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
This action is responsive to claims filed on July 3, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim appears to be dependent on system claim 13. It is recommended to amend the preamble of said claim to read “The system of claim 13…”. Appropriate corrections are required where applicable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,373. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are anticipated by the claims recited in the U.S. Patent.
Said claims in both applications are directed to providing a rider with a dynamic environmental awareness includes receiving data from a set of sensors, correcting data, identifying a set of regions in the data and processing the set of regions to detect a set of objects.
Taking claims 1 and 13 in the instant application, as an exemplary to show the similarity in features being claimed in both applications, to compare to claims 1 and 15 in the U.S. Patent (see comparison table below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the same claim elements of the parent application, to construct a system as claimed in the instant application capable of performing identical functions as the parent application. The rest of the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in the U.S. Patent.
An exemplary table to show similarity among the conflicting claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,354,373
1. A method, comprising:
using a sensor onboard a vehicle, sampling an image;
identifying a plurality of regions of the image, wherein regions of the plurality of regions: are overlapping relative to each other; collectively cover a portion of the image; and are positioned at different locations within the image relative to each other;
based on the plurality of regions, determining a set of object detections;
stabilizing the set of object detections to produce a set of stabilized object detections; and
based on the set of stabilized object detections, providing a notification to an operator of the vehicle.
1.A method for generating and providing alerts to an operator of a vehicle, the method comprising:
sampling a set of images from a set of cameras coupled to the vehicle;
for each of the set of images:
identifying a set of regions that collectively cover a portion of the image and are at least partially overlapping relative to each other, wherein the set of regions comprises multiple sizes of regions and multiple locations of regions within the image;
down-sampling at least a portion of the set of regions to produce regions of varying image resolution;
identifying a set of objects based on the set of regions by processing each of the set of regions with a set of trained models to produce a set of bounding boxes;
stabilizing the identified set of objects to produce a stabilized set of objects; and
during the trip, providing an alert to the operator based on at least one of the stabilized sets of objects.
13. A system, comprising:
a set of sensors mounted to a vehicle, the set of sensors configured to sample an image; and
a processing system mounted to the vehicle, the processing system configured to:
identify a plurality of overlapping regions within the image, wherein the regions within the plurality of overlapping regions differ in location within the image;
determine a set of object detections based on the plurality of overlapping regions; and
provide a notification to a user based on the set of object detections.
15. A system for generating and providing alerts to a user, the system comprising:
a set of multiple cameras coupled to a vehicle, each of the set of multiple cameras configured to sample a set of images during a trip of the vehicle;
a processing subsystem coupled to the vehicle, the processing subsystem configured to, for each sampled image:
identify a set of regions that collectively cover a portion of the image and are at least partially overlapping relative to each other, wherein the set of regions comprises multiple sizes of regions and multiple locations of regions within the image;
down-sampling at least a portion of the set of regions to produce regions of varying image resolution;
identify a set of objects based on the set of regions by processing each of the set of regions with a set of trained models to produce a set of bounding boxes;
stabilize the identified set of objects to produce a stabilized set of objects; and
at a display, provide an alert to the operator based on the stabilized set of objects.
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 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 pre-AIA 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fields et al “Fields”, U.S. Patent No. 10,106,083.
