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 Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 4 August 2026.
1-2, 6, 9-10, 15, and 18-19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 were 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.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17 and 19-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0261950, hereinafter “Sasabuchi”) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0111919, hereinafter “Matsunaga”).
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi and Matsunaga in view of Mielenz (DE-102013226599-A1, hereinafter “Mielenz”. Mielenz was provided in the IDS, however the citations correspond to the machine translation provided).
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17 and 19-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi et al. US Pub. No. 2013/0261950, hereinafter “Sasabuchi”) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0111919, hereinafter “Matsunaga”) and further in view of Barta Aron (DE 1020150209671A, hereinafter “Barta”, citations correspond to the machine translation provided).
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta in view Mielenz (DE-102013226599-A1, hereinafter “Mielenz”. Mielenz was provided in the IDS, however the citations correspond to the machine translation provided).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, filed 4 August 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
With respect to "the pose including a position and an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar, " in rejecting claim 1, the Office Action relies on Sasabuchi citing Figure 3 and paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0086]-[0088] for the pose-based identification of the target barrier gate crossbar. Sasabuchi discloses that the ECU 20 estimates whether the vehicle 10 is positioned in a first area 130 or a second area 132 relative to the railroad crossing 100, and identifies the front barrier bar 120 front from a positional relationship between the front barrier 110 front and the traveling lane 106a based on a transverse width W and a height H of the candidate barrier. (Sasabuchi, [0061]-[0062], [0086]-[0088]). This disclosure, at most, describes a position of the barrier bar relative to the vehicle's lane; Sasabuchi does not disclose or suggest an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar, let alone a pose that includes both a position and an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar. The Office Action further relies on Matsunaga citing Figure 3, Figure 4, and paragraph [0050], which discloses recognizing a passage incapable or passage capable state based on whether a gate 144 is located at a position lower or higher than a predetermined height, or is moving downward or upward. (Matsunaga, [0050]). This disclosure likewise describes only a position (height) and a direction of movement of the gate; it does not disclose or suggest an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar. Accordingly, neither Sasabuchi nor Matsunaga, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests a pose that includes a position and an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by the Applicant, Sasabuchi at least describes the position of the barrier bar relative the vehicle’s lane, however, Sasabuchi further discloses determining the orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar, see at least Sasabuchi Figure 7 and associated description. Thus, Sasabuchi teaches the pose including the position and the orientation, as claimed. Further, Matsunaga teaches determining whether the gate is at a position lower or higher than a predetermined height and accordingly, teaches determining the orientation of the target crossbar. Thus, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga also teaches the pose including the position and the orientation, as claimed.
Applicant further argues:
With respect to "wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state," Sasabuchi's Figure 8 subroutine - which judges only whether a transverse width W and a height H of a candidate barrier exceed or fall between certain threshold values to estimate whether the front barrier bar 120 front "has been lowered" is silent regarding the motion state. Sasabuchi's single, threshold-based determination of whether a barrier bar has been lowered is, at most, a binary determination analogous to an open or close state; it does not disclose or suggest a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state. The Office Action relies on Matsunaga (citing Figure 3, Figure 4, and paragraph [0050]) for the motion state, asserting that Matsunaga's road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a "passage incapable state" when a gate 144 is below a predetermined height or moving downward, and a "passage capable state" when the gate 144 is above the predetermined height or moving upward. (Matsunaga, [0050]). However, Matsunaga does not determine an open state or a close state of the gate 144 and a motion state of the gate 144; rather, Matsunaga uses a single, conflated "passage capable" or "passage incapable" determination - based indiscriminately on either the gate's position or its direction of movement - as a proxy for both. Matsunaga does not disclose or suggest a status of the target barrier gate crossbar comprising one of an open state or a close state, wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state, as recited in amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As recognized by Applicant, Matsunaga determines a “passage incapable state” when the gate is located at a position lower than a predetermine height (static state) OR moving downward (descending state) and a “passage capable state” when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) OR is moving upward (ascending state). Thus, Matsunaga teaches “determining a status of the target barrier gate crossbar … wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state”, as claimed.
Applicant further argues:
With respect to "when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the ascending state or the static state, controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate crossbar," the Office Action relies on Matsunaga citing Figure 3, Figure 4, and paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and [0056], asserting that Matsunaga's forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute a stop control when the passage incapable state is recognized (steps S5-S6), and determines that the forward movement limit should not be executed when the passage capable state is recognized (steps S3, S4, S10-S11). (Matsunaga, [0050]-[0051], [0056]). As discussed above, this control logic is driven by Matsunaga's single, conflated passage-capable/passage-incapable determination, and is not driven by controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate crossbar based on a status comprising the motion state and the one of the open state or the close state. Neither Sasabuchi nor Matsunaga, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the above highlighted feature.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Matsunaga teaches determining a “passage incapable state” when the gate is located at a position lower than a predetermine height (static state) or moving downward (descending state) and further teaches that when in the passage incapable state, the process flows to step S6, wherein the forward movement is limited. However, Matsunaga also teaches a “passage capable state” when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state) and further teaches when in the passage capable state the process flows to S11, wherein the vehicle moves forward (forward movement not limited). Thus, Matsunaga teaches when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state), the vehicle is controlled to be moved forward and pass through the target barrier gate crossbar, as claimed.
Applicant finally argues with respect to Barta:
The additional grounds of rejection further rely on Barta (DE 102015209671A) in combination with Sasabuchi and Matsunaga. The Office Action relies on Barta citing paragraph [0006], which discloses that a sensor is "capable of detecting the state of a railway barrier, in particular the state whether it is open or closed and/or is in an opening or closing state." (Barta, [0006]). Barta is relied upon by the Office Action solely for the proposition that it may be desirable to consider both an open/closed state and an opening/closing state of a barrier when controlling a vehicle; Barta is not relied upon, and does not disclose or suggest, a pose that includes a position and an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar, or a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state that is a further component of a status also comprising one of an open state or a close state. Nor does Barta disclose or suggest when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the ascending state or the static state, controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate crossbar. Accordingly, Barta fails to cure the deficiencies of Sasabuchi in view of Matsunaga discussed above.
In addition, there is no suggestion or motivation in the cited references, alone or in combination, to modify Sasabuchi and Matsunaga (or Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta) to arrive at a pose including a position and an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar, a status in which a separately-determined motion state is a further component of a status also comprising one of an open state or a close state, and the specific controlling logic recited in amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that Sasabuchi and Matsunaga were relied upon for the pose including position and orientation as addressed above. Further, Applicant’s argument that Barta does not teach controlling the vehicle based on the open state or the closed state is not persuasive as Barta teaches determining the open or close state AND whether it is opening or closing, and controlling the vehicle longitudinal dynamics accordingly (Barta [0006]).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant has not provided an argument with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The double patenting rejection is maintained.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0261950, hereinafter “Sasabuchi”) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0111919, hereinafter “Matsunaga”).
Regarding claim 1, Sasabuchi discloses a method for passing through a barrier gate crossbar by a vehicle (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 1 and Figure 3, and [0008-0011]), comprising:
obtaining data of one or more barrier gate crossbars collected by one or more sensors (see at least Sasabuchi, Figure 3, and [0057-0058] “According to the first embodiment, the ECU 20 estimates or judges whether or not an external object, which is detected by the forward radar 30 or the rearward radar 32, is the barrier bar 120a of the first railroad crossing barrier 110a or the barrier bar 120b of the second railroad crossing barrier 110b. If the detected external object is the barrier bar 120a or the barrier bar 120b, then the ECU 20 cancels the avoidance control process. At this time, the ECU 20 also estimates the state of the barrier bar 120c of the third railroad crossing barrier 110c and the barrier bar 120d of the fourth railroad crossing barrier 110d.”)
determining information of a target barrier gate crossbar of the one or more barrier gate crossbars from the data of the one or more barrier gate crossbars based on a pose of the target barrier gate crossbar, the pose including a position and an orientation of the target barrier crossbar, wherein the target barrier gate crossbar is a barrier gate crossbar of a lane on which the vehicle is located (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 7 and [0061-0062] “In step S2, the ECU 20 (periphery monitoring function 80) estimates whether or not the vehicle 10 is positioned immediately in front of the railroad crossing 100, i.e., whether the vehicle 10 is positioned in the first area 130. The ECU 20 also estimates whether or not the vehicle 10 is positioned within the railroad crossing 100, i.e., whether the vehicle 10 is positioned within the second area 132….In step S3, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) estimates whether or not there is a front barrier bar 120 front that is being lowered. When the vehicle 10 is positioned in the first area 130, the front barrier bar 120 front refers to the barrier bars 120a, 120b, and when the vehicle 10 is positioned in the second area 132, the front barrier bar 120 front refers only to the barrier bar 120b. In step S4, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) estimates whether or not there is a front barrier bar 120 front that has been lowered.” See also [0086-0087] “ If the transverse width W is greater than the fourth threshold value TH4 (S41: YES), then in step S42, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not a portion of the candidate for the front barrier 110 front, i.e., a portion of the candidate for the front barrier bar 120 front, is positioned over the traveling lane 106a. In this manner, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) can identify the barrier bar 120 from a positional relationship between the front barrier 110 front (front barrier bar 120 front) and the traveling lane 106a.”)
determining a status of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the information of the target barrier gate crossbar, the status of the target barrier gate crossbar comprising one of an open state or a close state, [[wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state]] (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 8 and [0086-0088] “[0086] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of a subroutine (details of step S4 in FIG. 4) for estimating whether or not the front barrier bar 120 front has been lowered according to the first embodiment. In step S41 of FIG. 8, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not the transverse width W of the front barrier 110 front exceeds a fourth threshold value TH4. The fourth threshold value TH4 represents the transverse width (traveling lane width W3) of the lane 106a on which the vehicle 10 is travelling, for example.…[0087] If the transverse width W is greater than the fourth threshold value TH4 (S41: YES), then in step S42, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not a portion of the candidate for the front barrier 110 front, i.e., a portion of the candidate for the front barrier bar 120 front, is positioned over the traveling lane 106a. In this manner, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) can identify the barrier bar 120 from a positional relationship between the front barrier 110 front (front barrier bar 120 front) and the traveling lane 106a…[0088] If a portion of the candidate for the front barrier 110 front is positioned over the traveling lane 106a (S42: YES), then in step S43, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not the height H of the front barrier 110 front is greater than a fifth threshold value TH5 and smaller than a sixth threshold value TH6. The fifth threshold value TH5 and the sixth threshold value TH6 are threshold values for identifying a barrier bar 120, which has been lowered, based on the height of the lowered barrier bar 120. More specifically, the lowered barrier bar 120 stops at a certain height from the ground so as to prevent vehicles 10 or people from entering into the railroad crossing 100. It is possible for the lowered barrier bar 120 to be estimated or identified based on the height H, by judging whether an external object is present in a certain height range within which the lowered barrier bar 120 is possibly stopped.” See also [0008] and [0010] “The avoidance controller comprises an external object position judger for judging a three-dimensional position of the external object with respect to a position of the vehicle, and a railroad crossing barrier estimator for estimating the presence of a railroad crossing barrier. If the external object is estimated as the railroad crossing barrier, the avoidance controller cancels the avoidance control process with respect to the railroad crossing barrier, and if at least one of an external object the transverse width of which increases over time and an external object having a given length at a certain height from the ground is detected, the railroad crossing barrier estimator estimates the detected external object as the railroad crossing barrier….[0010] According to the present invention, furthermore, if at least one of an external object the transverse width of which increases over time and an external object having a given length at a certain height from the ground is detected, the railroad crossing barrier estimator estimates the detected external object as the railroad crossing barrier. Therefore, even if the judgment accuracy or the performance of the external object position judger is relatively low, it is still possible to estimate the external object as the railroad crossing barrier.); and
Sasabuchi discloses controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the status of the target barrier gate crossbar (see at least Sasabuchi [0009] [0011] and Figure 4, estimate whether or not there is a front barrier bar that is being lowered or has been lowered (S3 and S4)), but does not explicitly disclose controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate when the one of the open state or the close of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the ascending state or the static state.
Matsunaga teaches determining the status of the target battier gate crossbar, wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state and controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate when the one of the open state or the close of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the ascending state or the static state (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3, and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6. On the other hand, in the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage capable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: NO), the process transitions to step S8..”); see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 elements S6 and S11 and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134” and [0056] “ Upon transitioning from any one of step S3, step S4, or step S10 to step S11, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines that the forward movement limit should not be executed. In this case, the host vehicle 10 continues to proceed forward.” Thus, in Matsunaga, the forward movement is acceptable when gate is open (higher than a predetermined height) or when the gate is ascending (moving upward), thus, Matsunaga teaches that that the forward movement is acceptable when the gate is open (higher than a predetermined height) and when the gate is ascending (moving upward). See Figure 3. Matsunaga teaches determining a “passage incapable state” when the gate is located at a position lower than a predetermine height (static state) or moving downward (descending state) and further teaches that when in the passage incapable state, the process flows to step S6, wherein the forward movement is limited. However, Matsunaga also teaches a “passage capable state” when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state) and further teaches when in the passage capable state the process flows to S11, wherein the vehicle moves forward (forward movement not limited). Thus, Matsunaga teaches when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state), the vehicle is controlled to be moved forward and pass through the target barrier gate crossbar, as claimed. Matsunaga determines a “passage incapable state” when the gate is located at a position lower than a predetermine height (static state) or moving downward (descending state) and a “passage capable state” when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state). Thus, Matsunaga teaches “determining a status of the target barrier gate crossbar … wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state”, as claimed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasabuchi with the teaching of Matsunaga, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Matsunaga teaches, when the railroad is in a passage incapable state forward movement should be limited until the railroad becomes “passage capable” in order to avoid collisions and further that the vehicle should be controlled have forward movement when the railroad is “passage capable” so as to prevent unnecessary stopping.
The examiner notes that Matsunaga further teaches the determining an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar as cited above.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the close state, controlling the vehicle to stop (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6.” and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the descending state, controlling the vehicle to stop (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6.” and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the close state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is a descending state, a static state, or an ascending state, controlling the vehicle to stop (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6.” and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134”).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that Sasabuchi teaches an apparatus for passing through a barrier gate crossbar by a vehicle including a processor and a memory for storing instructions (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 1, ECU 20 and [0042-0044] “As shown in FIG. 1, the ECU 20 includes hardware devices, including an input/output unit 70, a processor 72, and a memory 74. According to the first embodiment, the processor 72 controls the brake mechanism 16 and the warning device 18 in order to perform various functions based on programs stored in the memory 74…. “) Further, Sasabuchi teaches a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, executed by a processor (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 1, ECU 20 and [0042-0044] “As shown in FIG. 1, the ECU 20 includes hardware devices, including an input/output unit 70, a processor 72, and a memory 74. According to the first embodiment, the processor 72 controls the brake mechanism 16 and the warning device 18 in order to perform various functions based on programs stored in the memory 74…. As shown in FIG. 1, the various functions include a periphery monitoring function 80, an antilock brake system function 82 (hereinafter referred to as an "ABS function 82"), a traction control function 84, a lateral skidding prevention function 86, an avoidance action assistance function (part of an avoidance controller) 88, and an emergency brake function (part of the avoidance controller) 90….The periphery monitoring function 80 is a function to monitor the periphery of the vehicle 10 based on output signals from the forward radar 30 and the rearward radar 32. The periphery monitoring function 80 also includes a railroad crossing barrier estimating function (railroad crossing barrier estimator) 92. The railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92 estimates the presence of railroad crossing barriers 110a, 110b, 110c, 100d (see FIG. 3).”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining the pose of the target barrier gate crossbar based on a pre-configured road map (see at least Sasabuchi [0149] “ In each of the above embodiments, the position of the railroad crossing 100 is estimated using map information from the navigation system 14. However, map information from the navigation system 14 need not necessarily be used for detecting the barrier bars 120. Alternatively, the position of the railroad crossing 100 may be estimated based on map information (route information) from light beacons, not shown, which are installed alongside the vehicle road 102, rather than based on map information from the navigation system 14. Further, alternatively, the position of the railroad crossing 100 may be estimated based on map information that is acquired from an external source, e.g., an external server, a peripheral vehicle 112, or the like, through a communication unit (not shown) installed in the vehicle 10, 10A.” See also [0075] [0077] and [0113] “According to the first embodiment, furthermore, the vehicle 10, which is positioned in front of the railroad crossing 100 or in the railroad crossing 100, is detected based on behavior exhibited by the vehicle 10 when the vehicle 10 moves through the railroad crossing 100 (see steps S11 through S13, S15, S16 in FIG. 5), or based on map information from the navigation systeml4 (see step S19). Therefore, the accuracy with which the railroad crossing barrier 110 can be determined is increased. In addition, it still is possible to estimate the presence of the railroad crossing barrier 110 even when the barrier bar 120 is being lowered.”))
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 8, above.
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi and Matsunaga in view of Mielenz (DE-102013226599-A1, hereinafter “Mielenz”. Mielenz was provided in the IDS, however the citations correspond to the machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach the method according to claim 1, including wherein the determining the status of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the data of the target barrier gate crossbar, however, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga do not explicitly disclose:
determining an angle of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the information of the target barrier gate crossbar, wherein the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is an included angle between the target barrier gate crossbar and a reference straight line; and
determining the one of the open state or the close state and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar.
Mielenz discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the status of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the data of the target barrier gate crossbar comprises:
determining an angle of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the data of the target barrier gate crossbar, wherein the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is an included angle between the target barrier gate crossbar and a reference straight line (see at least Mielenz, Figure 3 [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary, and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” And [0026] “In step S5, it is checked whether an automatically triggered and executed braking of the vehicle 3 to a standstill is necessary. This is the case, for example, if the detected traffic light changes from green to yellow to red or if a pedestrian crosses the detected zebra crossing or is about to enter the zebra crossing. 445 In the case of a barriered level crossing provided as a traffic infrastructure component, it is checked whether the barrier boom is horizontally oriented and forces vehicle 3 to brake or whether the barrier is open.” The examiner notes that the “checking” of Mielenz corresponds to determining and “horizontally” and “vertically” correspond to angles) ; and
determining the one of the open state or the close state and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar (see at least Mielenz, Figure 3 [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary, and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” And [0026] “In step S5, it is checked whether an automatically triggered and executed braking of the vehicle 3 to a standstill is necessary. This is the case, for example, if the detected traffic light changes from green to yellow to red or if a pedestrian crosses the detected zebra crossing or is about to enter the zebra crossing. 445 In the case of a barriered level crossing provided as a traffic infrastructure component, it is checked whether the barrier boom is horizontally oriented and forces vehicle 3 to brake or whether the barrier is open.” The examiner notes that the “checking” of Mielenz corresponds to determining and “horizontally” and “vertically” correspond to angles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga with the teaching of Mielenz, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Mielenz teaches there are some situations that the detection of a railway crossing does not require breaking to a standstill, however, the angle of the barrier bar determines if braking is necessary, and thus provides safety to the vehicle occupants (see at least Mielenz [0012]) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga and Mielenz teach the method according to claim 5, including determining the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar comprises:
when the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is greater than a first preset angle, determining that the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state (Mielenz, teaches in Figure 3 and [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary,…” and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” Thus, Mielenz teaches determining if the angle is greater than a first preset angle (e.g. 89 degrees), then the crossing is open. The examiner notes that a computer system of Mielenz must have a preprogrammed minimum and maximum angle or angle range to determine to satisfy the condition that the bar has been determined to be one of vertical and horizontal);
when the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is less than a second preset angle, determining that the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the close state, wherein the second preset angle is less than the first preset angle (Mielenz teaches in Figure 3 and [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary, and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” And [0026] “In step S5, it is checked whether an automatically triggered and executed braking of the vehicle 3 to a standstill is necessary…In the case of a barriered level crossing provided as a traffic infrastructure component, it is checked whether the barrier boom is horizontally oriented and forces vehicle 3 to brake or whether the barrier is open.” Thus, Mielenz teaches determining if the angle is less than a second present (e.g. 1 degrees), then the crossing is closed, wherein the second preset angle is less than a first preset angle. The examiner notes that a computer system of Mielenz must have a preprogrammed minimum and maximum angle or angle range to determine to satisfy the condition that the bar has been determined to be one of vertical and horizontal)
and when the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is less than or equal to the first preset angle, and the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is greater than or equal to the second preset angle, determining that the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is an open state or close state that is of the target barrier gate crossbar determined at a previous moment (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 and [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward. The state of the railroad crossing 140 may be recognized based on the presence or absence of lights or the presence or absence of sounds of a railroad crossing alarm. Alternatively, the state of the railroad crossing 140 may be recognized on the basis of railroad crossing information acquired by the second communication device 36.” The examiner notes that while Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach determining the height, one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the angle from the height and using basic trigonometry. Further, Matsunaga teaches if the blocking rod is at a position lower than a predetermined height (i.e. lower than first preset angle) or moving downward, it determines that the gate is the passage incapable state (i.e. closed) and thus it uses the previous state (e.g. closed) See also Sasabuchi Figure 6 and 7 and accompanying description [0079-0085]) .
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga and Mielenz teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the determining the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar comprises:
when an ith angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is greater than an (i-1)th angle of the target barrier gate crossbar, determining that the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is ascending (see at least Matsunaga [0049] “The road environment recognition unit 62 may recognize the presence or absence and the position of the railroad crossing 140 by identifying a railroad crossing gate 142 or railroad tracks 146 based on the image information from the cameras 28,” and [0050] “The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward.” The examiner notes that both Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teaches using a camera to recognize the position of the gate by using images and further discloses determining the movement of the gate based on those images. Camera images are collected over time, and thus the movement is determined from the change in position from one frame to another frame. While Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach determining the height, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga and Mielenz teach determining the angle (see Mielenz [0012] [0056]) and one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the angle from the height of the crossing bar in relation to a reference line using basic trigonometry.); and
when the ith angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is less than the (i-1)th angle of the target barrier gate crossbar, determining that the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is descending, wherein the ih angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is determined based on the target barrier gate crossbar in an ith frame of image, the (i-1)th angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is determined based on the target barrier gate crossbar in an (i-1)th frame of image, and the ith frame of image is adjacent to the (i-1)th frame of image (see at least Matsunaga [0049] “The road environment recognition unit 62 may recognize the presence or absence and the position of the railroad crossing 140 by identifying a railroad crossing gate 142 or railroad tracks 146 based on the image information from the cameras 28,” and [0050] “The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward.” The examiner notes that both Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach using a camera to recognize the position of the gate by using images and further discloses determining the movement of the gate based on those images. Camera images are collected over time and thus the movement is determined from the change in position from one frame to another frame. While Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach determining the height, the combination of Sasabuchi Matsunaga and Mielenz teach determining the angle (see Mielenz [0012] [0056]) and one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the angle from the height of the crossing bar in relation to a reference line using basic trigonometry.).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 6, above.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 7, above.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi et al. US Pub. No. 2013/0261950, hereinafter “Sasabuchi”) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0111919, hereinafter “Matsunaga”) and further in view of Barta Aron (DE 1020150209671A, hereinafter “Barta”, citations correspond to the machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Sasabuchi discloses a method for passing through a barrier gate crossbar by a vehicle (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 1 and Figure 3, and [0008-0011]), comprising:
obtaining data of one or more barrier gate crossbars collected by one or more sensors (see at least Sasabuchi, Figure 3, and [0057-0058] “According to the first embodiment, the ECU 20 estimates or judges whether or not an external object, which is detected by the forward radar 30 or the rearward radar 32, is the barrier bar 120a of the first railroad crossing barrier 110a or the barrier bar 120b of the second railroad crossing barrier 110b. If the detected external object is the barrier bar 120a or the barrier bar 120b, then the ECU 20 cancels the avoidance control process. At this time, the ECU 20 also estimates the state of the barrier bar 120c of the third railroad crossing barrier 110c and the barrier bar 120d of the fourth railroad crossing barrier 110d.”)
determining information of a target barrier gate crossbar of the one or more barrier gate crossbars from the data of the one or more barrier gate crossbars based on a pose of the target barrier gate crossbar, the pose including a position and an orientation of the target barrier crossbar, wherein the target barrier gate crossbar is a barrier gate crossbar of a lane on which the vehicle is located (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 7 and [0061-0062] “In step S2, the ECU 20 (periphery monitoring function 80) estimates whether or not the vehicle 10 is positioned immediately in front of the railroad crossing 100, i.e., whether the vehicle 10 is positioned in the first area 130. The ECU 20 also estimates whether or not the vehicle 10 is positioned within the railroad crossing 100, i.e., whether the vehicle 10 is positioned within the second area 132….In step S3, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) estimates whether or not there is a front barrier bar 120 front that is being lowered. When the vehicle 10 is positioned in the first area 130, the front barrier bar 120 front refers to the barrier bars 120a, 120b, and when the vehicle 10 is positioned in the second area 132, the front barrier bar 120 front refers only to the barrier bar 120b. In step S4, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) estimates whether or not there is a front barrier bar 120 front that has been lowered.” See also [0086-0087] “ If the transverse width W is greater than the fourth threshold value TH4 (S41: YES), then in step S42, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not a portion of the candidate for the front barrier 110 front, i.e., a portion of the candidate for the front barrier bar 120 front, is positioned over the traveling lane 106a. In this manner, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) can identify the barrier bar 120 from a positional relationship between the front barrier 110 front (front barrier bar 120 front) and the traveling lane 106a.”);
determining a status of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the information of the target barrier gate crossbar, the status of the target barrier gate crossbar comprising one of an open state or a close state, [[wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state]] (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 8 and [0086-0088] “[0086] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of a subroutine (details of step S4 in FIG. 4) for estimating whether or not the front barrier bar 120 front has been lowered according to the first embodiment. In step S41 of FIG. 8, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not the transverse width W of the front barrier 110 front exceeds a fourth threshold value TH4. The fourth threshold value TH4 represents the transverse width (traveling lane width W3) of the lane 106a on which the vehicle 10 is travelling, for example.…[0087] If the transverse width W is greater than the fourth threshold value TH4 (S41: YES), then in step S42, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not a portion of the candidate for the front barrier 110 front, i.e., a portion of the candidate for the front barrier bar 120 front, is positioned over the traveling lane 106a. In this manner, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) can identify the barrier bar 120 from a positional relationship between the front barrier 110 front (front barrier bar 120 front) and the traveling lane 106a…[0088] If a portion of the candidate for the front barrier 110 front is positioned over the traveling lane 106a (S42: YES), then in step S43, the ECU 20 (railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92) judges whether or not the height H of the front barrier 110 front is greater than a fifth threshold value TH5 and smaller than a sixth threshold value TH6. The fifth threshold value TH5 and the sixth threshold value TH6 are threshold values for identifying a barrier bar 120, which has been lowered, based on the height of the lowered barrier bar 120. More specifically, the lowered barrier bar 120 stops at a certain height from the ground so as to prevent vehicles 10 or people from entering into the railroad crossing 100. It is possible for the lowered barrier bar 120 to be estimated or identified based on the height H, by judging whether an external object is present in a certain height range within which the lowered barrier bar 120 is possibly stopped.” See also [0008] and [0010] “The avoidance controller comprises an external object position judger for judging a three-dimensional position of the external object with respect to a position of the vehicle, and a railroad crossing barrier estimator for estimating the presence of a railroad crossing barrier. If the external object is estimated as the railroad crossing barrier, the avoidance controller cancels the avoidance control process with respect to the railroad crossing barrier, and if at least one of an external object the transverse width of which increases over time and an external object having a given length at a certain height from the ground is detected, the railroad crossing barrier estimator estimates the detected external object as the railroad crossing barrier….[0010] According to the present invention, furthermore, if at least one of an external object the transverse width of which increases over time and an external object having a given length at a certain height from the ground is detected, the railroad crossing barrier estimator estimates the detected external object as the railroad crossing barrier. Therefore, even if the judgment accuracy or the performance of the external object position judger is relatively low, it is still possible to estimate the external object as the railroad crossing barrier.).
Sasabuchi discloses controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the status of the target barrier gate crossbar (see at least Sasabuchi [0009] [0011] and Figure 4, estimate whether or not there is a front barrier bar that is being lowered or has been lowered (S3 and S4)), but does not explicitly disclose controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate when the one of the open state or the close of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the ascending state or the static state.
Matsunaga teaches determining the status of the target battier gate crossbar, wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state and controlling the vehicle to pass through the target barrier gate when the one of the open state or the close of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the ascending state or the static state (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3, and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6. On the other hand, in the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage capable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: NO), the process transitions to step S8..”); see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 elements S6 and S11 and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134” and [0056] “ Upon transitioning from any one of step S3, step S4, or step S10 to step S11, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines that the forward movement limit should not be executed. In this case, the host vehicle 10 continues to proceed forward.” Thus, in Matsunaga, the forward movement is acceptable when gate is open (higher than a predetermined height) or when the gate is ascending (moving upward), thus, Matsunaga teaches that that the forward movement is acceptable when the gate is open (higher than a predetermined height) and when the gate is ascending (moving upward). See Figure 3. Matsunaga teaches determining a “passage incapable state” when the gate is located at a position lower than a predetermine height (static state) or moving downward (descending state) and further teaches that when in the passage incapable state, the process flows to step S6, wherein the forward movement is limited. However, Matsunaga also teaches a “passage capable state” when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state) and further teaches when in the passage capable state the process flows to S11, wherein the vehicle moves forward (forward movement not limited). Thus, Matsunaga teaches when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state), the vehicle is controlled to be moved forward and pass through the target barrier gate crossbar, as claimed. Matsunaga determines a “passage incapable state” when the gate is located at a position lower than a predetermine height (static state) or moving downward (descending state) and a “passage capable state” when the gate is located at a position higher than the predetermined height (a static state) or is moving upward (ascending state). Thus, Matsunaga teaches “determining a status of the target barrier gate crossbar … wherein the status of the target barrier gate crossbar further comprises a motion state comprising an ascending state, a descending state, or a static state”, as claimed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasabuchi with the teaching of Matsunaga, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Matsunaga teaches, when the railroad is in a passage incapable state forward movement should be limited until the railroad becomes “passage capable” in order to avoid collisions and further that the vehicle should be controlled have forward movement when the railroad is “passage capable” so as to prevent unnecessary stopping.
The examiner notes that Matsunaga further teaches the determining an orientation of the target barrier gate crossbar as cited above.
While Sasabuchi teaches determining both the open and close state and further determining a motion state (see at least Sasabuchi [0008-0011] and [0086-088]) and Matsunaga teaches controlling the forward movement when the gate is in the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward (see at least Matsunaga [0050]). The examiner maintains that the combination of Matsunaga and Sasabuchi teach that both the state of the gate (e.g. whether it is open or closed and the motion of the gate) is determined and used for performing the controlling. For example, in Matsunaga, the forward movement is acceptable when gate is open (higher than a predetermined height) or when the gate is ascending (moving upward), thus, Matsunaga teaches that the forward movement is acceptable when the gate is open (higher than a predetermined height) and when the gate is ascending (moving upward).
However, to further compact prosecution the examiner has provided Barta that explicitly teaches using both the open or close state and the motion state (see at least Barta [0006] “In a further embodiment of the driver assistance system, the sensor is capable of detecting the state of a railway barrier, in particular the state whether it is open or closed and/or is in an opening or closing state. This has the advantage that the detection of the railroad crossing can take place on the basis of the state of the barrier and a possible warning or influencing of the vehicle longitudinal dynamics can take place on the basis of this state.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga with Barta to consider both the open or close state and the motion state, because as Barta teaches this allows for more gradual stopping when the gate is closed or closing and prevents unnecessary stops when the guardrail is open or opening (see Barta [0010] [0023] and [0029])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the close state, controlling the vehicle to stop (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6.” and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the descending state, controlling the vehicle to stop (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6.” and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
when the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the close state, and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is a descending state, a static state, or an ascending state, controlling the vehicle to stop (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward… In the case that the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes a passage incapable state of the railroad crossing 140 (step S5: YES), the process transitions to step S6.” and [0051] “Upon transitioning from step S5 to step S6, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 determines to execute, as the forward movement limit, a stop control to stop the host vehicle 10. At this time, the forward movement limit determination unit 82 sets a stop position 136, which is separated by a third predetermined distance d3 on an opposite direction side of the travel direction 106 from the intersecting position 130 or the entry position 134”).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that Sasabuchi teaches an apparatus for passing through a barrier gate crossbar by a vehicle including a processor and a memory for storing instructions (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 1, ECU 20 and [0042-0044] “As shown in FIG. 1, the ECU 20 includes hardware devices, including an input/output unit 70, a processor 72, and a memory 74. According to the first embodiment, the processor 72 controls the brake mechanism 16 and the warning device 18 in order to perform various functions based on programs stored in the memory 74…. “) Further, Sasabuchi teaches a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, executed by a processor (see at least Sasabuchi Figure 1, ECU 20 and [0042-0044] “As shown in FIG. 1, the ECU 20 includes hardware devices, including an input/output unit 70, a processor 72, and a memory 74. According to the first embodiment, the processor 72 controls the brake mechanism 16 and the warning device 18 in order to perform various functions based on programs stored in the memory 74…. As shown in FIG. 1, the various functions include a periphery monitoring function 80, an antilock brake system function 82 (hereinafter referred to as an "ABS function 82"), a traction control function 84, a lateral skidding prevention function 86, an avoidance action assistance function (part of an avoidance controller) 88, and an emergency brake function (part of the avoidance controller) 90….The periphery monitoring function 80 is a function to monitor the periphery of the vehicle 10 based on output signals from the forward radar 30 and the rearward radar 32. The periphery monitoring function 80 also includes a railroad crossing barrier estimating function (railroad crossing barrier estimator) 92. The railroad crossing barrier estimating function 92 estimates the presence of railroad crossing barriers 110a, 110b, 110c, 100d (see FIG. 3).”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining the pose of the target barrier gate crossbar based on a pre-configured road map (see at least Sasabuchi [0149] “ In each of the above embodiments, the position of the railroad crossing 100 is estimated using map information from the navigation system 14. However, map information from the navigation system 14 need not necessarily be used for detecting the barrier bars 120. Alternatively, the position of the railroad crossing 100 may be estimated based on map information (route information) from light beacons, not shown, which are installed alongside the vehicle road 102, rather than based on map information from the navigation system 14. Further, alternatively, the position of the railroad crossing 100 may be estimated based on map information that is acquired from an external source, e.g., an external server, a peripheral vehicle 112, or the like, through a communication unit (not shown) installed in the vehicle 10, 10A.” See also [0075] [0077] and [0113] “According to the first embodiment, furthermore, the vehicle 10, which is positioned in front of the railroad crossing 100 or in the railroad crossing 100, is detected based on behavior exhibited by the vehicle 10 when the vehicle 10 moves through the railroad crossing 100 (see steps S11 through S13, S15, S16 in FIG. 5), or based on map information from the navigation systeml4 (see step S19). Therefore, the accuracy with which the railroad crossing barrier 110 can be determined is increased. In addition, it still is possible to estimate the presence of the railroad crossing barrier 110 even when the barrier bar 120 is being lowered.”))
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 8, above.
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi, Matsunaga, and Barta in view Mielenz (DE-102013226599-A1, hereinafter “Mielenz”. Mielenz was provided in the IDS, however the citations correspond to the machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach the method according to claim 1, including wherein the determining the status of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the data of the target barrier gate crossbar, however, the combination of Sasabuchi and Matsunaga do not explicitly disclose:
determining an angle of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the information of the target barrier gate crossbar, wherein the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is an included angle between the target barrier gate crossbar and a reference straight line; and
determining the one of the open state or the close state and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar.
Mielenz discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the status of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the data of the target barrier gate crossbar comprises:
determining an angle of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the data of the target barrier gate crossbar, wherein the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is an included angle between the target barrier gate crossbar and a reference straight line (see at least Mielenz, Figure 3 [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary, and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” And [0026] “In step S5, it is checked whether an automatically triggered and executed braking of the vehicle 3 to a standstill is necessary. This is the case, for example, if the detected traffic light changes from green to yellow to red or if a pedestrian crosses the detected zebra crossing or is about to enter the zebra crossing. 445 In the case of a barriered level crossing provided as a traffic infrastructure component, it is checked whether the barrier boom is horizontally oriented and forces vehicle 3 to brake or whether the barrier is open.” The examiner notes that the “checking” of Mielenz corresponds to determining and “horizontally” and “vertically” correspond to angles) ; and
determining the one of the open state or the close state and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar (see at least Mielenz, Figure 3 [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary, and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” And [0026] “In step S5, it is checked whether an automatically triggered and executed braking of the vehicle 3 to a standstill is necessary. This is the case, for example, if the detected traffic light changes from green to yellow to red or if a pedestrian crosses the detected zebra crossing or is about to enter the zebra crossing. 445 In the case of a barriered level crossing provided as a traffic infrastructure component, it is checked whether the barrier boom is horizontally oriented and forces vehicle 3 to brake or whether the barrier is open.” The examiner notes that the “checking” of Mielenz corresponds to determining and “horizontally” and “vertically” correspond to angles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga and Barta with the teaching of Mielenz, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Mielenz teaches there are some situations that the detection of a railway crossing does not require breaking to a standstill, however, the angle of the barrier bar determines if braking is necessary, and thus provides safety to the vehicle occupants (see at least Mielenz [0012]) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga Barta, and Mielenz teach the method according to claim 5, including determining the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar and the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar comprises:
when the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is greater than a first preset angle, determining that the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the open state (Mielenz, teaches in Figure 3 and [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary,…” and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” Thus, Mielenz teaches determining if the angle is greater than a first preset angle (e.g. 89 degrees), then the crossing is open. The examiner notes that a computer system of Mielenz must have a preprogrammed minimum and maximum angle or angle range to determine to satisfy the condition that the bar has been determined to be one of vertical and horizontal);
when the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is less than a second preset angle, determining that the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is the close state, wherein the second preset angle is less than the first preset angle (Mielenz teaches in Figure 3 and [0012] “In the case of a barriered level crossing, it can be assumed that if the barrier bar is aligned vertically, the level crossing is open, so that braking to a standstill is not necessary, and in the case of a horizontally aligned barrier bar and a possible red flashing light, the vehicle must be braked.” And [0026] “In step S5, it is checked whether an automatically triggered and executed braking of the vehicle 3 to a standstill is necessary…In the case of a barriered level crossing provided as a traffic infrastructure component, it is checked whether the barrier boom is horizontally oriented and forces vehicle 3 to brake or whether the barrier is open.” Thus, Mielenz teaches determining if the angle is less than a second present (e.g. 1 degrees), then the crossing is closed, wherein the second preset angle is less than a first preset angle. The examiner notes that a computer system of Mielenz must have a preprogrammed minimum and maximum angle or angle range to determine to satisfy the condition that the bar has been determined to be one of vertical and horizontal)
and when the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is less than or equal to the first preset angle, and the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is greater than or equal to the second preset angle, determining that the one of the open state or the close state of the target barrier gate crossbar is an open state or close state of the target barrier gate crossbar determined at a previous moment (see at least Matsunaga, Figure 3 and Fig. 4 and [0050] “Upon transitioning from step S4 to step S5, the road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the state of the railroad crossing 140. The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward. The state of the railroad crossing 140 may be recognized based on the presence or absence of lights or the presence or absence of sounds of a railroad crossing alarm. Alternatively, the state of the railroad crossing 140 may be recognized on the basis of railroad crossing information acquired by the second communication device 36.” The examiner notes that while Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach determining the height, one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the angle from the height and using basic trigonometry. Further, Matsunaga teaches if the blocking rod is at a position lower than a predetermined height (i.e. lower than first preset angle) or moving downward, it determines that the gate is the passage incapable state (i.e. closed) and thus it uses the previous state (e.g. closed) See also Sasabuchi Figure 6 and 7 and accompanying description [0079-0085]) .
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga Barta, and Mielenz teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the determining the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the angle of the target barrier gate crossbar comprises:
when an ith angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is greater than an (i-1)th angle of the target barrier gate crossbar, determining that the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is ascending (see at least Matsunaga [0049] “The road environment recognition unit 62 may recognize the presence or absence and the position of the railroad crossing 140 by identifying a railroad crossing gate 142 or railroad tracks 146 based on the image information from the cameras 28,” and [0050] “The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward.” The examiner notes that both Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teaches using a camera to recognize the position of the gate by using images and further discloses determining the movement of the gate based on those images. Camera images are collected over time, and thus the movement is determined from the change in position from one frame to another frame. While Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach determining the height, the combination of Sasabuchi, Matsunaga and Mielenz teach determining the angle (see Mielenz [0012] [0056]) and one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the angle from the height of the crossing bar in relation to a reference line using basic trigonometry.); and
when the ith angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is less than the (i-1)th angle of the target barrier gate crossbar, determining that the motion state of the target barrier gate crossbar is descending, wherein the ih angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is determined based on the target barrier gate crossbar in an ith frame of image, the (i-1)th angle of the target barrier gate crossbar is determined based on the target barrier gate crossbar in an (i-1)th frame of image, and the ith frame of image is adjacent to the (i-1)th frame of image (see at least Matsunaga [0049] “The road environment recognition unit 62 may recognize the presence or absence and the position of the railroad crossing 140 by identifying a railroad crossing gate 142 or railroad tracks 146 based on the image information from the cameras 28,” and [0050] “The road environment recognition unit 62 recognizes the passage incapable state in the case that a gate 144 made up of a blocking rod or the like is located at a position lower than a predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving downward, and recognizes the passage capable state in the case that the gate 144 is located at a position higher than the predetermined height, or in the case that the gate 144 is moving upward.” The examiner notes that both Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach using a camera to recognize the position of the gate by using images and further discloses determining the movement of the gate based on those images. Camera images are collected over time and thus the movement is determined from the change in position from one frame to another frame. While Sasabuchi and Matsunaga teach determining the height, the combination of Sasabuchi Matsunaga and Mielenz teach determining the angle (see Mielenz [0012] [0056]) and one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the angle from the height of the crossing bar in relation to a reference line using basic trigonometry.).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 6, above.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 7, above.
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 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,849 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by, or would have been obvious over the reference claim. For example, the examiner notes that claim 1 of the instant application is broader than claim 1 of the reference patent as the instant application recites “one or more barrier gat crossbars” as compared to the recitation of “a plurality of barrier gate crossbars” recited by the reference application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Naik et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0210451) teaches determining the coordinates of an obstruction using the Euclidean distance (see at least [0023-0024] and [0035-0036], but does not explicitly teach:
determining first coordinates of the one or more barrier gate crossbars based on the data of the one or more barrier gate crossbars;
determining coordinates of the target barrier gate crossbar based on the pose of the target barrier gate crossbar, wherein the first coordinates of the one or more barrier gate crossbars and the coordinates of the target barrier gate crossbar are coordinates in a two-dimensional coordinate system, or the first coordinates of the one or more barrier gate crossbars and the coordinates of the target barrier gate crossbar are coordinates in a three-dimensional coordinate system;
determining one or more Euclidean distances based on the first coordinates of the one or more barrier gate crossbars and the coordinates of the target barrier gate crossbar; and
determining data of a barrier gate crossbar corresponding to a smallest Euclidean distance in the one or more Euclidean distances as the data of the target barrier gate crossbar.
Specifically, the examiner notes that while the process of determining the smallest Euclidean distance is known for determining an object, it is not obvious to determine the target barrier gate based on the process as claimed. Further, the examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either in the known prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known elements to render the claimed invention without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20190048639-A1 to Lickfelt is cited for teaching determining the state of the barrier and controlling the vehicle upon determining that the moving path of the barrier is clear (see at least Figure 7, [0090]).
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.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights