction is carried out by determining a rotation direction for the at least one third point when traversing a polyline formed from the first point via the second point to the at least one third point. Fig.2 PO FP6 and FP5; Also, Para 159; where the approximate line AL intersects with the longitudinal axis direction FR” is a counterclockwise direction, and the continuous structure angle θcp is the negative value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR at the intersection point is a clockwise direction. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR is the counterclockwise direction. Therefore, the continuous structure angle θcp1 at the time point t1 is the positive value.
3) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one boundary line of the driveable area is approximated by multiple points spaced apart from each other, and Fig.2 FP6, FP5
point pairs of the boundary line are selected sequentially as the first and second points and FP6; FP5, FP4….
used for ascertaining the rotation direction and the check as to whether the boundary of the driveable area has been crossed. Fig.2 and Fig. 3; Para 159. Clockwise direction or Counterclockwise direction; Crossing AL
4) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one third point is a vehicle vertex of a polygon that replicates a vehicle body contour of the vehicle. Fig.2 and Fig.3 point PO
5) The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the driveable area has a left boundary line and a right boundary line, which are spaced apart from each other and Fig.3 LEC and REC
define a driving lane, the vehicle body contour is approximated by a polygon with two left vertices and two right vehicle vertices, and Fig.2 PL and PR change with time or R3, R4 and L5, L4 or REC and LEC over time.
a position of at least two left corners relative to the line between the first and second points, Fig.2 L6 and L5 between FP6 and FP5
located on the left boundary line, is checked at least intermittently, at least for the two left vehicle vertices, a direction of rotation is determined in each case, by determining a direction of rotation for each left vehicle vertex when traversing a polyline formed starting from the first point via the second point to the respective vehicle vertex, and is checked whether the two directions of rotation are oriented clockwise. Para 159; The continuous structure angle θcp is either of a positive value or a negative value. In detail, the continuous structure angle θcp is the positive value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR of the own vehicle SV at an “intersection point where the approximate line AL intersects with the longitudinal axis direction FR” is a counterclockwise direction, and the continuous structure angle θcp is the negative value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR at the intersection point is a clockwise direction. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR is the counterclockwise direction. Therefore, the continuous structure angle θcp1 at the time point t1 is the positive value.
6) The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the driveable area has a left boundary line and a right boundary line, which are spaced apart from each other and define a driving lane, wherein the vehicle body contour is approximated by a polygon with two left vehicle vertices and two right vehicle vertices, wherein a position of the two right vehicle vertices relative to the line between the first point and second point, located on the right boundary line is checked at least intermittently, wherein for the two right vehicle vertices, a direction of rotation is determined in each case, by determining a direction of rotation for each right vehicle vertex when traversing a polyline formed starting from the first point via the second point to the respective vehicle vertex, and wherein it is checked whether the two directions of rotation are oriented counterclockwise. Para 159; The continuous structure angle θcp is either of a positive value or a negative value. In detail, the continuous structure angle θcp is the positive value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR of the own vehicle SV at an “intersection point where the approximate line AL intersects with the longitudinal axis direction FR” is a counterclockwise direction, and the continuous structure angle θcp is the negative value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR at the intersection point is a clockwise direction. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR is the counterclockwise direction. Therefore, the continuous structure angle θcp1 at the time point t1 is the positive value.
7) The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the rotation direction determination and rotation direction monitoring are carried out for all vehicle vertices that reproduce the vehicle body contour. Para 159; The continuous structure angle θcp is either of a positive value or a negative value. In detail, the continuous structure angle θcp is the positive value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR of the own vehicle SV at an “intersection point where the approximate line AL intersects with the longitudinal axis direction FR” is a counterclockwise direction, and the continuous structure angle θcp is the negative value when a direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR at the intersection point is a clockwise direction. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the direction from the approximate line AL to the longitudinal axis direction FR is the counterclockwise direction. Therefore, the continuous structure angle θcp1 at the time point t1 is the positive value.
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1 in addition to:
8) A driver assistance system configured to check whether a vehicle has crossed a boundary of a driveable area, wherein the driver assistance system comprises:
multiple sensors arranged and distributed around a vehicle and a computing unit communicatively coupled to the sensors for processing the information provided by the sensors, wherein the computing unit is configured to perform: para 115 brake sensors [the claim is unclear what type or sensor or what type of sensor data] Also para 63
a) receiving information on at least one boundary line of the driveable area;
b) receiving information on a driving corridor of the vehicle, wherein the driving corridor is a zone covered by a projection of the vehicle body contour onto a road when driving along a trajectory; Fig.2 SV and para 60; 63
c) selecting a first point and a second point on the at least one boundary line of the driveable area, wherein the first point behind the second point in a direction of travel of the vehicle;
d) defining a third point which is located on an edge of the driving corridor of the vehicle;
e) checking a position of the third point relative to a line between the first and second points, to verify that at least for the third point a rotation direction determination is carried out, and verifying whether the determined direction of rotation is oriented clockwise or counterclockwise;
f) ascertaining, on the basis of the verified rotation direction of the third point, whether the vehicle crosses the at least one boundary line of the driveable area: and
g) controlling the vehicle based on the ascertaining.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664