As per claims 1 and 13, Fields teaches a method and a system comprising:
a set of sensors mounted to a vehicle, the set of sensors configured to sample an image (col. 17 lines 47-61; sensory array 326 may include one or more cameras and/or image capture devices. When sensory array 326 is implemented with one or more cameras, these cameras may be configured as any suitable type of camera configured to capture and/or store images and/or video), each of the set of multiple cameras configured to sample a set of images during a trip of the vehicle (col. 17 lines 34-46; sensor array 326 may sample one or more sensor metrics based upon one or more conditions being satisfied. In further details, Fields discloses facilitating sampling, monitoring, measuring, collecting, quantifying, storing, encrypting, transmitting, and/or broadcasting of telematics data. In some aspects, telematics collection routine 354 may facilitate collection of telematics data locally via one or more components of computing device 300 (e.g., via sensor array 326, location acquisition unit 320, controller 340, etc.). In other aspects, telematics collection routine 354 may facilitate the storage of telematics data received from another device (e.g., via communication unit 330). Such other devices may include external computing devices 206 (e.g., remote servers), infrastructure components 208 (e.g., smart traffic signals, smart toll booths, embedded sensors within roadways or bridges, etc.), or additional sensors disposed within the vehicle 108 (e.g., an aftermarket dashboard camera, a built-in forward proximity sensor, etc.) (col. 19 lines 18-36));
a processing system mounted to the vehicle (col. 19 lines 18-36; controller executing telematics collection instructions – software routines) , the processing system configured to:
identify a plurality of regions of the image, wherein regions of the plurality of regions are overlapping relative to each other, collectively cover a portion of the image and are positioned at different locations within the image relative to each other (col. 2 lines 15-31; monitoring a vehicle environment in which the vehicle is located using the one or more sensors and identify one or more pedestrians or cyclists within the vehicle environment based upon sensor data obtained from the one or more sensors. Fields further discloses analyzing the telematics and/or other data that is collected in real-time, or near real-time, to determine traffic events in real-time, or near real-time, respectively. Based upon the type and extent of traffic event detected, a second computing device may issue warnings, determine recommendations, and/or re-route vehicles. For instance, the second computing device may cause a display screen or user interface of a mobile device or smart vehicle controller of remote drivers to display a map with (1) a current route that the vehicle is on, (2) a virtual representation of the traffic event, and/or (3) an alternate or recommended new route to an original destination that avoids the traffic event (col. 6 lines 48-67);
based on the plurality of regions, determine a set of object detections (col. 2 lines 1-14; a vehicle environment may be monitored using one or more sensors associated with a vehicle located in the vehicle environment. One or more pedestrians or cyclists within the vehicle environment may be identified based upon sensor data obtained from the one or more sensors);
stabilize the set of object detections to produce a set of stabilized object detections (col. 2 lines 1-14, col. 2 lines 46-59; at least one of the pedestrians or cyclists may be determined to meet predetermined alert criteria based upon the sensor data.); and
based on the set of stabilized object detections, provide a notification to an operator of the vehicle (col. 2 lines 1-14, col. 47 line 51 – col. 48 line 21; an alert indicating a presence of the pedestrians or cyclists may be generated and presented to an output device associated with the vehicle).
As per claim 2, Fields teaches wherein different regions of the plurality of regions have different sizes (col. 3 lines 1-19).
As per claim 3, Fields teaches wherein the plurality of regions are identified based on placement parameters determined before the image is sampled (col. 15 lines 10-19).
As per claim 4, Fields teaches wherein the plurality of regions are not predicted from the image (col. 71 lines 62 – col. 72 line 8).
As per claim 5, Fields teaches wherein at least one region within the plurality of regions is dynamically determined based on a previously sampled image (col. 44 line 61 – col. 45 line 14).
As per claim 6, Fields teaches wherein the set of object detections are determined using a set of trained models, wherein the set of trained models are updated based on data from the trip (col. 45 lines 15-26).
As per claim 7, Fields teaches wherein the notification identifies a high-risk object associated with a stabilized object detection (col. 47 lines 5-22).
As per claim 8, Fields teaches predicting a set of risk metrics based on the set of stabilized object detections, wherein the notification is generated based on the set of risk metrics (col. 47 lines 23-35)..
As per claim 9, Fields teaches wherein the notification comprises a directionality associated with a risk metric from the set of risk metrics (col. 47 lines 5-22).
As per claim 10, Fields teaches wherein locations of regions of the plurality of regions are determined relative to a location of a detected feature in the image (col. 47 line 51 – col. 48 line 21).
As per claim 11, Fields teaches wherein the detected feature comprises a horizon depicted in the image (col. 32 lines 4-46).
As per claim 12, Fields teaches collecting supplementary sensor data from an inertial measurement unit coupled to the vehicle, wherein at least one region within the plurality of regions is determined at least in part based on the supplementary sensor data (col. 6 lines 3-16).
As per claim 14, Fields teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to stabilize the set of object detections, wherein the notification is provided based on the stabilized set of object detections (col. 2 lines 1-14, col. 2 lines 46-59).
As per claim 15, Fields teaches wherein the plurality of overlapping regions are determined based on a rule set (col. 6 lines 48-67).
As per claim 16, Fields teaches wherein at least one region within the plurality of overlapping regions is predetermined (col. 69 lines 24-30).
As per claim 17, Fields teaches wherein the user is remote from the vehicle (col. 3 lines 32-51).
As per claim 18, Fields teaches determining a set of risks based on the set of object detections (col. 32 lines 4-46).
As per claim 19, Fields teaches, at the processing system, automatically recording video when a predetermined risk is detected (col. 44 lines 33-49).
As per claim 20, Fields teaches wherein notification comprises a direction of an object, associated with a high-risk object detection, relative to the system (col. 44 lines 33-49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights