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
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 17, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an engine sound” twice”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same engine sound.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a vehicle”. Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17, which introduced “an at least partially autonomous vehicle” and made secondary reference to “the vehicle”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same vehicle.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 are objected to because there is insufficient labeling of the diagrams to make the drawings illustrative of the invention. Each diagram should contain reference numerals for description within the specification, and also some label to make the diagram helpful to the reader.
The following is a quotation from 37 CFR 1.84 (o)
Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
The Examiner requires additional suitable descriptive legends for understanding of the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Support for this rejection is further shown in MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note 1.
In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example “the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims-- or --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels”.
The Examiner requires additional text labeling to make the drawings illustrative of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al., U.S. Patent 11,767,012 B2 (2023) in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 1, Song et al. discloses a method for maneuvering an at least partially autonomous vehicle from a first road positioned at a junction into a second road meeting the first road at the junction, the method comprising:
observing a first area of the second road for detection of road users by a detection system of the vehicle (Column 19, Lines 27 – Column 20, Line 14);
altering a detection area of the detection system to include a second area of the second road, the second area comprising a further area of the second road that is not comprised in the first area (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19);
observing the second area of the second road for detection of the road users by the detection system (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
maneuvering based on the observing of the second area of the second road (Column 62, Lines 32-35).
Song et al. discloses controlling the vehicle and braking the vehicle, but does not disclose maneuvering the vehicle into the second road, as claimed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that implementation of the control by autonomous driving would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, as disclosed by Song et al., with the use of maneuvering into the second road, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to avoid the collision potential detected by the detection system, preventing, or mitigating, a collision.
As to claim 2, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the observing of the second area of the second road comprises detecting at least one road user in the further area of the second road by the detection system (column 63, Lines 41-49).
As to claim 4, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising:
altering the detection area of the detection system to include a third area of the second road, wherein the third area comprises another area of the second road that is not comprised in the first area and the second area (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
observing the third area of the second road for detection of the road users by the detection system (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
wherein the maneuvering of the vehicle into the second road is further based on the observing of the third area of the second road (Column 62, Lines 32-35).
As to claim 8, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the altering of the detection area comprises increasing at least one of an illumination intensity, an illumination direction, and an illumination area of a vehicle lighting system of the vehicle (Column 21, Lines 20-26).
As to claim 9, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein at least one of the illumination intensity and the illumination area of the vehicle lighting system is increased by operating a high beam lighting system of the vehicle lighting system of the vehicle (Column 21, Lines 20-26).
As to claim 11, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising one of initiating a signaling and increasing an amount of signaling of the vehicle to the road users on the second road before maneuvering the vehicle into the second road relative to a nominal signaling value (Column 41, Lines 32-55).
As to claim 14, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first area is within a field of view of the detection system (Column 19, Lines 27 – Column 20, Line 14); and
wherein the second area is within a shifted field of view of the detection system (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19).
As to claim 16, Song et al. discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the detecting of the at least one road user comprises one of determining a position of the road user relative to the vehicle, determining a direction of travel of the road user, and determining a speed of travel of the road user (Column 47, Lines 29-51).
As to claim 17, Song et al. discloses a system for maneuvering an at least partially autonomous vehicle from a first road positioned at a junction into a second road meeting the first road at the junction, the system comprising:
a processor and a non-transitory storage medium (Column 16, Lines 43-59) comprising instructions that, when executed, causes the processor to:
observe a first area of the second road for detection of road users by a detection system of the vehicle (Column 19, Lines 27 – Column 20, Line 14);
alter a detection area of the detection system to include a second area of the second road, the second area comprising a further area of the second road that is not comprised in the first area (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19);
observe the second area of the second road for detection of the road users by the detection system (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
maneuver the vehicle based on the observing of the second area of the second road (Column 62, Lines 32-35).
Song et al. discloses controlling the vehicle and braking the vehicle, but does not disclose maneuvering the vehicle into the second road, as claimed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that implementation of the control by autonomous driving would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system, as disclosed by Song et al., with the use of maneuvering into the second road, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to avoid the collision potential detected by the detection system, preventing, or mitigating, a collision.
As to claim 18, Song et al. discloses the system of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the system is a component of a vehicle (Figure 3, Column 19, Lines 14-18).
As to claim 19, Song et al. discloses the system of claim 17, and further discloses being further configured to:
alter the detection area of the detection system to include a third area of the second road, wherein the third area comprises another area of the second road that is not comprised in the first area and the second area (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
observe the third area of the second road for detection of the road users by the detection system (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
wherein the maneuvering of the vehicle into the second road is further based on the observing of the third area of the second road (Column 62, Lines 32-35).
As to claim 20, Song et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions for maneuvering an at least partially autonomous vehicle from a first road positioned at a junction into a second road meeting the first road at the junction, executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising:
observing a first area of a second road for detection of road users by a detection system of the vehicle (Column 19, Lines 27 – Column 20, Line 14);
altering a detection area of the detection system to include a second area of the second road, the second area comprising a further area of the second road that is not comprised in the first area (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19);
observing the second area of the second road for detection of the road users by the detection system (Column 61, Lines 40-51, Column 62, Lines 8-19); and
maneuvering the vehicle based on the observing of the second area of the second road (Column 62, Lines 32-35).
Song et al. discloses controlling the vehicle and braking the vehicle, but does not disclose maneuvering the vehicle into the second road, as claimed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that implementation of the control by autonomous driving would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the medium, as disclosed by Song et al., with the use of maneuvering into the second road, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to avoid the collision potential detected by the detection system, preventing, or mitigating, a collision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art cite, Prokhorov et al., fails to disclose all the claim elements. Prokhorov et al. works in a similar manner and performs much of the claim limitations, but it was determined to not disclose all the limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References used in the foreign prosecution have U.S. related applications which are referenced. Issued patents from the IDS references are referenced. Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. is referenced as disclosing a similar system for an autonomous robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667