Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 21-22, 32-34, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al., (Reinventing the Automobile, 2010, The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, copy attached), hereinafter, “RTA”, in view of Villamar (US 2014/0046512) and further in view of 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications (copy attached).
Regarding claim 21, RTA teaches an unmanned road vehicle for making deliveries, comprising: a control system for autonomous driving of the vehicle on a roadway; (see RTA at chapter 2 page 13 which discloses that with this new DNA, our vehicles will be electric-drive, fueled by electricity and hydrogen, electronically controlled, and will function as nodes in a connected transportation network and at page 18, for example, which discloses electrification of vehicle systems (electric-drive, including rear-wheel motors, and by-wire braking and steering); see RTA at chapter 4 page 72, for example, which discloses that many driving characteristics of the CityCar are embodied in the software of the digital control system; see RTA at chapter 8 page 141-142, for example, which discloses automating pickup and drop-off transactions; see RTA at page 142 which discloses that if vehicles are able to drive autonomously, then they can be summoned from parking spaces at pick up and sent by themselves to parking spaces at drop off; also, see RTA at page 144, for example, which discloses that pickup and drop-off points should be distributed in approximately even patterns throughout service areas and that pickup and drop-off points may be located at transit stops. Examiner notes that automating pickup and drop-off transactions throughout service areas that include transit stops using an autonomous vehicle corresponds to an unmanned road vehicle for making deliveries, such as the pickup and delivery of passengers among other things, comprises a control system for autonomous driving of the vehicle on a roadway. Also, see RTA at page 136 at Figure 8.3 which discloses structures of street and road networks and illustratively depicts street grids which provide many possible routes to destinations.)
a perception system for detecting objects around the vehicle; (see RTA at chapter 2 page 20, for example, which discloses that V2V communications is essentially a new GPS and wireless based all-around object-detection sensor that gives the vehicle a “sixth sense”, and that with V2V, each vehicle broadcasts its position and velocity to its “neighborhood” and continuously monitors the status of surrounding vehicles within a quarter-mile radius and that this provides the vehicle with an “extra set of eyes” so that it can see its local environment and can detect road situations around a corner or even ten vehicles ahead; also see RTA at page 22 which illustratively depicts various sensors that detect objects around the vehicle.)
a cargo compartment; (see RTA at chapter 4 Figure 4.9, for example, which depicts battery and baggage storage in the city car.)
an electric motor for propelling the vehicle; (see RTA at chapter 4 page 57 which disclose that with conventional electric motor designs (a single electric motor on the axle and half shafts leading to each wheel) the end result is a package similar to that of a gasoline-powered car; see RTA at chapter 4 page 83 which discloses that Figure 4.22 summarizes the ways in which electrification, connectivity, and strategies for small vehicle design can combine to create an attractive alternative to the conventional automobile—the electric USV (Ultra Small Vehicle).)
RTA does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle does not have any passenger seats which in a related art Villamar teaches (see Villamar at the Abstract which discloses that the delivery vehicle may be driverless and lightweight and move automatically; see Villamar at Fig. 2 which illustratively depicts the absence of passenger seats in the depicted driverless vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include wherein the vehicle does not have any passenger seats, as taught by Villamar.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to a more lightweight vehicle, as suggested by Villamar at the Abstract.
While not relied on Villamar also teaches an unmanned road vehicle for making deliveries (see Villamar at Abstract, for example, which discloses that provided is a delivery vehicle and methods and a system for automated delivery using the delivery vehicle and that the delivery vehicle may be driverless and lightweight.)
The modified RTA does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle has an empty weight of at least 700 Ibs; wherein both front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 65 inches; wherein the vehicle has a total cargo volume of less than 100 cu ft, which in a related art 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications teaches (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the curb weight is at least 2,363 lbs.; see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the Track, front is 55.4 inches and that the Track, rear is 55.0 inches; see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that Total Interior Volume is 85.1 cubic feet. Examiner notes that a curb weight of at least 2,363 lbs. corresponds to an empty weight of at least 700 lbs. Examiner notes that the Track, front is 55.4 inches and that the Track, rear is 55.0 inches corresponds to wherein both front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 65 inches. Examiner notes that the total interior volume is 85.1 cubic feet corresponds to wherein the vehicle has a total cargo volume of less than 100 cu ft.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include wherein the vehicle has an empty weight of at least 700 Ibs.; wherein both front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 65 inches; wherein the vehicle has a total cargo volume of less than 100 cu ft, as taught by 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles, as suggested by Villamar at [0020].
Regarding claim 22, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 21, wherein both the front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 60 inches, (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses a Track, front of 55.4 inches and a Track, rear of 55.0 inches. Examiner notes that both the front and rear track widths are narrower than 60 inches.)
Regarding claim 32, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 21, having a wheelbase of less than 130 inches (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the vehicle has a wheelbase of 90.6 inches which is less than 130 inches.)
Regarding claim 33, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 21, having a wheelbase of less than 105 inches (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the vehicle has a wheelbase of 90.6 inches which is less than 105 inches.)
Regarding claim 34, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 22, having a wheelbase of less than 105 inches (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the vehicle has a wheelbase of 90.6 inches which is less than 105 inches.)
Regarding claim 36, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 21, having a wheelbase of at least 40 inches, but less than 130 inches (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the vehicle has a wheelbase of 90.6 inches which is at least 40 inches, but less than 130 inches.)
Regarding claim 38, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 21, wherein a main body of the vehicle has a height of less than 6 feet (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the vehicle has an overall height of 59.8 inches which is less than 6 feet.)
Claims 23-26, 35, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al., (Reinventing the Automobile, 2010, The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, copy attached), hereinafter, “RTA”, in view of Villamar (US 2014/0046512) in view of 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications (copy attached) and further in view of BMW Isetta (copy attached).
Regarding claim 23, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 21, wherein both the front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 55 inches, which in a related art, BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses a Track, front of 47.2 inches and a Track, rear of 20.4 inches. Examiner notes that both the front and rear track widths are narrower than 55 inches.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include wherein both the front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 55 inches, as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles, as suggested by Villamar at [0020].
Regarding claim 24, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 21, wherein both the front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 50 inches, which in a related art, BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses a Track, front of 47.2 inches and a Track, rear of 20.4 inches. Examiner notes that both the front and rear track widths are narrower than 50 inches.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include wherein both the front and rear track widths of the vehicle are narrower than 50 inches, as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles, as suggested by Villamar at [0020].
Regarding claim 25, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 22, having a maximum payload capacity of less than 900 lbs. which in a related art BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses that the carrying capacity is 507 lbs. which is less than 900 lbs.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include having a maximum payload capacity of less than 900 lbs., as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles, as suggested by Villamar at [0020].
Regarding claim 26, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 25, wherein the maximum payload capacity is at least 75 lbs. (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses that the carrying capacity is 507 lbs. which is at least 75 lbs.)
Regarding claim 35, the modified RTA teaches the vehicle of claim 23, having a wheelbase of less than 105 inches (see 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications at page 3 which discloses that the vehicle has a wheelbase of 90.6 inches which is less than 105 inches.)
Regarding claim 39, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 21, being capable of traveling faster than 25 mph, but vehicle speed is limited to a maximum allowable speed V, with V being a value of 60 mph or less which in a related art BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses that the maximum speed is 52.8 miles per hour. Examiner notes that the Isetta vehicle is capable of going from a standstill to 52.8 mph which means that it can travel faster than 25 mph but is limited to a speed V which is 60 mph or less.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include being capable of traveling faster than 25 mph, but vehicle speed is limited to a maximum allowable speed V, with V being a value of 60 mph or less, as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles, as suggested by Villamar at [0020].
Regarding claim 40, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 22, being capable of traveling faster than 25 mph, but vehicle speed is limited to a maximum allowable speed V, with V being a value of 60 mph or less which in a related art BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses that the maximum speed is 52.8 miles per hour. Examiner notes that the Isetta vehicle is capable of going from a standstill to 52.8 mph which means that it can travel faster than 25 mph but is limited to a speed V which is 60 mph or less.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include being capable of traveling faster than 25 mph, but vehicle speed is limited to a maximum allowable speed V, with V being a value of 60 mph or less, as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles, as suggested by Villamar at [0020].
Regarding claim 41, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 21, being capable of traveling faster than 35 mph which in a related art BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses that the maximum speed is 52.8 miles per hour. Examiner notes that the Isetta vehicle is capable of going from a standstill to 52.8 mph which means that it can travel faster than 35 mph.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include being capable of traveling faster than 35 mph, as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles and that are capable of providing higher throughputs than those achieved by today’s urban streets and roads, as suggested by Villamar at [0020] and by RTA at page 166.
Regarding claim 42, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 22, being capable of traveling faster than 35 mph which in a related art BMW Isetta teaches (see BMW Isetta at page 8 which discloses that the maximum speed is 52.8 miles per hour. Examiner notes that the Isetta vehicle is capable of going from a standstill to 52.8 mph which means that it can travel faster than 35 mph.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include being capable of traveling faster than 35 mph, as taught by BMW Isetta.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a driverless delivery vehicle in which the delivery vehicles may include lightweight, small in size vehicles and that are capable of providing higher throughputs than those achieved by today’s urban streets and roads, as suggested by Villamar at [0020] and by RTA at page 166.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al., (Reinventing the Automobile, 2010, The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, copy attached), hereinafter, “RTA”, in view of Villamar (US 2014/0046512) in view of 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications (copy attached) in view of BMW Isetta (copy attached) and further in view of Hagemann et al. (US 2013/0074383).
Regarding claim 27, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 21, further comprising an external video display, which in a related art, Hagemann teaches (see Hagemann at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts an integrated display system 108; see Hagemann at [0017] which discloses a frontal view of a windshield 104 including an integrated display system 108.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include an external video display, as taught by Hagemann.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so the need for mechanical support members or brackets within the public transportation vehicle is removed since the signage is supported internally within the window or windshield and that this will enable a reduction in the overall weight of the signage system, by upwards of 40 pounds which translates into decreased consumption of fuel within the public transportation vehicle since weight considerations affect the gas mileage of the vehicle, as suggested by Hagemann at [0019].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al., (Reinventing the Automobile, 2010, The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, copy attached), hereinafter, “RTA”, in view of Villamar (US 2014/0046512) in view of 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications (copy attached) and further in view of Campbell (US 8,860,879).
Regarding claim 28, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 21, further comprising a surveillance system that includes a multidirectional camera system that has one or more cameras for imaging in multiple directions, wherein the surveillance system is in operation even when the vehicle is not traveling or when the driving perception system is not active, which in a related art, Campbell teaches (see Campbell at col. 1 lines 12-17, for example, which discloses that digital video cameras such as dash cams can also be utilized in vehicles such as police cars, that separate cameras are usually installed in each location to be monitored and that when simultaneous monitoring of multiple locations is not needed, the installation of multiple cameras can be an unnecessary expense; see Campbell at col. 1 lines 28-36, for example, which discloses that the objects, features and advantages of the present invention include providing a suction cup camera that may (i) be removably attached to any smooth surface, (ii) allow placing a camera on any window, (iii) allow viewing through a hotel room door peep sight without standing near the door, (iv) allow moving a dash cam between multiple cars, (v) alert a user if the device falls off a surface, and/or (vi) allow images to be captured through a surface to which the suction cup camera is attached; see Campbell at col. 2 lines 25-29, for example, which discloses that the camera 108 may be battery powered and include support for wireless communication by one or more wireless protocols such as Bluetooth, ZigBee, IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15, IEEE 802.15.1, IEEE 802.15.2, IEEE 802.15.3, IEEE 802.15.4, IEEE 802.15.5, and IEEE 802.20. Examiner notes that the camera is battery powered to allow it to be used when the vehicle is not traveling.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include a surveillance system that includes a multidirectional camera system that has one or more cameras for imaging in multiple directions, wherein the surveillance system is in operation even when the vehicle is not traveling or when the driving perception system is not active, as taught by Campbell.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for security monitoring, as suggested by Campbell at col. 1 lines 11-12.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al., (Reinventing the Automobile, 2010, The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, copy attached), hereinafter, “RTA”, in view of Villamar (US 2014/0046512) in view of 2012 FIAT 500 Specifications (copy attached) in view of BMW Isetta (copy attached) and further in view of Campbell (US 8,860,879).
Regarding claim 29, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 22, further comprising a surveillance system that includes a multidirectional camera system that has one or more cameras for imaging in multiple directions, wherein the surveillance system is in operation even when the vehicle is not traveling or when the driving perception system is not active, which in a related art, Campbell teaches (see Campbell at col. 1 lines 12-17, for example, which discloses that digital video cameras such as dash cams can also be utilized in vehicles such as police cars, that separate cameras are usually installed in each location to be monitored and that when simultaneous monitoring of multiple locations is not needed, the installation of multiple cameras can be an unnecessary expense; see Campbell at col. 1 lines 28-36, for example, which discloses that the objects, features and advantages of the present invention include providing a suction cup camera that may (i) be removably attached to any smooth surface, (ii) allow placing a camera on any window, (iii) allow viewing through a hotel room door peep sight without standing near the door, (iv) allow moving a dash cam between multiple cars, (v) alert a user if the device falls off a surface, and/or (vi) allow images to be captured through a surface to which the suction cup camera is attached; see Campbell at col. 2 lines 25-29, for example, which discloses that the camera 108 may be battery powered and include support for wireless communication by one or more wireless protocols such as Bluetooth, ZigBee, IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15, IEEE 802.15.1, IEEE 802.15.2, IEEE 802.15.3, IEEE 802.15.4, IEEE 802.15.5, and IEEE 802.20. Examiner notes that the camera is battery powered to allow it to be used when the vehicle is not traveling.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include a surveillance system that includes a multidirectional camera system that has one or more cameras for imaging in multiple directions, wherein the surveillance system is in operation even when the vehicle is not traveling or when the driving perception system is not active, as taught by Campbell.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for security monitoring, as suggested by Campbell at col. 1 lines 11-12.
Regarding claim 30, the modified RTA does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 23, further comprising a surveillance system that includes a multidirectional camera system that has one or more cameras for imaging in multiple directions, wherein the surveillance system is in operation even when the vehicle is not traveling or when the driving perception system is not active, which in a related art, Campbell teaches (see Campbell at col. 1 lines 12-17, for example, which discloses that digital video cameras such as dash cams can also be utilized in vehicles such as police cars, that separate cameras are usually installed in each location to be monitored and that when simultaneous monitoring of multiple locations is not needed, the installation of multiple cameras can be an unnecessary expense; see Campbell at col. 1 lines 28-36, for example, which discloses that the objects, features and advantages of the present invention include providing a suction cup camera that may (i) be removably attached to any smooth surface, (ii) allow placing a camera on any window, (iii) allow viewing through a hotel room door peep sight without standing near the door, (iv) allow moving a dash cam between multiple cars, (v) alert a user if the device falls off a surface, and/or (vi) allow images to be captured through a surface to which the suction cup camera is attached; see Campbell at col. 2 lines 25-29, for example, which discloses that the camera 108 may be battery powered and include support for wireless communication by one or more wireless protocols such as Bluetooth, ZigBee, IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15, IEEE 802.15.1, IEEE 802.15.2, IEEE 802.15.3, IEEE 802.15.4, IEEE 802.15.5, and IEEE 802.20. Examiner notes that the camera is battery powered to allow it to be used when the vehicle is not traveling.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RTA to include a surveillance system that includes a multidirectional camera system that has one or more cameras for imaging in multiple directions, wherein the surveillance system is in operation even when the vehicle is not traveling or when the driving perception system is not active, as taught by Campbell.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for security monitoring, as suggested by Campbell at col. 1 lines 11-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664