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.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should read “a blocker vehicle configured to be positioned upstream”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 19/306763 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover the same scope.
19/306796 Instant Application
19/306763 Reference Application
one or more sensors configured to acquire vision data related to objects at the scene
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;
one or more processing circuits configured to
one or more processing circuits configured to:
generate a restricted zone at the scene comprising the blocker vehicle, the restricted zone based on a position of one or more objects represented within the vision data, wherein the one or more objects comprise at least one of scene markers, lane markers, or personnel at the scene;
determine a restricted zone proximate a location of the blocker vehicle, wherein the blocker vehicle is inside the restricted zone; 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.
determine a threat score related to a likelihood of an approaching vehicle detected by the one or more sensors entering the restricted zone
evaluate a threat level of the approaching vehicle based on the vision data
responsive to the threat score exceeding a threshold, transmit an alert signal configured to at least one of activate an alert system associated with the blocker vehicle, activate a collision avoidance system of the approaching vehicle, or activate a threat mitigation system of the blocker vehicle.
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
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 generating a restricted zone and determining a threat score. Generating an area and determining if a vehicle is likely to enter that area can be performed within the human mind. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of sensors and processing circuits are generic computer components recited at a high level performing routine and well-known activities. The sensors are merely providing data and are pre-solution activity and the processing circuits are merely computers upon which the abstract idea is intended to be implemented on. The “transmit an alert signal” is merely transmitting data, which is old and well-known, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and is, therefore, extra-solution activity. 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 or generic computer components as discussed above.
Claim(s) 2-13 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. The dependent claims merely add details about the mental process or the extra-solution activities and do not provide a practical application or significantly more. Claims 2-5, 12, and 13 merely define the shape of the boundary, claim 6 merely transmit additional data, claim 7-9 merely further disclose the mental process, claim 10 merely defines the type of sensor used to collect data, and claim 11 merely describes the intended recipient of the transmitted data.
Similar to claims 1-13, claims 14-20 are directed to the mental process of generating a restricted zone and determining a likelihood of a vehicle entering the restricted zone. The additional elements are similar and directed to generic computer components performing routine actions and extra-solution activities.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0292684 to Muthiah.
As per claim 1, Muthiah discloses a collision avoidance system for a blocker vehicle at a scene (Muthiah; At least the abstract and paragraph(s) 77), the collision avoidance system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to acquire vision data related to objects at the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 41); and
one or more processing circuits (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 44) configured to:
generate a restricted zone at the scene comprising the blocker vehicle, the restricted zone based on a position of one or more objects represented within the vision data, wherein the one or more objects comprise at least one of scene markers, lane markers, or personnel at the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 102, 103, 105, and 123);
determine a threat score related to a likelihood of an approaching vehicle detected by the one or more sensors entering the restricted zone (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10, 13, 44, 46, and 124; and
responsive to the threat score exceeding a threshold, transmit an alert signal configured to at least one of activate an alert system associated with the blocker vehicle, activate a collision avoidance system of the approaching vehicle, or activate a threat mitigation system of the blocker vehicle (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10, 13, and 45).
As per claim 3, Muthiah discloses wherein a boundary of the restricted zone is generated by fitting a predetermined class of shape to the position of the one or more objects (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105).
As per claim 4, Muthiah discloses wherein a boundary of the restricted zone is generated by determining an instance of a predetermined class of shape that encompasses the position of the one or more objects (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105).
As per claim 5, Muthiah discloses wherein a boundary of the restricted zone comprises the position of the one or more objects and a buffer area centered on the personnel at the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 25 and 105).
As per claim 6, Muthiah discloses wherein the alert signal is a first alert signal, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit a second alert signal to a device worn or carried by a person associated with the scene responsive to detecting the person is within a threshold distance from a boundary of the restricted zone (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 45).
As per claim 7, Muthiah discloses wherein the threat score is based upon a plurality of past positions of the approaching vehicle acquired by the one or more sensors (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10, 43, 44, and 53).
As per claim 8, Muthiah discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to predict a future trajectory of the approaching vehicle based on the plurality of past positions, and wherein the threat score is based on the future trajectory (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 53, 121, and 124).
As per claim 9, Muthiah discloses wherein: the one or more processing circuits are configured to determine one or more past trajectories of other vehicles that have approached the scene using the vision data from the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more past trajectories represent unthreatening conditions for the scene; and the threat score is based on the one or more past trajectories (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 120-124).
As per claim 10, Muthiah discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a camera, a radar, or a LIDAR (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 47-52).
As per claim 11, Muthiah discloses wherein responsive to the threat score exceeding the threshold, the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the alert signal configured to activate the alert system, and wherein the alert system includes: a siren, a speaker, or a horn of the blocker vehicle; a light system of the blocker vehicle; or a device worn or carried by the personnel at the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 45).
As per claim 12, Muthiah discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to adjust the restricted zone based on an interaction with one or more user interface elements representing a boundary of the restricted zone presented overlaid on an overhead view of the scene in a user interface (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 103-105 and 206-209).
As per claim 14, Muthiah discloses a collision avoidance system for a blocker vehicle at a scene (Muthiah; At least the abstract and paragraph(s) 77), the collision avoidance system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to acquire sensor data comprising positions of objects at the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 41); and
one or more processing circuits (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 44) configured to:
generate an initial restricted zone at the scene comprising the blocker vehicle (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 102, 105, and 209);
generate a current restricted zone by adjusting the initial restricted zone based on at least one of: a position of one or more objects represented within the sensor data, wherein the one or more objects comprise at least one of scene markers, lane markers, or personnel at the scene; or a user interaction with one or more user interface elements representing a boundary of the initial restricted zone and presented in a user interface (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 102, 105, and 209);
determine a threat score related to a likelihood of an approaching vehicle detected by the one or more sensors entering the current restricted zone (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10, 13, 44, 46, and 124); and
responsive to the threat score exceeding a threshold, transmit an alert signal configured to at least one of activate an alert system associated with the blocker vehicle, activate a collision avoidance system of the approaching vehicle, or activate a threat mitigation system of the blocker vehicle (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10, 13, and 45).
As per claim 15, Muthiah discloses wherein the user interface comprises an overhead view of the scene with the boundary of the current restricted zone overlaid on the overhead view (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 77, 102-104, 146, and 206-209).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthiah in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0065530 to Fairweather et al.
As per claim 2, Muthiah discloses defining restricted zones around a scene or personnel (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 102-105), which can be drawn and, thus, any shape, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a boundary of the restricted zone is generated by determining a convex shape that encompasses the blocker vehicle and the one or more objects.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fairweather (Fairweather; At least figure 3A; at least the portion of the restricted zone defined by 152 is convex). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fairweather into the invention of Muthiah with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Any shape could be used and changing the shape would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art without changing the functioning of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthiah in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0046795 to Boyle.
As per claim 13, Muthiah discloses updating the restricted zone based on the locations of personnel at the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to continually update the restricted zone based on positions of one or more devices worn or carried by the personnel at the scene.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 6). 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 Muthiah 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 the position of device carried by the personnel would provide additional information about the location of the personnel to provide better accuracy of the location and ensure the person’s safety.
As per claim 16, Muthiah discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: generate one or more nodes corresponding to the one or more objects (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105); and
generate, in the user interface, the boundary of the current restricted zone comprising a plurality of nodes including the one or more nodes (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105) and
Muthiah does not explicitly disclose lines or curves connecting the plurality of nodes.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least figures 1-3). 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 Muthiah with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. It would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art to change the shape of the restricted zone. Using a larger restricted zone instead of individual zones to encompass the personnel could use less computational power and may be safer by, for example, by not letting vehicles drive between the personnel.
As per claim 17, Muthiah discloses wherein the current restricted zone is generated based on a drag and drop interaction with a node of the plurality of nodes in the user interface (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105).
As per claim 18, Muthiah discloses continually updating the restricted zone based on positions of personnel at the scene, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to continually update the current restricted zone based on positions of one or more devices worn or carried by the personnel at the scene.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 6). 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 Muthiah 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 the position of device carried by the personnel would provide additional information about the location of the personnel to provide better accuracy of the location and ensure the person’s safety.
As per claim 19, Muthiah discloses determining the restricted zone based on identifying lane (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 164, 165, and 209) and tracking vehicles (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 120 and 121), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to update the current restricted zone based on a plurality of past trajectories of other vehicles approaching the scene, wherein the plurality of past trajectories represent unthreatening conditions for the scene.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 26). 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 Muthiah 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 the past trajectories of other vehicles provides a better understanding of the scene, especially one that doesn’t follow normal lane lines, allowing the system to provide better responses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthiah in view of Boyle and Fairweather.
As per claim 20, Muthiah discloses a vehicle system (Muthiah; At least the abstract) comprising:
a blocker vehicle configured to positioned upstream a flow of traffic from a scene, the blocker vehicle comprising an alert system (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10 and 77);
one or more portable devices configured to be worn or carried by personnel associated with the scene (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 45);
one or more processing circuits (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 44) configured to:
generate a restricted zone at the scene, a boundary of the restricted zone based on and the blocker vehicle (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 103); and
responsive to predicting entry into the restricted zone by an approaching vehicle, transmit an alert signal configured to activate the alert system and activate the one or more portable devices (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 10, 13, and 45).
Muthiah discloses generating the restricted zone based on the locations of the personnel (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 105), but does not explicitly disclose generating the restricted zone based on positions of the one or more portable devices.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Boyle (Boyle; At least paragraph(s) 6). 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 Muthiah 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 the position of device carried by the personnel would provide additional information about the location of the personnel to provide better accuracy of the location and ensure the person’s safety.
Muthiah discloses multiple detectors defining the restricted zone (Muthiah; At least paragraph(s) 75 and 77, and figure 3), but does explicitly disclose one or more scene markers configured to be positioned proximate the scene; and [generate a restricted zone at the scene based on] positions of the one or more scene markers,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fairweather (Fairweather; At least paragraph(s) 23 and figure 3A). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fairweather into the invention of Muthiah 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 scene markers and generating the restricted zone based on the scene markers would provide a better definition of the scene, such that entire scene is covered by the zone to ensure personnel safety without getting false positives.
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