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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Double Patenting
The following claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected over claims 2, 5, 16, 18, and 19 of copending application no. 19/306381.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are provisionally rejected over claims 1, 10, 11, and 14 of copending application no. 19/306796.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected over claim 11 of copending application no. 19/306786.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are provisionally rejected over claims 1, 18, and 20 of copending application no. 19/306732.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 16-19 are provisionally rejected over claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 20 of copending application no. 19/306088.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are provisionally rejected over claims 1, 6, 16, 17, and 20 of copending application no. 19/306455.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application cover substantially the same scope as the copending application claims and are, thus, not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is taken as the representative claim. Claim 1 is directed to evaluating a threat level based on vision data, which is a mental process that can be performed within the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the blocker vehicle, vision system, and transmitting an alert signal are extra-solution activities generally coupled to the abstract idea. The blocker vehicle is merely there with no tie to the abstract idea other than a possible intended location of the transmitted signal. The vision system is a generic computer component recited at a high-level performing well-known and expected operations of the component. The vision system is merely the source of the information for the abstract idea. Transmitting an alert signal is merely transmitting information, which does not amount to significantly more as discussed in at least MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are extra-solution activity as discussed above.
Claim(s) 2-16 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. The dependent claims do not add any additional elements that provide a practical application or significantly more. For example, claims 2-4 merely define the type of information transmitted, claim 5 defines the intended recipient(s) of the transmitted signal, claims 6-9 further define the abstract idea (i.e., the evaluation), claim 10 describes an abstract idea (monitoring and detecting) and displaying a result, claims 11-14 describe devices, which aren’t adequately tied to the abstract idea and are extra-solution activity, and claims 15-16 define where information comes from for the abstract idea and further defines the abstract idea.
Similar to claims 1-16, claims 17-20 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving and evaluating information. The additional elements, for example the sensors and transmitting information, are extra-solution activity and do not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0304028 to Hathaway et al.
As per claim 1, Hathaway discloses a vehicle system (Hathaway; At least the abstract) comprising:
a blocker vehicle including an alert system (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32);
a vision system including at least one of a camera, a lidar sensor, or a radar sensor, the vision system configured to acquire vision data regarding an approaching vehicle approaching the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32); and
one or more processing circuits (Hathaway; At least claim 1) configured to:
evaluate a threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the vision data (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55); and
transmit an alert signal to at least one of the alert system, the approaching vehicle, or a portable device worn or carried by a person associated with the blocker vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a threat threshold (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55).
As per claim 2, Hathaway discloses wherein the alert signal is configured to activate or cause a change to the alert system (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55).
As per claim 3, Hathaway discloses wherein the alert signal is configured to activate or cause a change to the portable device (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55).
As per claim 4, Hathaway discloses wherein the alert signal is configured to at least one of (i) cause an operator interface of the approaching vehicle to provide an indication regarding the blocker vehicle to an operator of the approaching vehicle or (ii) cause an operation system of the approaching vehicle to limit or adjust operation of the approaching vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32).
As per claim 5, Hathaway discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the alert signal to at least two of the alert system, the approaching vehicle, or the portable device (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55).
As per claim 6, Hathaway discloses wherein, to evaluate the threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the vision data, the one or more processing circuits are configured to: calculate a value related to a probability of a threat condition based on a past trajectory of the approaching vehicle; compare the past trajectory to a plurality of vehicle trajectories, the plurality of vehicle trajectories collected at a scene at which the blocker vehicle is located; and adjust the value based on the comparison to generate an adjusted value indicative of the threat level (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 52 and 59).
As per claim 7, Hathaway discloses further comprising a plurality of portable devices including the portable device, wherein the blocker vehicle is configured to be positioned proximate a scene between the approaching vehicle and the scene (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55 and figure 2), and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
determine the threat level associated with the approaching vehicle and a vulnerable area of the scene (Hathaway; At least 56);
monitor locations of the plurality of portable devices at the scene (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 56); and
transmit the alert signal to a subset of the plurality of portable devices located within the vulnerable area of the scene to provide an indication when the threat level to the vulnerable area exceeds the threat threshold (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 56).
As per claim 8, Hathaway discloses wherein, to evaluate the threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the vision data, the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
determine a restricted zone proximate a location of the blocker vehicle, wherein the blocker vehicle is inside the restricted zone (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 56); and
calculate a value related to a probability of the approaching vehicle entering the restricted zone, the value indicative of the threat level (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 52 and 56).
As per claim 9, Hathaway discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to determine the restricted zone by at least one of detecting markers at the location, detecting people at the location, receiving a user indication of the restricted zone from a user interface, or applying a predefined zone defined relative to the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29).
As per claim 12, Hathaway discloses wherein the vision data is first vision data, wherein the vision system includes:
a vehicle module located on the blocker vehicle, the vehicle module configured to acquire the first vision data proximate the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29 and 32); and
a deployable module selectively deployable from the blocker vehicle and configured to acquire second vision data upstream of the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29 and 32).
As per claim 14, Hathaway discloses the deployable module includes a base or stand to facilitate setting up the deployable module upstream of the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29 and 57, and figure 6b).
As per claim 20, Hathaway discloses a vehicle system (Hathaway; At least the abstract) comprising:
a blocker vehicle configured to be parked proximate a scene, the blocker vehicle including an alert system (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32);
a plurality of portable devices configured to be worn or carried by personnel associated with the scene (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55);
a vision system configured to acquire vision data regarding an approaching vehicle approaching the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32), the vision system including:
a first vision module coupled to the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55); and
a second vision module selectively deployable from the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29 and 32); and
one or more processing circuits configured to:
evaluate a threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the vision data (Hathaway; At least 55); and
transmit an alert signal to at least two of the alert system, the approaching vehicle, or at least a subset of the plurality of portable devices in response to the threat level exceeding a threat threshold (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hathaway in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0172545 to Szabo et al.
As per claim 10, Hathaway discloses a sensor on a blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the blocker vehicle includes at least one sensor configured to facilitate (i) monitoring an area in front of the blocker vehicle as the blocker vehicle is responding to a scene and (ii) detecting an object in the area in front of the blocker vehicle that is imperceptible to an operator of the blocker vehicle because of severe visibility-impairing weather conditions or smoke, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to generate a graphical representation of the area and the object for display to the operator based on sensor data acquired by the at least one sensor to facilitate operation of the blocker vehicle by the operator through the severe visibility-impairing weather conditions or smoke.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Szabo (Szabo; At least paragraph(s) 243, 244, and 266). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Szabo into the invention of Hathaway with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Detecting and displaying objects allows easier recognition of objects to improve usability and enhance situational awareness, as discussed in at least these paragraph(s) and paragraph(s) 10.
As per claim 11, Hathaway discloses a vision system on a blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vision system is rotatably coupled to the blocker vehicle so that a field of view of the vision system is selectively rotatable between an initial position where the field of view is misaligned with a road on which the blocker vehicle is located and an aligned position where the field of view is aligned with the road.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Szabo (Szabo; At least paragraph(s) 266, 273, 279, and 280). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Szabo into the invention of Hathaway with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Allowing the vision system to rotate allows the user to focus the system in the appropriate direction regardless of the orientation of the vehicle. This would allow the system to work in the optimal manner without constraints of, for example, maneuvering the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hathaway in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0046795 to Boyle.
As per claim 13, Hathaway discloses that the vision system (vicinity monitoring units) can be installed on stationary units, transportable unit, or mounted on vehicles (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29), but does not explicitly disclose the deployable module is a drone.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 10 and 22). Boyle teaches a driverless traffic management vehicle, which can be a drone, for detecting approaching vehicles to a work site (Hathaway; At least the abstract). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Boyle into the invention of Hathaway with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using a drone would provide more options for positioning the vision system without the risk of getting in the way or damage from oncoming vehicles. Further, substituting one type of vehicle for another is well-known and obvious to one in the art.
As per claim 15, Hathaway discloses multiple vision system working together (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32), but does not explicitly disclose determine a preliminary threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the second vision data; and transmit a pre-alert signal to at least one of the alert system, the approaching vehicle, or the portable device in response to the preliminary threat level exceeding a preliminary threat threshold.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 9, 12, 25, and 34). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Boyle into the invention of Hathaway with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining a preliminary threat level would allow the system and people to better understand the situation and prepare. Sending the preliminary alert to the system would allow the system to watch the vehicle for further danger (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 25). Sending the preliminary alert to a worker would allow them to prepare to act so they are not caught off guard when immediate danger is eminent (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 34). This provides a safer and more user-friendly system.
As per claim 16, Hathaway discloses multiple vision system working together (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32), but does not explicitly disclose acquire second vision data from a roadway camera upstream of the blocker vehicle and separate from the vehicle system; determine a preliminary threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the second vision data; and transmit a pre-alert signal to at least one of the alert system, the approaching vehicle, or the portable device in response to the preliminary threat level exceeding a preliminary threat threshold.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 9, 12, 25, and 34). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Boyle into the invention of Hathaway with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining a preliminary threat level would allow the system and people to better understand the situation and prepare. Sending the preliminary alert to the system would allow the system to watch the vehicle for further danger (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 25). Sending the preliminary alert to a worker would allow them to prepare to act so they are not caught off guard when immediate danger is eminent (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 34). This provides a safer and more user-friendly system.
As per claim 17, Hathaway discloses a vehicle system (Hathaway; At least the abstract) comprising:
one or more processing circuits (Hathaway; At least claim 1) configured to:
acquire first vision data from a first vision device positioned upstream of a blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29, 32, and 34, and figure 4; multiple vision system can be deployed, such as near a flagger, which can be outside the view of other vision systems, as seen in figure 4);
acquire second vision data from a second vision device positioned on the blocker vehicle, wherein the first vision device is positioned outside of a vision range of the second vision device (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29, 32, and 34);
transmit an alert signal to at least one of an alert system of the blocker vehicle, the approaching vehicle, or a portable device worn or carried by a person associated with the blocker vehicle in response to at least one of the preliminary threat level or the final threat level exceeding a threat threshold (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32 and 55).
Hathaway discloses a worksite monitoring system with multiple vision systems that can evaluate threats and send alerts to an oncoming vehicle, nearby workers, a base station, etc., but does not explicitly disclose evaluate a preliminary threat level of an approaching vehicle based on the first vision data; evaluate a final threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the second vision data;
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 9, 12, 25, and 34). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Boyle into the invention of Hathaway with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining a preliminary threat level would allow the system and people to better understand the situation and prepare. Sending the preliminary alert to the system would allow the system to watch the vehicle for further danger (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 25). Sending the preliminary alert to a worker would allow them to prepare to act so they are not caught off guard when immediate danger is eminent (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 34). This provides a safer and more user-friendly system.
As per claim 18, Hathaway discloses wherein the first vision device includes at least one of (a) a roadway camera separate from the vehicle system, (b) a drone deployable from the blocker vehicle, or (c) a deployable module including a base or stand to facilitate setting up the deployable module upstream of the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 29, 32, and 34).
As per claim 19, Hathaway discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits include at least one of (a) a first processing circuit configured to be located on the blocker vehicle or (b) a second processing circuit configured to be located remote from the blocker vehicle (Hathaway; At least paragraph(s) 32, 52, and claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:30pm ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights