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 the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing of July 17, 2025. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that it should be “further comprises” instead of just “comprises”, as Claim 1 from which claim 3 depends already indicates that the system comprises in some way.
In claim 1 line 8, “wherein is” is recited. “wherein is” should be deleted.
In claim 13 line 5, “wherein is” is recited. “wherein is” should be deleted.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically:
In claim 1 line 11, the limitations “the traffic area” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 line 11, the limitations “to the vehicle and the vehicle” is recited. It is unclear to the examiner the 2nd “the vehicle” is redundant or should be “the traffic system”. Claim 12 line 7 has a similar issue as above.
In claim 4, “the vehicle information item” is recited, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
In claim 12 line 8, the limitations “the traffic area” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Graefe (US 2021109538 A1) hereafter known as Graefe
Regarding claim 1, Graefe teaches a traffic system for controlling vehicles (abstract, Figures 1, 2 and 6 and the corresponding paragraphs including at least [0014], [0016], [0017], [0027], [0033] and [0035) comprising:
a communication unit for communication between the traffic system and the vehicle (Figs. 4-6 and corresponding paragraphs including at least [0014]); and
a control unit, to control the vehicle by at least two different control methods ([0016] and [0017]), having the following steps:
registering the vehicle and verifying which of the control methods can be applied before entering the traffic system for the first time ([0027], [0033] and [0035], Fig. 5 and corresponding paragraphs; [0033]; [0017], the autonomous control system of the vehicle, or a portion thereof such as the security processor or circuit can be registered with the infrastructure so that the infrastructure can recognize the systems for potential autonomous driving privileges within one or more of the restricted areas);
checking in before each further entry into the traffic system (Steps 501 and 505 in Fig. 5), wherein is
selecting a preferred control method with the control unit during check-in from the control methods applicable to the vehicle and the vehicle (Steps 508 509 in Fig. 5, [0033] and [0035]; Requests for increasing levels of security form the infrastructure 440 can result in the security circuit 452 replacing more and more vehicle generated information of the virtual machines 456 with infrastructure generated information); and
moving the vehicle through the traffic area using the selected control method ([0027] [0029] Throughout each journey through restricted areas [0033]).
Graefe does not explicitly teach registering the vehicle and verifying which of the control methods can be applied before entering the traffic system for the first time, however, registration and storage of vehicle information is in the traffic system ([0033] and [0035]). Furthermore, the use of an application that is installed in the vehicle to carry out control by the traffic system is described in paragraphs [0027] and [0033]. In order to reduce data traffic and make it easier for the external vehicle control system to be registered by the traffic area without delay, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to implement the permanent storage of the vehicle data ( after registering the vehicle at the first time), in particular on available vehicle systems, at least as long as it can be assumed that the vehicle regularly drives in the traffic area or until the vehicle owner uninstalls the application and the data deletion. Corresponding systems for storing data for the recurring use of services are common and therefore generally known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, please see the rejection above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Graefe teaches wherein the verification further comprises at least one of querying the possible control methods from the vehicle and transmitting the possible control methods from the vehicle to the traffic system ([0027], [0033] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Graefe teaches
wherein the traffic system [further] comprises at least one sensor for at least one of identifying the vehicle and collecting vehicle information ([0014] the infrastructure can include several sensors of different types including multiple sensors overlapping coverage of many areas of the restricted area),
wherein at least one of the identification of the vehicle and the vehicle information collected take into account at least one of: the selection of the control method, the identification of the vehicle and the movement of the vehicle ([0035] a response to the authentication request can provide identifying information about the autonomous vehicle and technical details about the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, Graefe teaches wherein the vehicle transmits vehicle data to the control unit by means of the communication unit, wherein the vehicle data comprises control variables for at least one of a steering system, a braking device, a drive, a length, a width and a height of the vehicle. (Figures 1 and 6, [0034] security circuit 452 receiving planning information, maneuver information, and trajectory information from the infrastructure 440 and can relay that information via the bus 457 to an actuator interface of the autonomous vehicle 441 such that the infrastructure 440 provide substantially direct commands to control the speed and direction of the autonomous vehicle 441(a breaking device)).
Regarding claim 6, Graefe teaches wherein at least one of the control method selected by the traffic system is notified to the vehicle and the control method is selected by the vehicle ([0035]; Fig. 5 and corresponding paragraphs including At 503, the controller of the vehicle can receive an authentication request from the infrastructure. At 505, the controller of the vehicle can provide an authentication response. In certain examples, a response to the authentication request can provide identifying information about the autonomous vehicle and technical details about the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle. [0017] the infrastructure interface 128, upon detection of a restricted area, can negotiate verification of the autonomous- vehicle with a security controller of the restricted area and can allow for the infrastructure of the restricted area to selectively influence sensor input, perception processing, environment modeling, driver behavior tasks, or combinations thereof of the software stack of the autonomous vehicle [0029] If the controller of the infrastructure 440 confirms reported bus activities match the expected bus activities associated with the requested security level, the controller of the infrastructure 440 can transmit previously negotiated data types to the vehicle 441 in order to facilitate autonomous driving of the vehicle 441 to the destination.)
Regarding claim 7, Graefe teaches wherein when at least two control methods are available the traffic system selects the control method. (at least [0033] and [0035] Fig. 5 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Graefe teaches wherein a first control method of the control methods is a control instruction for manipulated variables of the vehicle for at least one of a steering device, a braking device and a drive unit (at least [0033] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Graefe teaches wherein a second control method of the control methods comprises at least one of: the transmission of waypoints, a travel route and checking whether the vehicle moves along the waypoints, and the travel route. (Figure 1, at least [0022] Like the autonomous driving software stack of the autonomous vehicle 341, the infrastructure 340 can include sensors 337 and one or more processors and circuits for interfacing with the infrastructure sensors 337, generating perception information of the environment 344, generating modeling information of the environment 346, and generating information drive behavior 348 such as route planning, maneuver planning and trajectory planning. [0028] The controller of the infrastructure 440 can execute a rule checker that compares the expected sensor and autonomous driving information on a bus 457 of the control circuit 450 for the requested security level with the reports of the signed application and infrastructure monitoring circuit 454.[0033] A high level security request can result in the security circuit 452 receiving route planning information, maneuver information, and trajectory information from the infrastructure 440 and can relay that information via the bus 457 to an actuator interface of the autonomous vehicle 441 such that the infrastructure 440 provide substantially direct commands to control the speed and direction of the autonomous vehicle 441).
Regarding claim 10, Graefe teaches wherein the control unit identifies waypoints through the traffic are, the waypoints being identified on the basis of the vehicle data transmitted by the vehicle. ( at least [0022] Like the autonomous driving software stack of the autonomous vehicle 341, the infrastructure 340 can include sensors 337 and one or more processors and circuits for interfacing with the infrastructure sensors 337, generating perception information of the environment 344, generating modeling information of the environment 346, and generating information drive behavior 348 such as route planning, maneuver planning and trajectory planning; [0028]-[0033],[0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Graefe teaches wherein the control methods comprise at least one of control of the vehicle based on a vehicle-internal sensor system and control based on the sensors of the traffic system. (Figs. 1, 3 and 6 and corresponding paragraphs, e.g. sensors 343, perception 304 in Fig. 3, [0023] while navigating a low-level area of restriction, the autonomous vehicle 341 and infrastructure 340 can negotiate that the infrastructure 340 provide sensor information 343 for perception processing at least at the autonomous vehicle 341 . In some examples, such negotiation may require that the sensors 342 of the vehicle, other than emergency sensors 339, shutdown).
Regarding claim 13, Graefe teaches wherein the control unit comprises a database, wherein the database at least one of comprises all relevant vehicle data, stores all relevant vehicle data, and vehicle information for the control method of the vehicle ([0033] [0047] centralized or distributed database … store the one or more instructions 624. [0027]-[0034] the infrastructure 440 can monitor the bus activity and ongoing conformity of the security circuit for the security level requested via the reports provided by the signed application and infrastructure monitoring circuit 454; Path planning, maneuver planning and trajectory planning information 349 can be supplied by the infrastructure 340, Fig. 1, [0017], [0029] the controller of the infrastructure 440 can transmit previously negotiated data types to the vehicle 441 in order to facilitate autonomous driving of the vehicle 441 to the destination).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Graefe (US 2021109538A1) in view of Kim (US 20240051520A1)
Regarding claim 4, Graefe teaches (Fig. 1, [0020]) some sensors 237 can be used for conventional security purposes as well as to assist in allowing autonomous driving within a restricted area. [0022] the infrastructure includes sensors 337 to detect the environment none the less, as any change to static components of the environment can affect autonomous navigation of the environment. In addition, sensors 337 also detect and assist with tracking non-static components of the environment such as vehicle, pedestrians, equipment and unexpected objects that may or may not affect autonomous navigation or security of the restricted areas. [0035] a response to the authentication request can provide identifying information about the autonomous vehicle and technical details about the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle).
Graefe does not teach explicitly but Kim teaches wherein the vehicle information item is at least one of length, width, height, and a steering radius of the vehicle, which is detected by the at least one sensor ([0086] Referring to FIG. 6, the method for assisting parking according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure is a method of classifying a parking space by using an electronic device to perform the autonomous parking of a host vehicle, and first of all, the 4D imaging radar 110 detects the distance, height, depth and speed of objects 21, 22 that are located in a parking lot and outputs as a point cloud S610).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, autonomous vehicle entering a restricted area, as taught by Graefe, the vehicle information item being at least one of length, width, height, and a steering radius of the vehicle, which is detected by the at least one sensor, as taught by Kim, as Graefe and Kim are directed to autonomous vehicle entering a restricted area (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the vehicle information item being at least one of length, width, height, and a steering radius of the vehicle, which is detected by at least one sensor to improve safety and performance.
Prior Art
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI GRAEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 571-272-100.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights