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 .
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer DE 102016111079 (see IDS and attached machine translation) in view of Dozza US 2012/0025969.
In Re Meyer teachers A control system for a motor vehicle (1)(abstract), the control system comprising:
a sensory system (5 figs) adapted to detect a potential obstacle (4) and to generate a first informative datum (first 2D image pg 2) related to a distance (d fig 3) of said motor vehicle from said obstacle at a first time instant (first) and a second informative datum (second 2D image para 7) related to the height of said obstacle relative to a road surface (roadway para 19 and figs); and
an electronic control unit (8) operatively connected to said sensory system, said electronic control unit being configured to:
receive (para 46) said first informative datum and said second informative datum from said sensory system;
verify that the height of said obstacle complies with a safety criterion as a function of said second informative datum (para 23);
determine the space travelled, in use, by said motor vehicle between said first time instant and a second time instant as a function of said first informative datum, when the height of said obstacle does not comply with said safety criterion, said second time instant being subsequent to said first time instant (paras 12,29,34 odometer); and
control a braking system of said motor vehicle (optional) and/or signalling means (para 34 acoustic) of said motor vehicle on the basis of said first informative datum and of said determined space travelled to limit, in use (intended use, it been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987), the risk of collision between said motor vehicle and said potential obstacle (at least all figs and paras).
Meyer does not however Dozza teaches determining only if obstacle does not comply with safety criterion (para 71 calculation only takes place when safety thresholds exceeded). Dozza further teaches calculation only takes place in connection with unexpected behavior para 71. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Dozza’s contingent calculation to Meyer’s control to calculate only when unexpected system behavior occurs.
In Re 2-8 Meyer in view of Dozza, Meyer further teaches:
2. The control system according to claim 1, wherein said electronic control unit is configured to store a height threshold value (threshold para 24) and said safety criterion requires the height of said obstacle to be smaller than said height threshold value (para 24, inherent to limits/thresholds).
3. The control system according to claim 2, wherein said height threshold value coincides with or is proportional to the height (a figs) of a point of said motor vehicle relative to said road surface.
4. The control system according to claim 1, wherein said electronic control unit is configured to determine said space travelled by multiplying a mean speed of said motor vehicle between said first time instant and said second time instant by the time interval between said first time instant and said second time instant (per para 29, odometry relates per inherent kinematics velocity equal to distance over time).
5. A motor vehicle (1), comprising:
a frame (motor vehicles inherently have a framed chassis or unibody with a exterior body);
a plurality of wheels (see figs) rotatable relative to said frame about respective rotation axes;
a braking system (paras 35,48) adapted to stop or slow down the rotation of at least some of said wheels about the respective rotation axes;
signalling means (para 34 acoustic) adapted to signal the approach to a potential obstacle; and
the control system (8) of claim 1.
6. The motor vehicle according to claim 5, wherein said electronic control unit is configured to:
store a first distance threshold value and a second distance threshold value, said second distance threshold value being smaller than said first distance threshold value (para 34 current distance);
command said signalling means to signal the approach to said potential obstacle when said distance or a further distance between a point of said motor vehicle and said potential obstacle is smaller than said first distance threshold value and greater than said second distance threshold value (paras 34-35 “. The current distance can thus likewise be output or communicated to the driver. It is thus possible to signal to the driver how far the motor vehicle can still be moved toward the object without collision.”); and
command said signalling means to signal the approach to said potential obstacle and command the braking system to stop or slow down the rotation of at least some of said wheels when said distance or said further distance is smaller than said second distance threshold value (paras 34-35 “. The current distance can thus likewise be output or communicated to the driver. It is thus possible to signal to the driver how far the motor vehicle can still be moved toward the object without collision.” And “If the distance of the body part from the roadway falls below the detected height of the object, the motor vehicle can be braked automatically before the collision and thus be arranged at a distance from the object in an end position or parking position.”).
7. The motor vehicle according to claim 6, wherein said motor vehicle further comprises a body (motor vehicles inherently have a framed chassis or unibody with a exterior body) connected to said frame, said point (body relative to “a” in figs) being the portion of said body closest to the road surface.
8. The motor vehicle according to claim 6, wherein said signalling means comprises a buzzer (para 34 construed as acoustic) adapted to emit an acoustic signal that is audible inside a passenger compartment of said motor vehicle.
In Re 9-13, the method and motor vehicle of claims 9-13 rejected over in re 1-8 as described above as taught by Meyer in view of Dozza.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See rejection above over Meyer in view of Dozza.
Note applicant’s arguments pertaining to 35 USC 112b rejections are persuasive and therefore withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that the machine translation is improper. Examiner finds the translation to be sufficient.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights