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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 01/09/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 9 line 4 “controlling of the vehicle” should read --controlling the vehicle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7 and 9-12 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 7 recites the limitation “further comprises operating a steering function of the vehicle” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the further steering function is the same as or different than the steering function introduced at claim 5 lines 4-5. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “determining…a single target object” in line 2. It is unclear how a plurality of target objects may be determined at claim 1 lines 3-4 and only one target object in claim 9 line 2. For examination purposes the limitations “a plurality of target objects” in claim 1 line 4 has been considered as --at least one target object--, “each of the plurality of target objects” in claim 1 line 6 has been considered as --each of the at least one target object--, and “the plurality of target objects” in claim 1 lines 9-10 has been considered as --the at least one target object--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “controlling…the vehicle to avoid colliding with the plurality of target objects” in claim 1 lines 9-10 and “determining…that it is impossible to avoid colliding with at least one of the plurality of target objects” in claim 10 lines 2-6. It is unclear how (all) the plurality of target objects may be avoided in claim 1 and not in claim 10. For examination purposes the limitation “the plurality of target objects” in claim 1 lines 9-10 has been considered as --at least one of the plurality of target objects--.
Claims 11-12 are rejected for depending upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “determining…a plurality of target objects” in claim 1 lines 3-4 and “determining…a single target object” in claim 9 line 2. Claim 9 is rejected under 112(d) for failing to include the other(s) of the plurality of target objects determined at claim 1 lines 3-4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “controlling…the vehicle to avoid colliding with the plurality of target objects” in claim 1 lines 9-10 and “determining…that it is impossible to avoid colliding with at least one of the plurality of target objects” in claim 10 lines 2-6. Claim 10 is rejected for attempting to exclude the requirement in claim 10 that (all of) the plurality of target objects be avoided.
Claims 11-12 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the controlling step recited in each independent claim integrates the recited mental processes into a practical application.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU (US 11,561,546) in view of WANG (CN 112703144).
Regarding claim 1, ZHU discloses a method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
identifying, via one or more sensors, a plurality of objects around the vehicle (identifying objects implied in capturing obstacles, S701, Fig. 7, col. 11 line 65 - col. 12 line 1);
determining, among the plurality of identified objects, a plurality of target objects that are at risk of colliding with the vehicle (implied in “level of invasiveness of the obstacles”, S703, Fig. 7);
determining, based on classifying a location of each of the plurality of target objects into one of a plurality of subregions within a driving lane of the vehicle (i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39; n.b. it appears “additional tunnel blocks” is a typographical/translation error repeated throughout the document that should mean an additional obstacle, as tunnel is used throughout to describe the passable area of the lane; see also S703, Fig. 7; classification into subregions implied in determination of shrinking left or right boundary, or generation of a forking passable lane, i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39), a vehicle control path for the vehicle (S704, Fig. 7); and
controlling, based on the vehicle control path, the vehicle to avoid colliding with the plurality of target objects (implied, i.a. S704, Fig. 7).
ZHU is not relied upon to teach determining, among the plurality of objects, a plurality of target objects that are at risk of colliding with the vehicle based on a distance between the vehicle and each of the plurality of identified objects as claimed.
ZHU is silent regarding how objects in the environment are identified as objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle from the captured images (S701, Fig. 7, col. 11 line 65 - col. 12 line 1).
WANG teaches when an object intrudes into a current lane in front of a vehicle, the vehicle may determine whether a collision with the object will occur based on a distance between the vehicle and the object (0003 lines 1-5).
Absent guidance from ZHU on how objects in the environment are identified as objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of ZHU to identify objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle based on the distance between the vehicle and the objects as taught by WANG to identify objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle from the captured images.
Regarding claim 2, ZHU as modified teaches the method of claim 1.
ZHU further discloses wherein the plurality of subregions comprise at least a left subregion, a right subregion, and a center subregion (i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 13, ZHU discloses an apparatus comprising:
memory storing instructions (col. 5 lines 29-34); and
at least one processor (col. 5 line 33),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to:
identify, via one or more sensors, a plurality of objects around a vehicle (identifying objects implied in capturing obstacles, S701, Fig. 7, col. 11 line 65 - col. 12 line 1);
determine, among the plurality of identified objects, a plurality of target objects that are at risk of colliding with the vehicle (implied in “level of invasiveness of the obstacles”, S703, Fig. 7);
determine, based on classifying a location of each of the plurality of target objects into one of a plurality of subregions within a driving lane of the vehicle (i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39; n.b. it appears “additional tunnel blocks” is a typographical/translation error repeated throughout the document that should mean an additional obstacle, as tunnel is used throughout to describe the passable area of the lane; see also S703, Fig. 7; classification into subregions implied in determination of shrinking left or right boundary, or generation of a forking passable lane, i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39), a vehicle control path for the vehicle (S704, Fig. 7); and
control, based on the vehicle control path, the vehicle to avoid colliding with the plurality of target objects (implied, i.a. S704, Fig. 7).
ZHU is not relied upon to teach the apparatus determining, among the plurality of objects, a plurality of target objects that are at risk of colliding with the vehicle based on a distance between the vehicle and each of the plurality of identified objects as claimed.
ZHU is silent regarding how objects in the environment are identified as objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle from the captured images (S701, Fig. 7, col. 11 line 65 - col. 12 line 1).
WANG teaches when an object intrudes into a current lane in front of a vehicle, the vehicle may determine whether a collision with the object will occur based on a distance between the vehicle and the object (0003 lines 1-5).
Absent guidance from ZHU on how objects in the environment are identified as objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of ZHU to identify objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle based on the distance between the vehicle and the objects as taught by WANG to identify objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle from the captured images.
Regarding claim 14, ZHU as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
ZHU further discloses wherein the plurality of subregions comprise at least a left subregion, a right subregion, and a center subregion (i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 18, ZHU discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (col. 5 lines 29-34), cause:
identifying, via one or more sensors, a plurality of objects around a vehicle (identifying objects implied in capturing obstacles, S701, Fig. 7, col. 11 line 65 - col. 12 line 1);
determining, among the plurality of identified objects, a plurality of target objects that are at risk of colliding with the vehicle (implied in “level of invasiveness of the obstacles”, S703, Fig. 7);
determining, based on classifying a location of each of the plurality of target objects into one of a plurality of subregions within a driving lane of the vehicle (i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39; n.b. it appears “additional tunnel blocks” is a typographical/translation error repeated throughout the document that should mean an additional obstacle, as tunnel is used throughout to describe the passable area of the lane; see also S703, Fig. 7; classification into subregions implied in determination of shrinking left or right boundary, or generation of a forking passable lane, i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39), a vehicle control path for the vehicle (S704, Fig. 7); and
controlling, based on the vehicle control path, the vehicle to avoid colliding with the plurality of target objects (implied, i.a. S704, Fig. 7).
ZHU is not relied upon to teach determining, among the plurality of objects, a plurality of target objects that are at risk of colliding with the vehicle based on a distance between the vehicle and each of the plurality of identified objects as claimed.
ZHU is silent regarding how objects in the environment are identified as objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle from the captured images (S701, Fig. 7, col. 11 line 65 - col. 12 line 1).
WANG teaches when an object intrudes into a current lane in front of a vehicle, the vehicle may determine whether a collision with the object will occur based on a distance between the vehicle and the object (0003 lines 1-5).
Absent guidance from ZHU on how objects in the environment are identified as objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of ZHU to identify objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle based on the distance between the vehicle and the objects as taught by WANG to identify objects at risk of colliding with the vehicle from the captured images.
Regarding claim 19, ZHU as modified teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 18.
ZHU further discloses wherein the plurality of subregions comprise at least a left subregion, a right subregion, and a center subregion (i.a. col. 3 lines 29-39).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALARI (DE 10 2019 201 295) in view of LEE (US 2021/0122364).
Regarding claim 1, SALARI discloses a method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining at least one target object that is at risk of colliding with the vehicle (S1, Fig. 4, 0029 lines 5-6);
determining, based on classifying a location of each of the at least one target object into one of a plurality of subregions within a driving lane of the vehicle (i.e., dry roadway 2 or icy roadway 5, Figs. 1-2, 0027 lines 4-10), a vehicle control path for the vehicle (S4, Fig. 4, 0030 lines 5-6; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosure, c.f. Applicant’s 0090 lines 3-4 where the control path may include brake control timing); and
controlling, based on the vehicle control path, the vehicle to avoid colliding with the at least one target object (implied) to avoid collision with the obstacle (pg. 15 line 26).
SALARI is silent regarding how the target object at risk of colliding with the vehicle is determined, and therefore is not relied upon to teach the identifying and first determining steps as claimed.
LEE teaches a method comprising identifying, via one or more sensors (lidar, claim 2 lines 3-5), a plurality of objects around the vehicle (claim 2 lines 12-14); and determining, among the plurality of identified objects (“the one or more objects”, claim 2 line 24) and based on a distance between the vehicle and each of the plurality of identified objects (claim 2 lines 16-18 and 21-25), at least one target object that is at risk of colliding with the vehicle (claim 2 lines 23-25).
Absent guidance from SALARI on how the target object at risk of colliding with the vehicle is determined, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a target object is at risk of colliding with the vehicle in SALARI as taught by LEE to enable the method of SALARI to avoid collision with the object.
Regarding claim 9, SALARI as modified teaches the method of claim 1.
SALARI further discloses determining a single target object that is at risk of colliding with the vehicle (obstacle 4, Figs. 1-3, Salari makes no mention of determining a plurality of obstacles); and
based on the determining the single target object, controlling of the vehicle to operate a braking function of the vehicle (i.a. 0030 lines 5-6).
LEE is relied upon to teach determining, among a plurality of identified objects (“the one or more objects”, claim 2 line 24), at least one target object that is at risk of colliding with the vehicle (claim 2 lines 23-25).
Absent guidance from SALARI on how the single target object at risk of colliding with the vehicle is determined, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a target object is at risk of colliding with the vehicle in SALARI as taught by LEE to enable the method of SALARI to avoid collision with the object.
SALARI as modified teaches determining, among the plurality of identified objects, a single target object that is at risk of colliding with the vehicle; and based on the determining the single target object, controlling of the vehicle to operate a braking function of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, 15-17, and 20 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.
Claims 7 and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights