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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160259045 A1 to Huston (‘045) in view of US 20180001820 A1 to Higgins (‘820).
Regarding claim 1,
Huston (‘045) teaches:
A vehicle comprising: (Fig. 1A)
(lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference)
an ultra-wideband transceiver ([0069] – “Still referring to FIG. 7, pulser 73 may be any suitable pulser meeting the requirements of Federal Communications Commission (hereinafter referred to as “FCC”) regulations for UWB technology.” [0054] – “The GPR system 1 comprises the combination of a surface-coupled assembly 5, wheel encoder 3, and an antenna or air-launched assembly 4 (including transmit and receive antennas), mounted on a vehicle or trailer 5 for transportation over the surface 6 of the roadway 2.”)
a processor; (Figs. 4, 7; [0034] – “FIG. 4 is a block diagram of one example of architecture overview and functional control of an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) and floating point gate array (FPGA) control;”) and
a memory storing computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Fig. 7; [0024] – “The ASIC samples the short duration and information-laden portion of the input waveform at a high speed by temporarily storing the data in a discrete-time analog-amplitude memory buffer.” [0072] – “pulser 73 may include a sequence control stage”)
transmit, using the ultra-wideband transceiver, a signal towards an underground location below the vehicle; ([0089] – “a transmitter is pulsed to emit a radar frequency electromagnetic wave from a transmitting antenna towards an object to be analyzed 152.” [0053] – “Referring to FIG. 1A, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) system 1 is provided as a non-destructive means for determining layer velocity, depth, thickness, and condition information relating to a roadway structure. (The term ‘roadway’ is to be broadly construed to denote roads, bridges and the like.)”) and
receive, ([0089] – “A reflected wave component of the transmitted electromagnetic wave is received or captured with a receiving antenna impedance matched to the transmitting antenna 158.”)
Higgins (‘820) teaches:
a tailgate; (Fig. 3; [0026] – “tailgate assembly 32 that can be moved between raised and lowered configurations”)
a sensor disposed within the tailgate; ([0027] – “tailgate raised video camera 54a and a tailgate lowered video camera 54b. In the illustrated embodiment, the tailgate raised video camera 54a and the tailgate lowered video camera 54b may be associated with the tailgate handle assembly 42, but the tailgate raised video camera 54a and the tailgate lowered video camera 54b may be located elsewhere on the tailgate assembly 32.”)
sense, using the sensor, towards an underground location below the tailgate (Fig. 5; [0028] – “Referring also to FIG. 5, the tailgate lowered video camera 54b has an optical axis O.sub.l that is offset from the optical axis O.sub.r such that the optical axis O.sub.l is directed generally downward in the vehicle vertical direction and rearward in the vehicle longitudinal direction thereby providing a FOV 74 that is located rearward of the tailgate assembly 32 with the tailgate assembly 32 in the lowered configuration.”)
sense, based on the tailgate being in an open position and using the sensor, a downward FOV. (Fig. 5; [0028] – “Referring also to FIG. 5, the tailgate lowered video camera 54b has an optical axis O.sub.l that is offset from the optical axis O.sub.r such that the optical axis O.sub.l is directed generally downward in the vehicle vertical direction and rearward in the vehicle longitudinal direction thereby providing a FOV 74 that is located rearward of the tailgate assembly 32 with the tailgate assembly 32 in the lowered configuration.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Higgins (‘820)’ known technique to Huston (‘045)’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Huston (‘045) teaches a base method of a GPR sensor mounted on a vehicle for sensing in a downward direction; (2) Higgins (‘820) teaches a technique of placing a sensor on a tailgate such that it senses in a downward direction when the tailgate is lowered / open; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results (see, e.g., US 20020063652 A1 Price teaching GPR on a moving appendage of a vehicle) and resulted in a system with improved SNR; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Alternatively, a modification of the combination of Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) to dispose the transceiver on the tailgate, such that the transceiver senses towards an underground location when the tailgate is open would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need to place the transceiver on the vehicle such that its FOV is in a downward direction; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 15,
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 8 and 15 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 2,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above:
The vehicle of claim 1,
Higgins (‘820) further teaches:
wherein the ultra-wideband transceiver is disposed within a trim applique associated with the tailgate. ([0027] – “tailgate raised video camera 54a and a tailgate lowered video camera 54b. In the illustrated embodiment, the tailgate raised video camera 54a and the tailgate lowered video camera 54b may be associated with the tailgate handle assembly 42, but the tailgate raised video camera 54a and the tailgate lowered video camera 54b may be located elsewhere on the tailgate assembly 32.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Higgins (‘820)’ known technique to Huston (‘045)’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Huston (‘045) teaches a base method of a GPR sensor mounted on a vehicle for sensing in a downward direction; (2) Higgins (‘820) teaches a technique of placing a sensor on a tailgate such that it senses in a downward direction when the tailgate is lowered / open; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Alternatively, a modification of the combination of Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) to dispose the transceiver within a trim applique would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need to place the transceiver on the tailgate; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 16,
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 2. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 9 and 16 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 2.
Regarding claim 5,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above:
The vehicle of claim 1,
Huston (‘045) further teaches:
wherein the signal includes at least one of: a first signal at a frequency of 1 GHz ([0007] – “Ground Penetrating Radar (“GPR”) systems are used to make measurements of different structures in the ground. These systems are also referred to as impulse ground penetrating radar (I-GPR) systems. Each system incorporates a transmitter having an antenna that radiates or emir a short pulse of radio frequency typically in the frequency range from 1 MHz to 10 GHz;” [0013] – “A horn antenna system operating at a center frequency of about 3 GHz can resolve layers as thin as 50 mm and can detect features to depths of 300 to 500 mm in typical materials.”) and/or a second signal at a frequency of 3 GHz. ([0013] – “A surface-coupled antenna system operating at a center frequency of about 1 GHz can resolve layers as thin as 100 to 150 mm and can typically detect features to depths of 1 to 2 m.” Examiner further notes that this limitation is listed in the alternative and only one is required by the claim.)
Regarding claim(s) 12 and 19,
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 5. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 12 and 19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 5.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160259045 A1 to Huston (‘045) in view of US 20180001820 A1 to Higgins (‘820) and further in view of US 20200109588 A1 to Nania (‘588).
Regarding claim 3,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above:
The vehicle of claim 1,
wherein the ultra-wideband transceiver is disposed within (see citations above regarding the same feature in claim 1)
Nania (‘588) teaches:
a step that is configured to extend from the tailgate. ([0018] – “The switch 50 is closed when a step assembly 54 is in a fully stowed position (shown in FIGS. 3 and 4) and is open when the step assembly 54 is in a partially deployed (shown in FIG. 2) or fully deployed (shown in FIG. 1) position.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nania (‘588)’s known technique to Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820)’ known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches a base method of using a GPR sensor mounted to a tailgate such that it has a downward FOV when the tailgate is open; (2) Nania (‘588) teaches a specific technique of including a step as part of the tailgate; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system able to accommodate a tailgate step without the step occluding the sensor; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 17,
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 3. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 10 and 17 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 3.
Regarding claim 7,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) and further in view of Nania (‘588) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above:
The vehicle of claim 3,
Nania (‘588) further teaches:
wherein the step is configured to extend from a top portion of the tailgate. (Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nania (‘588)’s known technique to Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820)’ known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches a base method of using a GPR sensor mounted to a tailgate such that it has a downward FOV when the tailgate is open; (2) Nania (‘588) teaches a specific technique of including a step as part of the tailgate; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system able to accommodate a tailgate step without the step occluding the sensor; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 14,
Claim(s) 14 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 7. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 14 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 7.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160259045 A1 to Huston (‘045) in view of US 20180001820 A1 to Higgins (‘820) and further in view of US 20200109588 A1 to Nania (‘588) and further in view of US 20150120178 A1 to Kleve (‘178).
Regarding claim 4,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) and further in view of Nania (‘588) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above:
The vehicle of claim 3,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) and further in view of Nania (‘588) does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
Kleve (‘178) teaches:
wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
transmit, using the ultra-wideband transceiver, ([0046] – “The controller 105 may monitor object detection sensors 120, such as an optical range finder, RADAR sensor, UWB sensor”) a signal towards a location above the tailgate; ([0047-48] – “the object detection sensors 120 may examine the surrounding environment for any indication a low clearance structure is imminent or approaching… the sensors 120 may scan an approaching overpass, such as a tunnel, bridge, overhang, garage door, parking structure entrance, etc., to determine if the overpass is a low clearance structure.”) and
receive, based on the tailgate being in a closed position and using the ultra-wideband transceiver, a return signal from an object located above the vehicle. ([0026] – “The sensors 120, 125 may include any sensor or sensor system available in the vehicle that may be used to determine a vehicle location and detect an approaching low clearance structure.” [0047-48] – “At block 520, the clearance height of the low clearance structure may be determined. The sensors 120 may be configured to measure the vertical distance, or height, of the opening of the approaching low clearance structure. For example, a LIDAR sensor 120 may target the opening of a low clearance tunnel and analyze the reflected light. Similarly, a RADAR or IR sensor 120 may determine the clearance height of an approaching overhang.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kleve (‘178)’s known technique to Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820)’ known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches a base method of using a UWB sensor mounted to a tailgate for surveying the surrounding area of a vehicle; (2) Kleve (‘178) teaches a specific technique of scanning in an upwards direction with respect to the tailgate; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with increased view of surroundings; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 11 and 18,
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 4. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 11 and 18 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160259045 A1 to Huston (‘045) in view of US 20180001820 A1 to Higgins (‘820) and further in view of US 20210263166 A1 to Zheng (‘166).
Regarding claim 6,
Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above:
The vehicle of claim 1,
Higgins (‘820) further teaches:
wherein the ultra-wideband transceiver is further configured to operate in association with additional vehicles functions based on the tailgate being in a closed position, ([0024] – “] One or more sensors 60 may be connected to the ECU 56. The sensors 60 may be any number of sensor types, such as a tailgate position sensor, a speed sensor, a transmission sensor, a motion sensor, etc. The tailgate position sensor may, for example, provide a signal that is received by the ECU 56 that is indicative of an angular position of the tailgate assembly 32. In some embodiments, the tailgate position sensor may provide a signal that is received by the ECU 56 that is indicative of whether the tailgate assembly 32 is in the raised or lowered configuration. The ECU 56 may operate the front and rear video cameras 52 and 54 based on input from the tailgate position sensor.”)
Zheng (‘166) teaches:
wherein the additional vehicle functions (Figs. 1, 3, 4; [0052] – “In some systems, ground penetrating radar may also be used to track road surfaces via, for example, RADAR-reflective markers on the road surface or terrain features such as ditches.”) include at least one of:
blind-spot detection, back-up parking assistance, rear crash avoidance, and/or lane change assistance. ([0059] – “the cameras 206 and bumper-mounted camera at 208 may comprise two front facing cameras, one focused on lower objects and/or a lower point of view (such as bumper mounted) for parking purposes” [0064] – “negotiation for lane change between adjacent cars,” [0084] – “Therefore, any or all of vehicles R1, R2 and R3 may share location and GNSS information with each other, enabling instructions and/or an alert to R1 to pull back to the right lane and instructions and/or an alert to R3 to slow down to allow R1 to complete the lane change back into the right lane”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Zheng (‘166)’s known technique to Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820)’ known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Huston (‘045) in view of Higgins (‘820) teaches a base method of using a GPR sensor mounted to a car; (2) Zheng (‘166) teaches a specific technique of using information from various sensors including GPR, lane change information, and parking cameras for planning vehicle maneuvers; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a vehicle with improved sensing, prediction, planning, and execution capabilities; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 13 and 20,
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 6. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 13 and 20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights