DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 02/13/2026. Claims 1 - 7 were previously pending, of which claims 1 - 7 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 8 - 11 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 - 11 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 introduces a center of gravity of the vehicle aligning with a yawing axis of the vehicle. No mention of a yawing axis aligning with the center of gravity of the vehicle was found in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
7. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 6 - 9, filed on 02/13/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
8. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Krishnan is not persasusive. Krishnan does teach “…in order to reduce an influence of a vibration caused by a rotational movement of the vehicle”. It is well understood in the art that sensor placement directly affects vibration transmission characteristics. A sensor positioned on top of the vehicle is spatially and mechanically decoupled from rotational vibration forces and therefore, experiences a reduced influence from such vibrations.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US10302744B1 (hereinafter, “Krishnan”).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnan discloses a travel control device, comprising [0061]: Navigation sensors (38) are used in the sensor assembly (20). This entire assembly in its entirety can be considered a travel control device.
a housing that is mounted on a vehicle ([0009] Fig. 1); Vehicle has a housing that is mounted on top.
a sensor that is mounted in the housing and emits an electromagnetic wave to detect an obstacle; and ([0061] Fig. 3) The navigation sensors (38) that are mounted in the sensor assembly (20) which is inside of a housing (26) can be LIDAR devices/sensors. LIDAR sensors emit electromagnetic waves to detect objects or obstacles [0001].
a circuit for controlling traveling of the vehicle based on a detection result of the sensor, wherein [0063] The wiring (40) will connect the navigation sensors (38) and may also be directly connected to a sensor plate (106) or the communication bus of the vehicle (24) in order to navigate the vehicle (24). This whole connection constitutes as a circuit for controlling the traveling of the vehicle based on the navigation sensors (38) detection.
the sensor is positioned vertically above a region that is a center of gravity of the vehicle in order to reduce an influence of a vibration cause by a rotational movement of the vehicle ([0046] Fig. 1 - 3). Figures 1 – 3 show the sensor assembly (20) which contains sensors being mounted on a roof (22) of a vehicle which is considered the center of gravity of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the placement location of the sensor assembly (20) would consequently reduce vibration transmission to the sensor assembly (20). Due to vibration transmission being location dependent, the disclosed placement results in less vibration transmission due to known physical principles.
12. Regarding claim 5, Krishnan teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor has a portion that emits the electromagnetic wave in a direction of a predetermined range along a horizontal direction, and the portion is provided at a position higher than an upper end that is located at a highest position in the vehicle and the housing [0059], [0062] – [0063]. Krishnan teaches on a tower (108) that is elevated above everything else in the housing (26) and is at the highest position of the vehicle (24). This tower (108) will contain a navigation sensor (38) which may be a LIDAR sensor that emits electromagnetic waves in a direction that is predetermined by the LIDAR range in a horizontal direction. The range along a horizontal direction is inherently predetermined because the LIDAR system has a functional range according to its design. The LIDAR will send electromagnetic waves in a horizontal direction due to the placement of the navigation sensors (38) in figure 3.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 – 3, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10302744B1 (hereinafter, “Krishnan”), and further in view of US20200241109A1 (hereinafter, “Shahvirdi”).
15. Regarding claim 2, Krishnan does not explicitly teach the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the electromagnetic wave propagates while expanding an irradiation range with the sensor as a starting point, and
the sensor emits the electromagnetic wave toward at least a front of the vehicle and is oriented such that a portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along a lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave emitted toward the front of the vehicle does not hit a ground on which the vehicle travels.
However, Shahvirdi in the same field of endeavor, teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the electromagnetic wave propagates while expanding an irradiation range with the sensor as a starting point, and ([0021] Fig. 2) Shahvirdi teaches using a radar system (220) and a LiDAR system (230). These types of sensors may use electromagnetic waves that propagate through the air and use an irradiation range to hit a surface. Figure 1 shows the sensor propagating the electromagnetic waves from the vehicle (100). The sensor is the starting point as displayed in figure 1.
the sensor emits the electromagnetic wave toward at least a front of the vehicle and is oriented such that a portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along a lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave emitted toward the front of the vehicle does not hit a ground on which the vehicle travels ([0012], [0049] – [0051] Fig. 1). Shahvirdi teaches modification of a vehicle radar antenna radiation pattern to suppress sidelobes associated with unwanted interference and clutter. In vehicle radar systems, such clutter is predominately caused by ground and road surface reflections occurring at low elevation angles. Accordingly, suppression of these sidelobes results in reduction or elimination of electromagnetic waves along lower elevation angles that would otherwise be reflecting off the ground. Therefore, Shahvirdi teaches configuring the electromagnetic wave irradiation pattern such that a portion of the lower end of the radiation range does not strike the ground. Figure 1 demonstrates these radar electromagnetic waves not hitting the ground in which the vehicle travels.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Krishnan with the teachings of Shahvirdi, to more accurately identify the location and distance of objects present.
Regarding claim 3, Krishnan discloses the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the housing has a box-shape including a plate-like member at a vertically upper side, [0029], [0044] Krishnan teaches a housing on top of a vehicle that has a box-shape [0029]. A top access panel (74) is incorporated into the housing (26) which protects the navigation sensors (38) on the upper side [0044]. This top access panel (74) can be considered a plate-like member located at a vertically upper side.
the plate-like member is provided with a hole that has a shape to allow the sensor to be inserted obliquely, and ([0044] Fig. 4) The top access panel (74) may define an opening (76) (a hole) that is in the shape of the navigation sensors (38). In order for the sensors to extend out of this opening (76), the opening (76) would have to conform to the shape of the navigation sensors (38). Based on figure 4, the opening (76) is configured to accommodate the orientation of the sensor (obliquely) as it extends through the housing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the gap of the opening (76) would permit insertion of the sensor along its axis of operation which may be non-perpendicular to the housing surface. Therefore, the opening (76) would allow for the navigation sensors (38) to be inserted obliquely based on the size of the navigation sensors (38) and the size of the opening (76).
the sensor is inserted into the hole, and is connected to the circuit via a wiring inside the housing, and is fixed to the plate-like member… [0062] - [0063]. The top access panel (74) may define an opening (76) (a hole) that will be the shape of the navigation sensors (38) so that one of the navigation sensors (38) can extend out of this opening (76). The wire (40) which is located inside of the housing (26) may connect to one or more of the navigation sensors (38) during this process of one of the navigation sensors (38) extending out through the opening (76). This wire (40) may connect the navigation sensors (38) to sensor plates (106), the communication bus of the vehicle (24), or other suitable electrical systems of the vehicle (24) to navigate the vehicle (24).
Krishnan does not explicitly teach …such that a portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along a lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground on which the vehicle travels.
However, Shahvirdi teaches …such that a portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along a lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground on which the vehicle travels ([0012], [0049] – [0051] Fig. 1). Shahvirdi teaches modification of a vehicle radar antenna radiation pattern to suppress sidelobes associated with unwanted interference and clutter. In vehicle radar systems, such clutter is predominately caused by ground and road surface reflections occurring at low elevation angles. Accordingly, suppression of these sidelobes results in reduction or elimination of electromagnetic waves along lower elevation angles that would otherwise be reflecting off the ground. Therefore, Shahvirdi teaches configuring the electromagnetic wave irradiation pattern such that a portion of the lower end of the radiation range does not strike the ground. Figure 1 demonstrates these radar electromagnetic waves not hitting the ground in which the vehicle travels.
Krishnan and Shahvirdi are analogous art because Krishnan teaches a housing on top of the vehicle that has a top access panel that has an opening in which the navigation sensors can fit through obliquely while Shahvirdi teaches a radar antenna system that reduces sidelobes which would prevent electromagnetic waves from reflecting off of the ground in which the vehicle travels to filter out road clutter and noise. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to combine Krishnan with Shahvirdi because they would have recognized that similar environmental noise and ground interaction issues affect other vehicle-mounted sensing systems, including navigation sensors positioned on a vehicle roof, and would have been motivated to apply known electromagnetic waves control techniques to improve sensing accuracy and reduce environmental interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Shahvirdi, to modify the teachings of Krishnan to include the teachings of Shahvirdi to improve electromagnetic wave accuracy on the road.
17. Regarding claim 9, Krishnan teaches the travel control device according to claim
2, wherein
the housing has a box shape including a plate-like member on an upper
side of the housing ([0044] Fig. 1 – 4), Krishnan teaches a housing (26) for sensors located on top of the vehicle (24) that has a box shape. This housing (26) also has a top access panel (74) that constitutes as a plate-like member located on the upper side of the housing (26) [0044].
the sensor is fixed to the plate-like member, and ([0062] Fig. 5) The
navigation sensors (38) are fixed to the second surface (34). The second surface constitutes as a plate-like member.
the housing is mounted to the vehicle… ([0044] Fig. 1 – 4), Krishnan teaches a
housing (26) for sensors located on top of the vehicle (24) that has a box shape. This housing (26) also has a top access panel (74) that constitutes as a plate-like member located on the upper side of the housing (26) [0044].
Krishnan does not explicitly teach …such that the portion of the electromagnetic wave emitted by the sensor and traveling along the lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground ([0012], [0049] – [0051] Fig. 1). Shahvirdi teaches modification of a vehicle radar antenna radiation pattern to suppress sidelobes associated with unwanted interference and clutter. In vehicle radar systems, such clutter is predominately caused by ground and road surface reflections occurring at low elevation angles. Accordingly, suppression of these sidelobes results in reduction or elimination of electromagnetic waves along lower elevation angles that would otherwise be reflecting off the ground. Therefore, Shahvirdi teaches configuring the electromagnetic wave irradiation pattern such that a portion of the lower end of the radiation range does not strike the ground. Figure 1 demonstrates these radar electromagnetic waves not hitting the ground in which the vehicle travels.
Krishnan and Shahvirdi are analogous art because Krishnan teaches a housing on top of the vehicle that has the shape of a box with navigation sensors that are fixed to the second surface while Shahvirdi teaches a radar antenna system that reduces sidelobes which would prevent electromagnetic waves from reflecting off of the ground in which the vehicle travels to filter out road clutter and noise. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to combine Krishnan with Shahvirdi because they would have recognized that similar environmental noise and ground interaction issues affect other vehicle-mounted sensing systems, including navigation sensors positioned on a vehicle roof, and would have been motivated to apply known electromagnetic waves control techniques to improve sensing accuracy and reduce environmental interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Shahvirdi, to modify the teachings of Krishnan to include the teachings of Shahvirdi to improve electromagnetic wave accuracy on the road.
Claim(s) 4, 6 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10302744B1 (hereinafter, “Krishnan”), and further in view of EP3176666B1 (hereinafter, “Ferguson”).
19. Regarding claim 4, Krishnan does not explicitly teach the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is configured to detect a position of a predetermined marker,
the marker is arranged in a vicinity of a boundary of an area in which the vehicle travels,
the circuit controls the vehicle so that the vehicle travels inside an area whose boundary is in a vicinity of a position of the marker detected by the sensor, and
the sensor is provided at a position lower than an upper end of the marker.
However, Ferguson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is configured to detect a position of a predetermined marker [0100], The sensors of the vehicle (101) will inherently be able to detect these low-cost beacon transmitters (predetermined markers) that are placed on road signs, traffic signals, roads, or other highway infrastructure components.
the marker is arranged in a vicinity of a boundary of an area in which the vehicle travels [0100] – [0101], Ferguson teaches on giving autonomous vehicles certain privileges. These certain privileges may be designating special lanes for autonomous vehicles to travel in lines at faster speeds as well as having certain geographic areas being autonomous only vehicle zones. Therefore, these low-cost beacon transmitters (marker) can be within these geographic zones (boundary of an area).
the circuit controls the vehicle so that the vehicle travels inside an area whose boundary is in a vicinity of a position of the marker detected by the sensor, and [0100] – [0101] Inherently, some sort of circuitry would be present in the vehicle in order to carry information over from the sensors located on the vehicle (101) that have detected the low-cost beacon transmitters (marker) that are present in these autonomous only vehicle zones (boundary).
the sensor is provided at a position lower than an upper end of the marker [0100] – [0101]. The low-cost beacon transmitters may be placed on road signs, traffic signals, roads, or other highway infrastructure components. These road signs, traffic signals, roads, or other highway infrastructure components are normally higher than a car. Therefore, the sensors located on the vehicle (101) will be lower than these low-cost beacon transmitters placed on roads signs, traffic signals, etc (upper end of the marker).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Krishnan with the teachings of Ferguson, to further establish specific boundaries for the autonomous vehicle in which the autonomous vehicle is designated to.
20. Regarding claim 6, Krishnan does not explicitly teach the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is configured to detect a signal from a predetermined beacon,
the beacon is arranged at a boundary of an area in which the vehicle travels, and
the circuit controls the vehicle so that the vehicle travels inside an area whose boundary is a position of the beacon indicated by the signal detected by the sensor.
However, Ferguson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the sensor is configured to detect a signal from a predetermined beacon [0100], The sensors of the vehicle (101) will inherently be able to detect these low-cost beacon transmitters (predetermined markers) that are placed on road signs, traffic signals, roads, or other highway infrastructure components.
the beacon is arranged at a boundary of an area in which the vehicle travels, and [0100] – [0101] Ferguson teaches on giving autonomous vehicles certain privileges. These certain privileges may be designating special lanes for autonomous vehicles to travel in lines at faster speeds as well as having certain geographic areas being autonomous only vehicle zones. Therefore, these low-cost beacon transmitters (beacon) can be within these geographic zones (boundary of an area).
the circuit controls the vehicle so that the vehicle travels inside an area whose boundary is a position of the beacon indicated by the signal detected by the sensor [0100] – [0101]. Inherently, some sort of circuitry would be present in the vehicle in order to carry information over from the sensors located on the vehicle (101) that have detected the low-cost beacon transmitters (beacon) that are present in these autonomous only vehicle zones (boundary).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Krishnan with the teachings of Ferguson, to further establish specific boundaries for the autonomous vehicle in which the autonomous vehicle is designated to.
21. Regarding claim 7, Krishnan does not explicitly teach the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is configured to detect a position of the vehicle, and
the circuit controls traveling of the vehicle based on the position detected by the sensor.
However, Ferguson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is configured to detect a position of the vehicle, and [0019] The vehicle may have a geographic position component (144) which is in communication with the computer (110) for determining the geographic location of the device/vehicle.
the circuit controls traveling of the vehicle based on the position detected by the sensor [0019], [0024]. The autonomous driving computer system (110) may communicate with various components of the vehicle (101). These various components include the geographic position component (144) and the vehicle navigation system (186) as shown in figure 1. Since the vehicle (101) is being fed geographic positioning, the vehicle navigation system (186) will inherently have to use this geographic positioning data to control the vehicle such as the movement, speed, etc [0024].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Krishnan with the teachings of Ferguson, to further establish specific boundaries for the autonomous vehicle in which the autonomous vehicle is designated to.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10302744B1 (hereinafter, “Krishnan”), and further in view of US11710894B1 (hereinafter, “Espinal”), and further in view of US20190016306A1 (hereinafter, “Sykula”), and further in view of US20200241109A1 (hereinafter, “Shahvirdi”).
23. Regarding claim 8, Krishnan teaches the travel control device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a base, wherein [0040] Krishnan teaches a base (30).
the housing has a box shape including a plate-like member on an upper side of the housing ([0044] Fig. 1 – 4), Krishnan teaches a housing (26) for sensors located on top of the vehicle (24) that has a box shape. This housing (26) also has a top access panel (74) that constitutes as a plate-like member located on the upper side of the housing (26) [0044].
Krishnan does not explicitly teach the base is fixed to an upper surface of the plate-like member,
the base has an inclined surface that is inclined with respect to the upper surface when the base is fixed to the upper surface, and
the sensor is fixed to the inclined surface such that the portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along the lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground.
However, Espinal teaches base is fixed to an upper surface of the plate-like member ([Col. 8 Lines 33 – 52] Fig. 1), The domed top (188) which we will consider as the plate-like member is seen in figure 1 being fixed to the base (110).
Krishnan does not explicitly teach the base has an inclined surface that is inclined with respect to the upper surface when the base is fixed to the upper surface, and
the sensor is fixed to the inclined surface such that the portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along the lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground.
However, Sykula teaches the base has an inclined surface that is inclined with respect to the upper surface when the base is fixed to the upper surface, and
the sensor is fixed to the inclined surface… ([0072] Fig. 8) Sykula teaches a vehicle mounted sensor housing (40) including a base (220) that is sloped relative to the ground. Sykula explicitly defines sloped to include inclined or angled surfaces. Due to how the vehicle body constitutes as the ground referenced mounting surface, the base necessarily includes a surface that is inclined with respect to the upper surface when mounted on. Therefore, Sykula teaches a base having an inclined surface relative to the vehicle surface.
Krishnan does not explicitly teach …such that the portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along the lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground.
However, Shahvirdi teaches …such that the portion of the electromagnetic wave traveling along the lower end of the irradiation range of the electromagnetic wave does not hit the ground ([0012], [0049] – [0051] Fig. 1). Shahvirdi teaches modification of a vehicle radar antenna radiation pattern to suppress sidelobes associated with unwanted interference and clutter. In vehicle radar systems, such clutter is predominately caused by ground and road surface reflections occurring at low elevation angles. Accordingly, suppression of these sidelobes results in reduction or elimination of electromagnetic waves along lower elevation angles that would otherwise be reflecting off the ground. Therefore, Shahvirdi teaches configuring the electromagnetic wave irradiation pattern such that a portion of the lower end of the radiation range does not strike the ground. Figure 1 demonstrates these radar electromagnetic waves not hitting the ground in which the vehicle travels.
Krishnan, Espinal, Sykula, and Shahvirdi are analogous art because Krishnan teaches a housing that a box shape with a top access panel while Espinal teaches a domed top that is fixed to a base while Sykula teaches a base that is sloped or inclined relative to the ground or vehicle surface while Shahvirdi teaches a radar antenna system that reduces sidelobes which would prevent electromagnetic waves from reflecting off of the ground in which the vehicle travels to filter out road clutter and noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Espinal, Sykula, and Shahvirdi to modify the teachings of Krishnan to include the teachings of Espinal, Sykula, and Shahvirdi to further reduce any clutter or noise from the electromagnetic waves reflecting off the ground.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10302744B1 (hereinafter, “Krishnan”), and further in view of WO2004074804A1 (hereinafter, “Pettersson”).
25. Regarding claim 10, Krishnan does not explicitly teach the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein the center of gravity of the vehicle is aligned with a yawing axis of the vehicle.
However, Pettersson teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein the center of gravity of the vehicle is aligned with a yawing axis of the vehicle [Pg. 5 Paragraph 1 - 2]. Pettersson teaches a vehicle stability control system in which vehicle motion is modeled using a rigid-body coordinate system defined with respect to the vehicle’s center of gravity “Such an angle of inclination a has been found to be sufficient to enable good estimation of the height of the centre of gravity Yd of the tractor unit and the centre of gravity yt of the trailer 2. The control unit 8 uses information about the vehicle's angle of inclination a, the change in the loads N1, N2, N3 on the wheelshafts 3,4, 6 relative to those in the first state, and values specific to the vehicle, such as axle spacing etc., to estimate said heights yd and yt of the centres of gravity.” [Pg. 5 Paragraph 1 - 2]. In such vehicle models, the yaw axis is defined as the vertical axis passing through the center of gravity. Therefore, Pettersson teaches that the vehicle’s yawing axis is aligned with the center of gravity for purposes of determining and controlling vehicle stability and yaw behavior.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Krishnan with the teachings of Pettersson, to have more accurate measurements since having the sensors in a housing at the center of gravity of a vehicle improves accuracy of motion and stability control.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10302744B1 (hereinafter, “Krishnan”), and further in view of US20240045060A1 (hereinafter, “Shand”), and further in view of US20200072612A1 (hereinafter, “Robinson”).
27. Regarding claim 11, Krishnan does not explicitly teach the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is disposed at a rotary portion, and the rotary portion is rotated around a rotation axis, and
the rotation axis is inclined with respect to a yawing axis of the vehicle.
However, Shand teaches the travel control device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor is disposed at a rotary portion, and the rotary portion is rotated around a rotation axis, and
the rotation axis… [0095] Shand teaches a LiDAR device (100) being coupled by a rotary link (120) to a rotating platform (112). This rotating platform constitutes as a rotary portion that can be rotated around a rotation axis.
Krishnan does not explicitly teach …is inclined with respect to a yawing axis of the vehicle.
However, Robinson teaches …is inclined with respect to a yawing axis of the vehicle (Fig. 4A – AB). Robinson teaches a vehicle sensor unit (400) having a platform (406) which can be tilted or offset at an angle relative to the vehicle’s yaw axis (422b).
Shand and Robinson are analogous art to Krishnan because Shand teaches a LiDAR device being connected by a rotary link to a rotating platform which rotates around a rotation axis while Robinson teaches a sensor unit having a platform that can be tilted or offset at an angle relative to the vehicle’s yaw axis. A person of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine patent Shand and Robinson because they solve complementary problems in LiDAR mounting architecture. Combining them would have predictably produced a LiDAR assembly that both rotates for broader scanning coverage and adjusts tilt to maintain alignment with the vehicle frame.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Shand and Robinson, to modify the teachings of Krishnan to include the teachings of Shand and Robinson to reduce misalignment errors with the sensors.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights