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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a cold start sensing system, configured to collect[[ing]] environmental data”
“an alarm device, configured to emit[[g]] an alarm”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 13: The claims recite “an alarm device, configured to emit an alarm” and “control[ling] an alarm device installed on the autonomous vehicle to emit an alarm”. It is unclear whether these are meant to refer to the same alarm device. For the purposes of examination, the two recitations of an alarm device will be interpreted as referring to the same alarm device.
Regarding claim 11: The claim is directed to a control system, however, the claim is recited as dependent on method claim 1. It is thus unclear whether the claim is meant to be directed to a system or a method. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it is dependent on system claim 7, which recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in system form.
Claim Rejections - 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 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, a system, and a vehicle. (Step 1: Yes.) Vehicle claim 13 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An autonomous vehicle, comprising:
a cold start sensing system, configured to collect environmental data;
an alarm device, configured to emit an alarm; and
a controller, comprising:
a memory, configured to store program instructions;
a processor, configured to execute the program instructions to perform a control method for cold start safety measures of an autonomous vehicle, the control method for cold start safety measures of an autonomous vehicle comprising:
controlling the cold start sensing system to collect environmental data, when the autonomous vehicle is in a cold start phase;
identifying whether a risk exists for the autonomous vehicle based on the environmental data; and
controlling an alarm device installed on the autonomous vehicle to emit an alarm when a risk exists for the autonomous vehicle.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this vehicle performs a process of determining a risk to a vehicle based on data received about the surrounding environment. This is a process that can be performed in the human mind; therefore, it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim additionally recites a cold start sensing system, an alarm device, a processor, and a memory. The processor and memory are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer, whereas the sensing system and alarm device are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering and the insignificant post-solution activity of sending an alarm, respectively. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additionally recited elements amount to no more than either instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements are recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 13 (and the similarly abstract claims 1 and 7) is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 recite ending the gathering of data by the sensing system. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is the insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering (or in this case, not gathering) data.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 recite a plurality of locations for the sensors that make up the sensing system. However, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as well as generally linking the abstract idea to an autonomous vehicle environment.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 recite that the vehicle enters a standby state. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of such a state would be inclusive of merely notifying the vehicle to wait for a control input, rather than positive recitation of control of the vehicle. Therefore, the claim recites the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (DE 102020207289) in view of Delp et al. (US 20180039273).
Claim 1.
Patil et al. teaches:
the autonomous vehicle comprising a cold start sensing system
(Patil – [0014]) “it can be operated before other vehicle systems, which are only activated when the vehicle is powered on, ignited, or started, are available.”
controlling the cold start sensing system to collect environmental data, when the autonomous vehicle is in a cold start phase
(Patil – [0006]) “an input interface for receiving sensor data from a presence sensor with information about an object in an area under a vehicle”
identifying whether a risk exists for the autonomous vehicle based on the environmental data
(Patil – [0006]) “an evaluation unit to recognize whether the object is a living being, based on the sensor data”
controlling an alarm device installed on the autonomous vehicle to emit an alarm when a risk exists for the autonomous vehicle
(Patil – [0006]) “an output unit for issuing a warning to a driver if the object is a living being”
Patil et al. does not explicitly teach an autonomous vehicle; however, Delp et al. teaches:
an autonomous vehicle
(Delp – [0022]) “The processing circuitry 130 receives information from the sensors 110 and transmits the commands to the autonomous driving system 120 for operation of autonomous vehicle 102 based on the information received from the sensors.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the living being detection system of Patil et al. such that it works together with an autonomous vehicle, as in the sensor system of Delp et al. Both Patil et al. and Delp et al. are directed towards detecting whether an object has moved under the vehicle, and Patil et al. further discloses providing information to an autonomous vehicle for general purposes (Patil – [0002]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this modification is one that could have been made with predictable results.
Claim 7.
Patil et al. teaches:
an alarm device, configured to emit an alarm
(Patil – [0014]) “The acoustic warning is preferably issued via a loudspeaker unit”
a controller
(Patil – [0030]) “the units can be implemented in software that runs on a processor.”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 13.
Patil et al. teaches:
a memory, configured to store program instructions
(Patil – [0030]) “the units can be implemented in software that runs on a processor.”
a processor, configured to execute the program instructions to perform a control method for control start safety measures of an autonomous vehicle
(Patil – [0030]) “the units can be implemented in software that runs on a processor.”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Patil et al. and Delp et al. as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Beller (DE 102020206857).
Claim 2.
The combination of Patil et al. and Delp et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Patil et al. further teaches:
controlling the cold start sensing system to stop working,
(Patil – [0017]) “After this predefined period has elapsed, the device is deactivated again or the activated state is ended, so that no warning is issued to the driver.”
Patil et al. does not explicitly teach stopping the cold start sensing system based on not detecting a risk; however, Beller teaches:
controlling the cold start sensing system to stop working, when the autonomous vehicle does not have a risk within a predetermined time period
(Beller – [0008]) “Folding in the sensor unit, in particular the sensor, can preferably occur depending on whether the automated vehicle exceeds a speed limit, depending on the absence of other objects”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the undercarriage sensor of Patil et al. with the foldable sensor of Beller. Both Patil et al. and Beller are directed towards the use of a sensor to obtain data underneath a vehicle; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because the foldability of the sensor of Beller reduces the risk of damage from debris kicked up by the vehicle tires.
Claim 3.
The combination of Patil et al., Delp et al., and Beller teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Patil et al. further teaches:
wherein the cold start sensing system comprises a plurality of sensors arranged on the autonomous vehicle, and field of view angles of the plurality of sensors covering the underbody area, the roof area, and a surrounding area of a vehicle body of the autonomous vehicle
(Patil – [0006]) “an input interface for receiving sensor data from a presence sensor with information about an object in an area under a vehicle”
(Patil – [0021]) “In addition to using presence sensors, a vehicle’s surround-view camera can be used to monitor the vehicle’s surroundings.”
Claim 4.
The combination of Patil et al., Delp et al., and Beller teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Patil et al. further teaches:
wherein a
(Patil – [0012]) “the input interface for receiving sensor data from a camera, infrared and/or ultrasonic sensor is designed with a field of view directed towards the area below the vehicle”
Patil et al. does not explicitly teach a concealed sensor; however, Beller teaches:
wherein a concealed sensor is arranged at a bottom of the autonomous vehicle
(Beller – [0008]) “the sensor unit, especially the sensor, is foldable from the body of the automated vehicle, especially the vehicle device.”
controlling the concealed sensor to extend out from the bottom of the autonomous vehicle to collect the environmental data, when the autonomous vehicle is in a cold start phase
(Beller – [0008]) “the sensor unit, especially the sensor, is foldable from the body of the automated vehicle, especially the vehicle device.”
controlling the concealed sensor to retract and be concealed at the bottom of the autonomous vehicle and stopping collecting the environmental data, when the cold start phase of the autonomous vehicle ends
(Beller – [0008]) “Folding in the sensor unit, in particular the sensor, can preferably occur depending on whether the automated vehicle exceeds a speed limit, depending on the absence of other objects”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 2.
Claim 6.
The combination of Patil et al., Delp et al., and Beller teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Delp et al. further teaches:
controlling the autonomous vehicle to enter a standby state, when the cold start phase of the autonomous vehicle ends and risks around the autonomous vehicle are not eliminated
(Delp – [0048]) “In response to the detection, the processing circuitry 130 can transmit an alert and/or activate the alternative maneuver of the autonomous vehicle 102 to prevent the autonomous vehicle 102 from moving while the child is under the autonomous vehicle 102.”
Claim 8.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 9.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 10.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Patil et al., Delp et al., and Beller as applied to claims 3, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20220294494).
Claim 5.
The combination of Patil et al., Delp et al., and Beller teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 below, Delp et al. further teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A diagram showing the sensor system of Delp et al. (originally Delp Fig. 1B)
wherein the cold start sensing system further includes a fusion sensor arranged at a top of the autonomous vehicle
(Delp – [0019]) “a sensor section 160, the sensor section 160 including one or more sensors 110”
Delp et al. does not explicitly teach a short- or long-range lidar system; however, Kim teaches:
the fusion sensor includes at least one of a long-range LiDAR emitter, a medium-range LiDAR emitter, a short-range LiDAR emitter, and a LiDAR receiver, the long-range LiDAR emitter, the medium-range LiDAR emitter, and the short-range LiDAR emitter emit laser beams at different distances, respectively
(Kim – [0251]) “If the vehicle is driving at a low speed below a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the sensor data of the long-distance sensor may become less important, so the TCU may set the priority of the long-range sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) as low priority (set to 7) and the TCU may set the priority of the short-range sensor (eg, lidar sensor 1) as high priority (set to 1). If the vehicle is driving at high speed over a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the TCU may set the priority of the long-distance sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) higher (set to 3) than in the case of low speed driving.”
the LiDAR receiver is configured to receive at least one type of laser beam reflected back from the long-range LiDAR emitter, medium-range LiDAR emitter, and short-range LiDAR emitter
(Kim – [0251]) “If the vehicle is driving at a low speed below a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the sensor data of the long-distance sensor may become less important, so the TCU may set the priority of the long-range sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) as low priority (set to 7) and the TCU may set the priority of the short-range sensor (eg, lidar sensor 1) as high priority (set to 1). If the vehicle is driving at high speed over a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the TCU may set the priority of the long-distance sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) higher (set to 3) than in the case of low speed driving.”
when the autonomous vehicle is in the cold start phase, controlling the short-range LiDAR emitter to emit a laser beam and controlling the long-range emitter and/or medium-range LiDAR emitter to stop emitting laser beams
(Kim – [0251]) “If the vehicle is driving at a low speed below a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the sensor data of the long-distance sensor may become less important, so the TCU may set the priority of the long-range sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) as low priority (set to 7) and the TCU may set the priority of the short-range sensor (eg, lidar sensor 1) as high priority (set to 1). If the vehicle is driving at high speed over a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the TCU may set the priority of the long-distance sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) higher (set to 3) than in the case of low speed driving.”
when the cold start phase of the autonomous vehicle ends, controlling the short-range LiDAR emitter to stop emitting a laser beam, and controlling the long-range LiDAR emitter and/or medium-range LiDAR emitter to emit laser beams
(Kim – [0251]) “If the vehicle is driving at a low speed below a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the sensor data of the long-distance sensor may become less important, so the TCU may set the priority of the long-range sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) as low priority (set to 7) and the TCU may set the priority of the short-range sensor (eg, lidar sensor 1) as high priority (set to 1). If the vehicle is driving at high speed over a certain speed (eg 30 km/h), the TCU may set the priority of the long-distance sensor (eg lidar sensor 2) higher (set to 3) than in the case of low speed driving.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the lidar system of Delp et al. with the short-range and long-range prioritization of Kim et al. Both Delp et al. and Kim et al. are directed towards the use of lidar to determine the presence of objects in the surrounding environment; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the power consumption of the lidar system.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights