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 .
ART REJECTION:
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) 1-6,8-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bush et al(USPGPUB 2021/0146827).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Bush et al(Bush)
1) at least one sensor is met by the plurality of sensors(26)(see: Bush, sec[0048]);
2) a road user communication subsystem comprising at least one display positioned exterior of the autonomous vehicle is met by the intention display system(18), which includes a projector or projection system to project an indication of an intended vehicle maneuver on a rear and/or front windshield of the vehicle(12)(see: Bush, sec[0049]);
3) an autonomy computing system in communication with the at least one sensor and road user communication subsystem is met by the controller(22), which encompasses the Automated driving system(ADS)(24) which is in communication with the sensors(26) and intention display system(18)(see: Bush, secs0048-0049]);
4) the autonomy computing system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device is met by the controller(22) including a microprocessor or CPU, and computer readable storage devise including memory(see: Bush, sec[0047]);
5) the at least one processor programmed to: i) detect lanes and objects in an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, based on sensor data received from the at least one sensor
ii) classify the objects into corresponding classes
iii) generate a traffic map depicting the objects in the corresponding classes and in corresponding lanes
iv) display the traffic map and an intent of the autonomous vehicle on the at least one display is met by the ADS(24) of the controller(22), including multiple distinct control systems, including perception system(32), which determines classification system, and path of detected features or objects(see: sec[0055]); And wherein the perception system provides object classification, and utilizes a mapping module to display the objects and obstructions for multi lane and single lane roads(see: Bush, secs[0057-0058]); And wherein the mapping module generates a localization and mapping output that6 includes the position and orientation of the vehicle(12), which respect to detected obstacles and road features(see: Bush, sec[0059]).
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the at least one processor programmed to:
i) detect traffic events in the environment, the traffic events occluded from other typical road users by the autonomous vehicle and display the traffic events on the at least one display is met by the mapping module incorporating mapping functions such that lane markings, construction zones, lane boundary, road classification and other obstacles and road features are included(see: Bush, sec[0059]).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) determine a malfunction of the autonomous vehicle and display the malfunction on the at least one display is met by the status of variety of sensors(26) being displayed based on data received by the sensors(26) and the analysis of the sensor data by the ADS(245)s(see: Bush, sec[0078]).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the at least one display is positioned facing an adjacent lane and the at least one processor programmed to display a blind spot associated with the autonomous vehicle on the at least one display is met by the mapping module estimating the position and orientation of the vehicle(see: Bush, sec[0058]), and blind spot detection of the vehicle(see: Bush, sec[0077]).
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) at least one processor programmed to:
i) determine at least one pedestrian in traffic when the autonomous vehicle is approaching a crosswalk is met by the object prediction module using object classification to determine pedestrians(see: Bush, sec[0061]).
ii) signal to the at least one pedestrian in intent related to the at least one pedestrian is met by the notification system(400) for conveying an intended or projected maneuver of the vehicle by displaying different indication symbols(see: Bush, sec[0072]).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the at least one processor programmed to:
i) communicate, via the road user communication subsystem, stats of the autonomous vehicle to the typical road users is met by the notification system(400) for conveying an intended or projected maneuver of the vehicle by displaying different indication symbols(see: Bush, sec[0072]).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the at least one processor programmed to:
i) classify, using a machine learning model, the objects into corresponding classes, wherein the machine learning model is trained with variations of objects in a class is met by the processes and algorithms utilizing machine learning algorithms(see: Bush, sec[0090])
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the autonomous vehicle comprising at least one of redundant sensors or redundant modalities of sensors is met by the plurality of sensors(26) including any or all of GPS, RADAR, LIDAR, cameras(see: Bush, sec[0048]), etc, all of which would have constituted redundant sensors.
-- Claim 10 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rection of claims 2 and 10 above.
-- Claim 12 depends from claim 10, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 10 above.
-- Claim 13 depends from claim 10, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 10 above.
-- Claim 14 depends from claim 10, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore claim 14 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 10 above.
-- Claim 16 depends from claim 10, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 8 and 10 above.
-- Claim 17 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as:
1) the one or more non-transitory computer readable media is met by the memory including computer readable storage devices or media(see: Bush, sec[0047]).
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 17 above.
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 17 above.
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 17 above.
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) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush et al(Bush) in view of Examiner’s statement of Official Notice.
-- With regards to claims 7 and 15, Bush does not teach:
1) the road user communication subsystem comprises an audio module configured to sonically communicate with the typical road users.
Although not specifically taught by Bush, the examiner takes Official Notice that in the vehicle communication art, use of user communication systems which comprise audio modules for sonically communicating with typical road users is well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate and audio module for communicating intentions to road users, since this would have enhanced the ability of the system to notify other of the intentions of the subject vehicle, thereby enhancing the safety of the environment that the vehicle is operating in.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights