DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiller (US Patent/PGPub. No. 7797107) in view of Fridman (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20180025235).
Regarding Claim 2, (Currently Amended)
Shiller teaches
a method (Col. 4, Ln. 60-64, FIG. 1-6, i.e. method for transmitting a warning signal to a driver of a driven vehicle regarding an impending collision) comprising:
determining an initial velocity of the device (Col. 4, Ln. 65-68, FIG. 1-6, i.e. obtaining updated data regarding, position, velocity vector and predicted moving path of said objects);
determining a boundary of region (Col. 3, Ln. 58-65, FIG. 4-6, i.e. "collision cone" …Collision cone 20) proximate to the device, wherein a distance (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 4, i.e. all possible relative velocity vectors VAB … is bounded by lines R and F which originate at A and are tangent to circle B (that is the distance varies from A to the circle having center B bounded by lines R and F)) of the boundary from the device is determined based on the initial velocity (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 4, i.e. all possible relative velocity vectors VAB … is bounded by lines R and F which originate at A and are tangent to circle B (that is the distance varies from A to circle having center B bounded by lines R and F; Col. 3, Ln. 58-67, Col. 4, Ln. 1-8, FIG. 5-6, i.e. velocity obstacle (VO) … e.g. VO 25 and 26 (Please note that the distance of the boundary to the object is changed based on the velocity. For example, in FIG. 4, the distance between A and B is bounded by the region defined by line R, line F, and arc having center at B. In FIG. 5, since B is moved by vector VB which is added to A at A’, segment AR in FIG. 4 is changed to the segment which start from A’ to the shortest distance to circle having center B corresponding to velocity vector VB. In FIG. 6, there is an additional object B1. As B1 moves, vector VB1 is added to A and at the end of VB1, distance from A to B1 is defined similarly to FIG. 5 (also note that the boundaries are changed accordingly. In FIG. 4, collision cone 20; velocity obstacle (VO) 25 in FIG. 5; and additional VO 26 in FIG. 6));
in accordance with a determination that a physical object intersects the boundary (Col. 4, Ln. 5-8, FIG. 5-6, i.e. driven vehicle A … terminates inside the overlapping region between VOs 25 and 26, will result in a collision with obstacle B or B1), initiating a notification procedure (Col. 4, Ln. 40-45, FIG. 5-6, i.e. provide … a set of warnings having escalating severity levels).
However, Shiller does not explicitly teach
detecting a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity; and
modifying the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change.
In the same field of endeavor, Fridman teaches
detecting a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity ([0178], FIG. 5E, i.e. “The look-ahead distance … may be calculated as the product of the speed of vehicle 200 and the look-ahead time. For example, as the speed of vehicle 200 decreases” which would mean that both initial velocity (before decreasing) and second velocity (after decreasing) must be determined for the calculation of the “look-ahead distance”); and
modifying the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change ([0178], FIG. 5E, i.e. For example, as the speed of vehicle 200 decreases, the look-ahead distance may also decrease (e.g., until it reaches the lower bound)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller teaching method of detecting collision comprising vehicle’s velocity, boundary region, and notification of avoidance with Fridman teaching method of detecting collision comprising vehicle’s change in velocities and modification of vehicle’s safe boundary region to effectively avoid collision yet at the same time promoting fluid of traffic utilizing modification of vehicle’s safe boundary region corresponding to change in vehicle’s velocity (Fridman’s [0178]).
Regarding Claim 6, (Previously Presented)
the method of claim 2, wherein
Shiller teaches
the notification procedure (i.e. please see above citation(s)) comprises performing at least one selected from a group consisting of an audio notification, a visual notification (Col. 6, Ln. 60-64, FIG. 4-6, i.e. display for receiving said warning signal), and a haptic notification.
Regarding Claim 7, (Previously Presented)
the method of claim 6, wherein
Shiller teaches
initiating the notification procedure (i.e. please see above citation(s)) comprises:
determining a direction (FIG. 4-6, i.e. as shown by the figure(s) directions of VA, VB, and VB1) of the velocity (i.e. please see above citation(s)); and
selecting a notification type (Col. 6, Ln. 60-64, FIG. 4-6, i.e. display for receiving said warning signal) in accordance with the direction (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 9, (Currently Amended)
Shiller teaches
a non-transitory computer readable medium (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. on-board computer 114) comprising computer readable code (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. processing data) executable by one or more processors (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. control components 116) to:
determine an initial velocity of the device (Col. 4, Ln. 65-68, FIG. 1-6, i.e. obtaining updated data regarding, position, velocity vector and predicted moving path of said objects);
determine a boundary of region (Col. 3, Ln. 58-65, FIG. 4-6, i.e. "collision cone" …Collision cone 20) proximate to the device (i.e. please see above citation(s)), wherein a distance (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 4, i.e. all possible relative velocity vectors VAB … is bounded by lines R and F which originate at A and are tangent to circle B (that is the distance varies from A to the circle having center B bounded by lines R and F)) of the boundary from the device is determined based on the initial velocity (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 4, i.e. all possible relative velocity vectors VAB … is bounded by lines R and F which originate at A and are tangent to circle B (that is the distance varies from A to circle having center B bounded by lines R and F; Col. 3, Ln. 58-67, Col. 4, Ln. 1-8, FIG. 5-6, i.e. velocity obstacle (VO) … e.g. VO 25 and 26 (Please note that the distance of the boundary to the object is changed based on the velocity. For example, in FIG. 4, the distance between A and B is bounded by the region defined by line R, line F, and arc having center at B. In FIG. 5, since B is moved by vector VB which is added to A at A’, segment AR in FIG. 4 is changed to the segment which start from A’ to the shortest distance to circle having center B corresponding to velocity vector VB. In FIG. 6, there is an additional object B1. As B1 moves, vector VB1 is added to A and at the end of VB1, distance from A to B1 is defined similarly to FIG. 5 (also note that the boundaries are changed accordingly. In FIG. 4, collision cone 20; velocity obstacle (VO) 25 in FIG. 5; and additional VO 26 in FIG. 6));
in accordance with a determination that a physical object intersects the boundary (Col. 4, Ln. 5-8, FIG. 5-6, i.e. driven vehicle A … terminates inside the overlapping region between VOs 25 and 26, will result in a collision with obstacle B or B1), initiate a notification procedure (Col. 4, Ln. 40-45, FIG. 5-6, i.e. provide … a set of warnings having escalating severity levels).
However, Shiller does not explicitly teach
detect a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity; and
modify the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change.
In the same field of endeavor, Fridman teaches
detect a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity ([0178], FIG. 5E, i.e. “The look-ahead distance … may be calculated as the product of the speed of vehicle 200 and the look-ahead time. For example, as the speed of vehicle 200 decreases” which would mean that both initial velocity (before decreasing) and second velocity (after decreasing) must be determined for the calculation of the “look-ahead distance”); and
modify the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change ([0178], FIG. 5E, i.e. For example, as the speed of vehicle 200 decreases, the look-ahead distance may also decrease (e.g., until it reaches the lower bound)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller teaching computer readable medium of detecting collision comprising vehicle’s velocity, boundary region, and notification of avoidance with Fridman teaching computer readable medium of detecting collision comprising vehicle’s change in velocities and modification of vehicle’s safe boundary region to effectively avoid collision yet at the same time promoting fluid of traffic utilizing modification of vehicle’s safe boundary region corresponding to change in vehicle’s velocity (Fridman’s [0178]).
Regarding Claim 13, (Previously Presented)
the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, wherein
Shiller teaches
the notification procedure (i.e. please see above citation(s)) comprises performing at least one selected from a group consisting of an audio notification, a visual notification (Col. 6, Ln. 60-64, FIG. 4-6, i.e. display for receiving said warning signal), and a haptic notification.
Regarding Claim 14, (Previously Presented)
the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein
Shiller teaches
the computer readable code to initiate the notification procedure comprises computer readable code (i.e. please see above citation(s)) to:
determine a direction (FIG. 4-6, i.e. as shown by the figure(s) directions of VA, VB, and VB1) of the velocity; and
select a notification type (Col. 6, Ln. 60-64, FIG. 4-6, i.e. display for receiving said warning signal) in accordance with the direction (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 16, (Currently Amended)
Shiller teaches
a system (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. navigational system 110) comprising:
one or more processors (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. control components 116); and
one or more computer readable media (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. on-board computer 114) comprising computer readable code (Col. 14, Ln. 23-36, FIG. 23, i.e. processing data) executable by the one or more processors (i.e. please see above citation(s)) to:
determine an initial velocity of the device (Col. 4, Ln. 65-68, FIG. 1-6, i.e. obtaining updated data regarding, position, velocity vector and predicted moving path of said objects);
determine a boundary of region (Col. 3, Ln. 58-65, FIG. 4-6, i.e. "collision cone" …Collision cone 20) proximate to the device (i.e. please see above citation(s)), wherein a distance (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 4, i.e. all possible relative velocity vectors VAB … is bounded by lines R and F which originate at A and are tangent to circle B (that is the distance varies from A to the circle having center B bounded by lines R and F)) of the boundary from the device is determined based on the initial velocity (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 4, i.e. all possible relative velocity vectors VAB … is bounded by lines R and F which originate at A and are tangent to circle B (that is the distance varies from A to circle having center B bounded by lines R and F; Col. 3, Ln. 58-67, Col. 4, Ln. 1-8, FIG. 5-6, i.e. velocity obstacle (VO) … e.g. VO 25 and 26 (Please note that the distance of the boundary to the object is changed based on the velocity. For example, in FIG. 4, the distance between A and B is bounded by the region defined by line R, line F, and arc having center at B. In FIG. 5, since B is moved by vector VB which is added to A at A’, segment AR in FIG. 4 is changed to the segment which start from A’ to the shortest distance to circle having center B corresponding to velocity vector VB. In FIG. 6, there is an additional object B1. As B1 moves, vector VB1 is added to A and at the end of VB1, distance from A to B1 is defined similarly to FIG. 5 (also note that the boundaries are changed accordingly. In FIG. 4, collision cone 20; velocity obstacle (VO) 25 in FIG. 5; and additional VO 26 in FIG. 6));
in accordance with a determination that a physical object intersects the boundary (Col. 4, Ln. 5-8, FIG. 5-6, i.e. driven vehicle A … terminates inside the overlapping region between VOs 25 and 26, will result in a collision with obstacle B or B1), initiate a notification procedure (Col. 4, Ln. 40-45, FIG. 5-6, i.e. provide … a set of warnings having escalating severity levels).
However, Shiller does not explicitly teach
detect a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity; and
modify the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change.
In the same field of endeavor, Fridman teaches
detect a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity ([0178], FIG. 5E, i.e. “The look-ahead distance … may be calculated as the product of the speed of vehicle 200 and the look-ahead time. For example, as the speed of vehicle 200 decreases” which would mean that both initial velocity (before decreasing) and second velocity (after decreasing) must be determined for the calculation of the “look-ahead distance”); and
modify the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change ([0178], FIG. 5E, i.e. For example, as the speed of vehicle 200 decreases, the look-ahead distance may also decrease (e.g., until it reaches the lower bound)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller teaching system of detecting collision comprising vehicle’s velocity, boundary region, and notification of avoidance with Fridman teaching system of detecting collision comprising vehicle’s change in velocities and modification of vehicle’s safe boundary region to effectively avoid collision yet at the same time promoting fluid of traffic utilizing modification of vehicle’s safe boundary region corresponding to change in vehicle’s velocity (Fridman’s [0178]).
Regarding Claim 20, (Previously Presented)
the system of claim 16, wherein
Shiller teaches
the notification procedure (i.e. please see above citation(s)) comprises performing at least one selected from a group consisting of an audio notification, a visual notification (Col. 6, Ln. 60-64, FIG. 4-6, i.e. display for receiving said warning signal), and a haptic notification.
3. Claim(s) 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiller (US Patent/PGPub. No. 7797107) and Fridman (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20180025235) in view of Liu et al. (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20190103026).
Regarding Claim 3, (Previously Presented)
Shiller and Fridman teach
the method of claim 2.
However, Shiller and Fridman do not explicitly teach
wherein the device is configured to present virtual content on a display, and wherein the notification procedure comprises increasing visibility of a physical environment on the display.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. teach
wherein the device is configured to present virtual content ([0027], FIG. 2A, i.e. image frame captured from a forward-facing field of view of a vehicle 140) on a display ([0061], FIG. 9, i.e. display 918), and wherein the notification procedure ([0028], FIG. 2B, i.e. collision warning system 100 may crop a portion of the image frame 210) comprises increasing visibility of a physical environment ([0028], FIG. 2B, i.e. crop a portion of the image frame 210 to focus on a detected object in front of the vehicle 140) on the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller and Fridman teaching method of detecting collision having boundary based on velocity of obstacle with Liu et al. teaching method of detecting obstacle comprising warning focus on pertinent images to effectively enhance user warning by focusing on pertinent images (Liu et al.’s [0028]).
Regarding Claim 4, (Previously Presented)
Shiller and Fridman teach
the method of claim 2.
However, Shiller and Fridman do not explicitly teach
wherein the boundary is determined based on body tracking data.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. teach
wherein the boundary ([0029], FIG. 2B, i.e. bounding box) is determined based on body tracking data ([0030], FIG. 2B, i.e. collision warning system 100 may prioritize detection and tracking of objects; [0031], FIG. 3A, i.e. collision warning system 100 may include … tracker 330).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller and Fridman teaching method of detecting collision having boundary based on velocity of obstacle with Liu et al. teaching method of detecting obstacle comprising boundary based on body tracking data to effectively detect objects within collision boundary by determining the boundary with body tracking data (Liu et al.’s [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5, (Previously Presented)
the method of claim 4, wherein
Liu et al. teach
the volume boundary ([0029], FIG. 2B, i.e. bounding box increases or decreases in size as the “bounded” detected object moves closer toward or further away from the vehicle 140) is determined based on the body tracking data (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 10, (Previously Presented)
Shiller and Fridman teach
the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9.
However, Shiller and Fridman do not explicitly teach
wherein the device is configured to present virtual content on a display, and wherein the notification procedure comprises increasing visibility of a physical environment on the display.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. teach
wherein the device is configured to present virtual content ([0027], FIG. 2A, i.e. image frame captured from a forward-facing field of view of a vehicle 140) on a display ([0061], FIG. 9, i.e. display 918), and wherein the notification procedure ([0028], FIG. 2B, i.e. collision warning system 100 may crop a portion of the image frame 210) comprises increasing visibility of a physical environment ([0028], FIG. 2B, i.e. crop a portion of the image frame 210 to focus on a detected object in front of the vehicle 140) on the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller and Fridman teaching computer medium detecting collision having boundary based on velocity of obstacle with Liu et al. teaching computer medium detecting obstacle comprising warning focus on pertinent images to effectively enhance user warning by focusing on pertinent images (Liu et al.’s [0028]).
Regarding Claim 11, (Previously Presented)
Shiller and Fridman teach
the non-transitory computer readable medium claim 9.
However, Shiller and Fridman do not explicitly teach
wherein the boundary is determined based on body tracking data.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. teach
wherein the boundary ([0029], FIG. 2B, i.e. bounding box) is determined based on body tracking data ([0030], FIG. 2B, i.e. collision warning system 100 may prioritize detection and tracking of objects; [0031], FIG. 3A, i.e. collision warning system 100 may include … tracker 330).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller and Fridman teaching computer readable medium of detecting collision having boundary based on velocity of obstacle with Liu et al. teaching computer readable medium of detecting obstacle comprising boundary based on body tracking data to effectively detect objects within collision boundary by determining the boundary with body tracking data (Liu et al.’s [0042]).
Regarding Claim 12, (Previously Presented)
the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein
Liu et al. teach
the volume boundary ([0029], FIG. 2B, i.e. bounding box increases or decreases in size as the “bounded” detected object moves closer toward or further away from the vehicle 140) is determined based on the body tracking data (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 17, (Previously Presented)
Shiller and Fridman teach
the system of claim 16.
However, Shiller and Fridman do not explicitly teach
wherein the device is configured to present virtual content on a display, and wherein the notification procedure comprises increasing visibility of a physical environment on the display.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. teach
wherein the device is configured to present virtual content ([0027], FIG. 2A, i.e. image frame captured from a forward-facing field of view of a vehicle 140) on a display ([0061], FIG. 9, i.e. display 918), and wherein the notification procedure ([0028], FIG. 2B, i.e. collision warning system 100 may crop a portion of the image frame 210) comprises increasing visibility of a physical environment on the display ([0028], FIG. 2B, i.e. crop a portion of the image frame 210 to focus on a detected object in front of the vehicle 140) on the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller and Fridman teaching system of detecting collision having boundary based on velocity of obstacle with Liu et al. teaching system of detecting obstacle comprising warning focus on pertinent images to effectively enhance user warning by focusing on pertinent images (Liu et al.’s [0028]).
Regarding Claim 18, (Previously Presented)
Shiller and Fridman teach
the system of claim 16.
However, Shiller and Fridman do not explicitly teach
wherein the boundary is determined based on body tracking data.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. teach
wherein the boundary ([0029], FIG. 2B, i.e. bounding box) is determined based on body tracking data ([0030], FIG. 2B, i.e. collision warning system 100 may prioritize detection and tracking of objects; [0031], FIG. 3A, i.e. collision warning system 100 may include … tracker 330).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Shiller and Fridman teaching system of detecting collision having boundary based on velocity of obstacle with Liu et al. teaching system of detecting obstacle comprising boundary based on body tracking data to effectively detect objects within collision boundary by determining the boundary with body tracking data (Liu et al.’s [0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, (Previously Presented)
the system of claim 18, wherein
Liu et al. teach
the volume boundary ([0029], FIG. 2B, i.e. bounding box increases or decreases in size as the “bounded” detected object moves closer toward or further away from the vehicle 140) is determined based on the body tracking data (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Response to Argument/Amendment
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 has/have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
5. Applicant argues that the currently amended Claims 2, 9, and 16 are incorporating from originally objected Claims 8, 15, and 21 respectively. However, the Examiner respectively disagrees because the currently amended portions of Claims 2, 9, and 16 (i.e. incorporating originally objected portions of Claims 8, 15, and 21) are different and broader than the originally objected Claims 8, 15, and 21 respectively.
A. For example, the originally objected Claim 8 recited:
“detecting a change in the velocity to a second velocity less than the velocity; and
modifying the boundary in accordance with the second velocity.”
B. While the currently amended portion of Claim 2 recites:
“detecting a change from the initial velocity to a second velocity; and
modifying the distance of the boundary in accordance with the change.”
As shown above the currently amended portion of the independent Claim 2 are different and broader than the originally objected portion of dependent Claim 8.
C. Also note that applicant intended to keep the currently amended independent Claims 2, 9, and 16 to be as broad as possible via the evidence that the currently amended dependent Claims 8, 15, and 21 recite
“…wherein the second velocity is less than the initial velocity; and
wherein the distance boundary is increased.” (Claim 8; Claims 15 and 21 are similar).
Correspondingly, the currently amended portions of Claims 9 and 16 are recited similarly to Claim 2 in that they are different and broader than the originally objected Claims 15 and 21.
Therefore, Claims 9 and 16 are rejected similarly to Claim 2 as shown above.
6. Applicants’ Response to the Non-Final Office Action, 03/19/2026, has been entered and made of record. Claim(s) 2, 8-9, 15-16, and 21 is/are amended and Claim(s) 1 is/are cancelled. Thus, Claim(s) 2-21 is/are pending in this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim(s) 8, 15, and 21 is/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.
8. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Shiller (US Patent/PGPub. No. 7797107) teaches method for transmitting a warning signal to a driver of a driven vehicle regarding an impending collision with a moving and/or stationary object in the vicinity of the driven vehicle. The method comprises the following steps of providing the driven vehicle with means for obtaining updated data regarding, position, velocity vector and predicted moving path of the objects; selecting a series of one or more time horizons having decreasing or increasing duration; for the longest of the selected time horizons: generating a linear velocity object (LVO) and/or non-linear velocity object (NLVO) of each of the objects; selecting a sampling time interval .DELTA.t, during which an LVO and/or NLVO is generated; determining a range of feasible velocity vector changes for the driven vehicle that are attainable within a performance time interval .DELTA.T; repeatedly providing the driver, after each .DELTA.t, with information regarding feasible velocity vector changes for the performance time interval; sensing, estimating or assuming dynamic changes parameters representing the movement of the driven vehicle within the performance time interval, and whenever required, generating a warning signal with an escalating severity level that reflects the relative imminence of collision with the objects and that corresponds to the longest time horizon; repeating the steps above, while each time generating an updated LVO and/or NLVO for a subsequent sampling time interval, until reaching another selected time horizon which is shorter than a previously selected time horizon and another selected time horizon, until collision is unavoidable.
Fridman (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20180025235) teaches systems and methods are provided for crowdsourcing road surface information collection. In one implementation, a method of collecting road surface information for a road segment may include receiving at least one image representative of a portion of the road segment, identifying in the at least one image at least one road surface feature along the portion of the road segment, determining a plurality of locations associated with the road surface feature according to a local coordinate system of the vehicle, and transmitting the determined plurality of locations from the vehicle to a server. The determined locations may be configured to enable determination by the server of a line representation of the road surface feature extending along the road segment.
The subject matter of the claim(s) that could neither be found/suggested nor obviously combinable in the prior arts of record. The subject matter was a device/method including
“…wherein the second velocity is less than the initial velocity; and
wherein the distance boundary is increased.” (Claim 8; Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are similar), in combination with the other elements (or steps) of the device or apparatus and method recited in the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 VINH TANG LAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Nitin K Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/VINH T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights