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 .
Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn in response to the amendment.
Claims 18, 19, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290815 A1 (“Tang”). The Applicant’s traversal of the rejection has been considered, but it does not persuade the Examiner to withdraw the rejection.
The Applicant contends that, because Tang discloses real-time road condition information, it cannot anticipate the “previously collected road surface information” that the amendment adds to the claim. The Examiner disagrees.
Respectfully, the Applicant misunderstands what Tang means by “real-time.” In Tang’s disclosure “real-time” is not necessarily a description of the age of the data about the road’s current condition. Rather, “real-time” refers to the timing of when the vehicle receives the data about the road’s conditions, including data that was previously collected by a third party:
The real-time road condition information . . . may be collected through a third-party public service platform or may be manually input to the third-party service platform by a traffic administration staff. Thus the terminal may obtain the real-time road condition information by establishing a connection with the third-party public service platform and synchronizing data from the third-party public service platform in real time.
(Tang ¶ 31).
Since Tang obtains previously collected road data in real time, it continues to anticipate the amended claims.
Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 30 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0052000 A1 (“Larner”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0339927 A1 (“Kelly”). The Applicant’s traversal of the rejection has been considered, but it does not persuade the Examiner to withdraw the rejection.
The Examiner and Applicant both agree that Larner does not teach the transfer function, and further agree that Kelly’s disclosure “concerns using suspension-related sensor measurements to characterize the terrain or road roughness,” but the Applicant argues that “sensor measurements of roughness do not inherently or expressly disclose vehicle-specific information about a transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle as that phrase is known in the art and described in the current specification,” because a transfer function of the suspension system “would allow the vehicle's response to be determined or estimated as an output based on road inputs.” (Response 9). The Examiner does not necessarily disagree with the Applicant’s characterization of the transfer function, but respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s understanding of the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 1 does not require receiving a suspension system’s transfer function per se, it merely requires receiving “information about” such a function.
Kelly teaches a “road roughness module 24” that performs the same broadly recited calculation as the claimed “transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle,” because it takes, as inputs, data from “the air suspension sensors (the ride height sensors)” and “wheel articulation data” from “suspension stroke transducers, such as continuously variable damping (CVD) sensors,” and uses that input data to translate how rough the road is on this particular vehicle.
Roughness output signal 26 falls within the scope of information about a transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle because it is the direct output of the road roughness module 24, which corresponds to the claimed transfer function.
The Examiner acknowledges that the specification contains a significant amount of detail about the transfer function, e.g., on pages 7–8 of the disclosure, that are distinguishable from the prior art. Those details, however, are not yet claimed. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“as applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”)
The rejection of claim 30 stands for similar reasons as given above.
Accordingly, since all of the claims stand rejected over the prior art, the Applicant’s request for an allowance (Response 12) is respectfully denied.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on April 29, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
(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.
Claims 18, 19, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290815 A1 (“Tang”).
Claim 18
Tang discloses:
A method of operating a vehicle, the method comprising:
“FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a navigation method according to an exemplary embodiment. The navigation method is applied in a terminal.” Tang ¶ 21.
receiving previously collected road surface information
“In step 102, road condition information is obtained in real time.” Tang ¶ 23. Please note, despite what is shown in FIG. 1, “[t]he order of step 101 and step 102 may be exchanged.” Tang ¶ 23. Furthermore, those reviewing this rejection will take care to observe that “real time” in step 102 does not mean the information about the road condition is itself in “real time.” It simply means that the data about the road surface—including road surface data that was previously collected by a third party—is received in real time. For example, the real-time road condition information “may be collected through a third-party public service platform or may be manually input to the third-party service platform by a traffic administration staff” first, and then “the terminal may obtain the real-time road condition information by establishing a connection with the third-party public service platform and synchronizing data from the third-party public service platform in real time.” Tang ¶ 31.
about at least two routes between a first location and a second location;
“The road condition information may include weather information, maximum load limits on possible drive routes that may be planned for the vehicle, and maximum height limits on the possible drive routes.” Tang ¶ 30.
receiving vehicle-specific information about the vehicle,
“In step 101, status information of one or more tires of a vehicle is obtained.” Tang ¶ 22.
wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information on current wear states of at least one vehicle system;
“In the present embodiment, the status information of the tires of the vehicle may include shape change information.” Tang ¶ 30. “The shape change information may be the height change information or volume change information of the tires of the vehicle, etc.” Tang ¶ 30. Shape change information falls within the broad scope of “current wear states” because tires lose pressure and change shape as they’re used. See Tang ¶ 31. However, even with “current wear states” interpreted more narrowly, Tang further discloses that “a tire wear degree may be obtained” as part of this method. Tang ¶ 38.
receiving information from a user interface;
There are multiple pieces of information received directly from user input, two of which are relevant here. The first piece of information is a “preset navigation strategy,” which Tang discloses “may be configured by the user.” Tang ¶ 32.
The second piece of information received directly from user input may, in some cases, include “tire pressure information of the tires of the vehicle,” which may be “manually input to the preset memory device by the user.” Tang ¶ 31.
selecting a route from among the at least two routes, wherein the selection is based at least partially on the road surface information received about at least two routes, the vehicle-specific information, and the information from the user interface;
“In step 103, a route navigation is performed for the vehicle according to the status information, the road condition information, and a preset navigation strategy.” Tang ¶ 25. More specifically, the terminal plans a route, checks if the route violates the strategy with respect to the status information and the road condition information, and selects a different route if so. See, e.g., Tang ¶¶ 33, 35, 37, and 38.
and traveling along the selected route with the vehicle.
“[T]he navigation may be performed . . . during driving.” Tang ¶ 39.
Claim 19
Tang discloses the method of claim 18,
wherein the user interface is on-board the vehicle.
“In the present disclosure, the terminal may be a handheld terminal,” or “an in-vehicle terminal. For example, the terminal may be a specific in-vehicle navigation device or a navigation module in an in-vehicle system.” Tang ¶ 26.
Claim 29
Tang discloses the method of claim 18
wherein the information received about the at least two routes includes crowd sourced information.
“The real-time road condition information such as the weather information, the maximum load limits on the possible drive routes, and the maximum height limits on the possible drive routes, may be collected through a third-party public service platform or may be manually input to the third-party service platform by a traffic administration staff.” Tang ¶ 31.
Claim 31
Tang discloses the method of claim 18,
wherein the current wear states of vehicle systems includes information selected from the group consisting of information about one or more tires on the vehicle, information about one or more dampers on the vehicle, and information about one or more steering systems on the vehicle.
Information obtained by Tang’s terminal falling within the scope of claim 31 includes the following: (1) “the status information of the tires of the vehicle may include shape change information.” Tang ¶ 30. “The shape change information may be the height change information or volume change information of the tires of the vehicle, etc.” Tang ¶ 30. (2) “a tire wear degree may be obtained” as part of this method. Tang ¶ 38.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
I. Larner and Kelly teach claims 1–6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 30.
Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0052000 A1 (“Larner”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0339927 A1 (“Kelly”).
Claim 1
Larner teaches:
A method of operating a vehicle, the method comprising:
“FIG. 9 is an example flow diagram 900 including a method for operating a vehicle for passenger comfort.” Larner ¶ 78.
receiving road surface information about at least two routes between a first location and a second location;
“For example, at block 910, a set of routes from a start location to an end location may be determined,” Larner ¶ 78, and “[a]t block 920, a total motion sickness value may be determined for each route of the set of routes,” based on “a sway motion sickness value, a surge motion sickness value, and a heave motion sickness value.” Larner ¶ 79.
Each of the foregoing values are based on predicted accelerations in the lateral, fore-aft, and vertical directions, all of which are informed by “[c]haracteristics of roadways from detailed map information 136, such as amount of curves, turns, hills, intersections, stop signs, and traffic lights.” Larner ¶ 66. At a minimum, “curves, turns, hills, and intersections” all fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “road surface anomaly information,” because they each describe characteristics of where a road differs from being perfectly straight.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “road surface information” includes “bumps,” because dependent claim 3 includes “bumps.”1 To that end, Larner’s device explicitly receives and considers information about “vertical accelerations” for each portion of each route as part of its consideration of the motion sickness value. See Larner ¶¶ 68–69.
receiving vehicle-specific information about the vehicle, wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about a
According to the Applicant’ a “transfer function” is a function that models “how a given road input will affect the vehicle and the occupants in terms of comfort and/or in terms of its impact on the vehicle's handling, comfort, durability and/or the durability of one or more components of a vehicle.” (Spec. 7). Larner likewise teaches several functions (730–760) that are used to select a route, which take the vehicle’s predicted accelerations 710–714 as inputs, and output a score 770 representing motion sickness. Larner ¶¶ 69–71.
In addition to the transfer function, it is understood that the Applicant intends for “vehicle-specific information” to further encompass information about the occupants of the vehicle, rather than the vehicle itself—so long as the vehicle-specific information also includes the information about the transfer function now recited in the claim. This interpretation is reasonable because it is explicitly recited in dependent claims 12–16. Furthermore, this additional information also falls within the open-ended “comprising” scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03. Accordingly, to the extent that information about vehicle-occupants is further included in the scope of “vehicle-specific” information, Larner likewise teaches several examples of information about vehicle occupants being received for consideration by the vehicle. Larner ¶¶ 81–82.
selecting a route from among the at least two routes, wherein the selection is based at least partially on the road surface information and the vehicle-specific information;
“At block 930, a first route of the set of routes is selected based on the total motion sickness value of each route of the set of routes. The first route may be selected for being, by way of example, the route with the lowest total motion sickness value, the fastest route with the highest total motion sickness value not exceeding a threshold value, or the shortest route with the lowest total motion sickness value.” Larner ¶ 80.
and traveling along the selected route with the vehicle.
“Then, at block 940, a vehicle may be maneuvered autonomously according to the selected first route.” Larner ¶ 80.
Larner does not appear to explicitly disclose that its functions are “transfer functions of a suspension system of the vehicle.” Kelly, however, teaches a method for calculating the potential roughness of a route using vehicle-specific information, including:
receiving vehicle-specific information about the vehicle, wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about a transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle.
The present application defines a “transfer function” as “knowledge of [the vehicle’s] responses” to “certain road inputs,” and naturally, the transfer function of a suspension system of a vehicle describes the same with respect to the vehicle’s suspension system and/or components. (Spec. p. 7 (first full paragraph)). Interestingly, claim 1 does not require receiving a suspension system’s transfer function per se, it merely requires receiving information about such a function.
Kelly teaches a “road roughness module 24” that performs the same broadly recited calculation as the claimed “transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle,” and further teaches receiving the output of road roughness module 24 “in the form of a roughness output signal 26.” Kelly ¶ 52.
Roughness output signal 26 falls within the scope of information about a transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle because it is the direct output of the road roughness module 24, which corresponds to the claimed transfer function.
Likewise, road roughness module 24 falls within the scope of the claimed “transfer function of a suspension system of a vehicle” because it takes, as inputs, data from “the air suspension sensors (the ride height sensors)” and “wheel articulation data” from “suspension stroke transducers, such as continuously variable damping (CVD) sensors,” and uses that input data to translate how rough the road is on this particular vehicle.
Additionally, much like Larner and the claimed invention, outputs from the road roughness module 24 are then used to inform the driver about road conditions, and provide advice to the driver for mitigating poor road conditions. See Kelly ¶¶ 86, 88, and 91.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Kelly’s road roughness module 24 to Larner’s vehicle, so as to supplement the information that Larner uses to estimate motion sickness with information about the vehicle’s suspension system. One would have been motivated to supplement Larner’s vehicle with a recording of Kelly’s roughness output signal 26 because accounting for the vehicle’s suspension “will protect against damage to the underside of the vehicle.” Kelly ¶¶ 98 and 99.
Claim 2
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the at least two routes include a first route and a second route, and wherein the first route and the second route at least partially overlap with each other.
“In further examples, the selected route and driving style may be changed in real-time based upon updated route characteristics and/or a passenger's input,” and in those examples, the autonomous vehicle may “take a different route in order to achieve a lower actual motion sickness value and/or to match the determined total motion sickness value for the route overall.” Larner ¶ 81; see also Larner ¶ 86.
In cases where the autonomous vehicle re-routes in the middle of a trip, there are necessarily two routes with an overlapping portion, because both the originally planned route and the updated route overlap from the starting position up to the point where the reroute occurred. In other words, both routes are the same until one diverges from the other.
Claim 3
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the road surface information about the at least two routes is selected from the group consisting of: potholes, bumps, cracks, storm grates, and/or expansion grates.
Each of the motion sickness values are based on predicted accelerations in the lateral, fore-aft, and vertical directions, all of which are informed by “[c]haracteristics of roadways from detailed map information 136, such as amount of curves, turns, hills, intersections, stop signs, and traffic lights.” Larner ¶ 66; see also ¶ 33 (data 134 may be retrieved by a processor 120 of the computer system performing the method, which includes roadway characteristics that describe “shape (hills, curves, degrees of turns, etc.), elevation, and terrain”). Additionally, Larner’s device explicitly receives and considers information about “vertical accelerations” for each portion of each route as part of its consideration of the motion sickness value. See Larner ¶¶ 68–69.
The word “bump” is defined as “a relatively abrupt convexity or protuberance on a surface,”2 and therefore, Larner’s disclosure of road characteristics including both “hills” and other sources of sudden “vertical acceleration” at least falls within the scope of the “bumps” member of the claimed Markush group.
Claim 4
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 3 further comprising
receiving information about a location of the vehicle,
“The start location [referenced in step 910] may be a detected current location of a user device.” Larner ¶ 25.
wherein the location of the vehicle is determined using a localization system selected from the group consisting of GNSS and a terrain-based localization system.
“In addition, the client computing devices 320 and 330 may also include components 328 and 338 for determining the position and orientation of client computing devices. For example, these components may include a GPS receiver to determine the device's latitude, longitude and/or altitude as well as an accelerometer, gyroscope or another direction/speed detection device as described above with regard to positioning system 170 of vehicle 100.” Larner ¶ 54.
Claim 5
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 4,
wherein the location of the vehicle is the first location.
The start location is a location that is on the route traveled by the vehicle, and therefore, necessarily includes the location of the vehicle. See Larner ¶¶ 61–62.
Claim 6
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of an autonomous vehicle, a semi-autonomous vehicle, and a manually driven vehicle.
“In one example, computing device 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100.” Larner ¶ 39. Additionally, “[a]lthough the examples described herein are related to the use of vehicles when operating in autonomous driving modes, such features may also be useful for vehicles operating in manual or semi-autonomous modes or for vehicles having only manual driving mode and semi-autonomous driving modes.” Larner ¶ 94.
Claim 8
Larner, as combined with Kelly, teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the suspension system of the vehicle is an active suspension system.
“In another example, one of the vehicle subsystems may be an air suspension system and wherein settings for the air suspension system from which the preferred setting is selected include off-road, intermediate and on-road ride height settings.” Kelly ¶ 20.
Claim 10
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising
receiving information about a projected speed of the vehicle when traveling along at least a portion of the at least two routes.
Reference is made to FIG. 7, which illustrates how the total motion sickness value in step 920 is calculated. See Larner ¶ 63. As part the calculation, “[p]redicted accelerations along the given portion of the route may be determined using a given driving style, historical data, and detailed map information. Regarding driving style, predicted accelerations may be greater for an assertive driving style than for a moderate driving style because a vehicle travels at faster speeds and quicker accelerations when using the assertive driving style than the moderate driving style. The predicted accelerations may be even less for a cautious driving style since a vehicle travels at even lower speeds and slower accelerations when using the cautious driving style.” Larner ¶ 64.
Claim 11
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 10, further comprising
determining projected road induced disturbances while traversing the at least two routes at least partially based on the information about the at least two routes and the projected speed of the vehicle while traversing at least portions of the at least two routes,
“Characteristics of roadways from detailed map information 136, such as amount of curves, turns, hills, intersections, stop signs, and traffic lights, may also inform the determination of predicted accelerations. A vehicle may experience higher amounts of lateral acceleration on curves or turns. A vehicle may experience higher amounts of fore-aft acceleration due to stops and starts, such as at stop signs or traffic lights along the roadway. Thus, predicted accelerations may include accelerations in different directions, such as lateral acceleration 710, fore-aft acceleration 712, and vertical acceleration 714 as shown in FIG. 7.” Larner ¶ 66.
Also, recall that all of the foregoing accelerations are calculated for each portion of each route in the set of routes determined in the previous step 910. See Larner ¶¶ 63 and 79.
wherein the selecting the route is also at least partially based on the projected road induced disturbances.
As explained in the rejection of ancestor claim 1, selecting the route is “based on the total motion sickness value of each route of the set of routes,” Larner ¶ 80, and the total motion sickness value of each route of the set of routes is directly based on the different accelerations described earlier in this rejection. See Larner ¶¶ 69 and 71–74.
Claim 13
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about at least one vehicle occupant.
There are several instances of obtaining vehicle occupant information in Larner’s disclosure, including the passengers’ preferred driving style, preference for route length, susceptibility to motion sickness, threshold motion sickness values corresponding to the susceptibility to motion sickness, age, gender, ethnicity, feedback about several different aspects of the trip, and field of view, among others. Larner ¶¶ 75 and 82, 83, 92. To be clear, Larner’s disclosure is not limited to the above examples; they are only provided to show that there are at least one or more examples of vehicle occupant information collected.
Claim 14
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 13,
wherein the information about the at least one vehicle occupant includes information about a sensitivity of the at least one vehicle occupant to motion sickness.
“A passenger's susceptibility to motion sickness may be determined using an evaluation of the passenger comprising a series of questions. The evaluation may additionally or alternatively include detecting a passenger's characteristics that may be related to susceptibility to motion sickness, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, using vision techniques.” Larner ¶ 75.
Claim 17
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising,
based at least partially on the information about the at least two routes and the vehicle-specific information, determining a speed range of operation while traveling along the selected route, and traveling on the route at the speed range of operation.
“Predicted accelerations along the given portion of the route may be determined using a given driving style, historical data, and detailed map information. Regarding driving style, predicted accelerations may be greater for an assertive driving style than for a moderate driving style because a vehicle travels at faster speeds and quicker accelerations when using the assertive driving style than the moderate driving style.” Larner ¶ 64. Accordingly, “[a] pairing of a route and a driving style may be selected for having a lower total motion sickness value than another pairing of a route and a driving style.” Larner ¶ 75.
Claim 30
Larner teaches:
A method of operating a vehicle, the method comprising:
“FIG. 9 is an example flow diagram 900 including a method for operating a vehicle for passenger comfort.” Larner ¶ 78.
receiving road surface anomaly information and/or spatial frequency road content about at least two routes between a current location and a destination;
“For example, at block 910, a set of routes from a start location to an end location may be determined,” Larner ¶ 78, and “[a]t block 920, a total motion sickness value may be determined for each route of the set of routes,” based on “a sway motion sickness value, a surge motion sickness value, and a heave motion sickness value.” Larner ¶ 79.
Each of the foregoing values are based on predicted accelerations in the lateral, fore-aft, and vertical directions, all of which are informed by “[c]haracteristics of roadways from detailed map information 136, such as amount of curves, turns, hills, intersections, stop signs, and traffic lights.” Larner ¶ 66. At a minimum, “curves, turns, hills, and intersections” all fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “road surface anomaly information,” because they each describe characteristics of where a road differs from being perfectly straight.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “road surface anomaly information” includes “bumps,” because the Applicant amended dependent claim 3 to include “bumps” within the scope of road surface anomaly data,3 and to that end, Larner’s device explicitly receives and considers information about “vertical accelerations” for each portion of each route as part of its consideration of the motion sickness value. See Larner ¶¶ 68–69.
Since Larner discloses at least one alternative among the two alternatives listed in the “and/or” language of this claim, Larner necessarily discloses the entire “and/or” requirement.
receiving vehicle-specific information about the vehicle, wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about a
According to the Applicant’ a “transfer function” is a function that models “how a given road input will affect the vehicle and the occupants in terms of comfort and/or in terms of its impact on the vehicle's handling, comfort, durability and/or the durability of one or more components of a vehicle.” (Spec. 7). Larner likewise teaches several functions (730–760) that are used to select a route, which take the vehicle’s predicted accelerations 710–714 as inputs, and output a score 770 representing motion sickness. Larner ¶¶ 69–71.
In addition to the transfer function, it is understood that the Applicant intends for “vehicle-specific information” to further encompass information about the occupants of the vehicle, rather than the vehicle itself—so long as the vehicle-specific information also includes the information about the transfer function now recited in the claim. This interpretation is reasonable because it is explicitly recited in dependent claims 12–16. Furthermore, this additional information also falls within the open-ended “comprising” scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03. Accordingly, to the extent that information about vehicle-occupants is further included in the scope of “vehicle-specific” information, Larner likewise teaches several examples of information about vehicle occupants being received for consideration by the vehicle. Larner ¶¶ 81–82.
based on the road surface anomaly information and/or spatial frequency road content received about the at least two routes and the vehicle-specific information, selecting a route from among the at least two routes in order to achieve an effect selected from a group consisting of less component wear, less motion sickness, shorter travel time, higher energy efficiency;
“At block 930, a first route of the set of routes is selected based on the total motion sickness value of each route of the set of routes. The first route may be selected for being, by way of example, the route with the lowest total motion sickness value, the fastest route with the highest total motion sickness value not exceeding a threshold value, or the shortest route with the lowest total motion sickness value.” Larner ¶ 80.
and traveling along the selected route.
“Then, at block 940, a vehicle may be maneuvered autonomously according to the selected first route.” Larner ¶ 80.
Larner does not appear to explicitly disclose that its functions are “transfer functions of a suspension system of the vehicle.”
Kelly, however, teaches a method for calculating the potential roughness of a route using vehicle-specific information, including
receiving vehicle-specific information about the vehicle, wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about a transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle.
The present application defines a “transfer function” as “knowledge of [the vehicle’s] responses” to “certain road inputs,” and naturally, the transfer function of a suspension system of a vehicle describes the same with respect to the vehicle’s suspension system and/or components. (Spec. p. 7 (first full paragraph)). Interestingly, claim 1 does not require receiving a suspension system’s transfer function per se, it merely requires receiving information about such a function.
Kelly teaches a “road roughness module 24” that performs the same broadly recited calculation as the claimed “transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle,” and further teaches receiving the output of road roughness module 24 “in the form of a roughness output signal 26.” Kelly ¶ 52.
Roughness output signal 26 falls within the scope of information about a transfer function of a suspension system of the vehicle because it is the direct output of the road roughness module 24, which corresponds to the claimed transfer function.
Likewise, road roughness module 24 falls within the scope of the claimed “transfer function of a suspension system of a vehicle” because it takes, as inputs, data from “the air suspension sensors (the ride height sensors)” and “wheel articulation data” from “suspension stroke transducers, such as continuously variable damping (CVD) sensors,” and uses that input data to translate how rough the road is on this particular vehicle.
Additionally, much like Larner and the claimed invention, outputs from the road roughness module 24 are then used to inform the driver about road conditions, and provide advice to the driver for mitigating poor road conditions. See Kelly ¶¶ 86, 88, and 91.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Kelly’s road roughness module 24 to Larner’s vehicle, so as to supplement the information that Larner uses to estimate motion sickness with information about the vehicle’s suspension system. One would have been motivated to supplement Larner’s vehicle with Kelly’s road roughness module 24 because accounting for the vehicle’s suspension “will protect against damage to the underside of the vehicle.” Kelly ¶¶ 98 and 99.
Claim 32
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising
determining a predicted road-induced disturbance for each of the at least two routes based at least partially on the road surface information about the respective route and the transfer function of the suspension system of the vehicle.
“At block 920, a total motion sickness value may be determined for each route of the set of routes,” based on “a sway motion sickness value, a surge motion sickness value, and a heave motion sickness value.” Larner ¶ 79. Each of these values are based on predicted accelerations in the lateral, fore-aft, and vertical directions, all of which are informed by “[c]haracteristics of roadways from detailed map information 136, such as amount of curves, turns, hills, intersections, stop signs, and traffic lights.” Larner ¶ 66.
Since Larner predicts road-induced disturbances for multiple routes at least based on road surface information, Larner’s disclosure meets the requirements of the literal claim language that predictions are “based at least partially on the road surface information about the respective route and the transfer function of the suspension system of the vehicle.” That is, the claim language defines a group of data comprising both (1) the road surface information and (2) the transfer function, but then says that the prediction only needs be based at least partially on the group—i.e., at least limitation (1), at least limitation (2), or both limitations (1) and (2).
Additionally, even if claim 32 were interpreted to require both of (1) and (2), claim 32 is rejected in view of the obvious combination of Larner and Kelly. Under the combination, Kelly’s road roughness module 24 supplements the information that Larner uses to estimate motion sickness with information about the vehicle’s suspension system, in order to get a more accurate picture of the vehicle’s reaction to the disturbances on the routes.
Claim 33
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 30, further comprising
determining a predicted road-induced disturbance for each of the at least two routes based at least partially on the road surface anomaly information about the respective route and the transfer function of the suspension system of the vehicle.
“At block 920, a total motion sickness value may be determined for each route of the set of routes,” based on “a sway motion sickness value, a surge motion sickness value, and a heave motion sickness value.” Larner ¶ 79. Each of these values are based on predicted accelerations in the lateral, fore-aft, and vertical directions, all of which are informed by “[c]haracteristics of roadways from detailed map information 136, such as amount of curves, turns, hills, intersections, stop signs, and traffic lights.” Larner ¶ 66.
Since Larner predicts road-induced disturbances for multiple routes at least based on road surface information, Larner’s disclosure meets the requirements of the literal claim language that predictions are “based at least partially on the road surface information about the respective route and the transfer function of the suspension system of the vehicle.” That is, the claim language defines a group of data comprising both (1) the road surface information and (2) the transfer function, but then says that the prediction only needs be based at least partially on the group—i.e., at least limitation (1), at least limitation (2), or both limitations (1) and (2).
Additionally, even if claim 33 were interpreted to require both of (1) and (2), claim 32 is rejected in view of the obvious combination of Larner and Kelly. Under the combination, Kelly’s road roughness module 24 supplements the information that Larner uses to estimate motion sickness with information about the vehicle’s suspension system, in order to get a more accurate picture of the vehicle’s reaction to the disturbances on the routes.
II. Larner, Kelly, and Shiri teach claims 9 and 12.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Larner in view of Kelly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0032087 A1 (“Shiri”).
Claim 9
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about a position of a center of gravity
“These sensors of perception system 172 may detect objects in the vehicle's environment as well as characteristics of those objects such as their location, heading, size (length height and width), type, and approximate center of gravity. For example, the perception system may use the height of an object identified as a pedestrian (or human) to estimate the approximate center of gravity of the object. In this regard, the perception system may compare the characteristics of the object to known anthropomorphic data to determine an approximate center of gravity. For other object types, the approximate center of gravity may be determined from the characteristics of the object using various known statistical analyses.” Larner ¶ 45.
Larner does not appear to explicitly disclose accounting for the vehicle’s center of gravity amongst the information considered when selecting a route.
Shiri, however, teaches a method for selecting a route from among the at least two routes, wherein the selection is based at least partially on vehicle-specific information, and wherein:
the vehicle-specific information includes information about a position of a center of gravity of the vehicle.
During a preparation phase 200 for planning a drive, “data related to the vehicle, its position, the estimated route, environmental driving conditions along the estimated route and user preferences (stage 205)” are received, so that an appropriate route can be selected. Shiri ¶ 30. “According to some embodiments of the invention, data related to the vehicle may comprise car pre-defined configuration (e.g. weight, make, model, engine performance, center of gravity position) and car current condition (e.g. load, air-condition, condition of tires and brakes).” Shiri ¶ 35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Larner’s autonomous vehicle routing with Shiri’s technique of considering the vehicle’s “center of gravity position” (among other things) as a factor for selecting a route to drive the vehicle. One would have been motivated to improve Larner with Shiri’s additional data and considerations because the foregoing data makes it possible to “suggest[] a driving behavior that reduces fuel consumption to a user driving a vehicle along an estimated route.” Shiri ¶ 30.
Claim 12
Larner and Kelly teach the method of claim 11, but do not explicitly disclose considering the weight of the vehicle when choosing a route to drive.
Shiri, however, teaches a method for selecting a route from among the at least two routes, wherein the selection is based at least partially on vehicle-specific information, and wherein:
wherein the vehicle-specific information includes information about a weight of the vehicle.
During a preparation phase 200 for planning a drive, “data related to the vehicle, its position, the estimated route, environmental driving conditions along the estimated route and user preferences (stage 205)” are received, so that an appropriate route can be selected. Shiri ¶ 30. “According to some embodiments of the invention, data related to the vehicle may comprise car pre-defined configuration (e.g. weight, make, model, engine performance, center of gravity position) and car current condition (e.g. load, air-condition, condition of tires and brakes).” Shiri ¶ 35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Larner’s autonomous vehicle routing with Shiri’s technique of considering the vehicle’s “weight” (among other things) as a factor for selecting a route to drive the vehicle. One would have been motivated to improve Larner with Shiri’s additional data and considerations because the foregoing data makes it possible to “suggest[] a driving behavior that reduces fuel consumption to a user driving a vehicle along an estimated route.” Shiri ¶ 30.
III. Larner, Kelly, and Schmidt teach claim 15.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Larner and Kelly as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0093827 A1 (“Schmidt”).
Claim 15
Larner teaches the method of claim 13, and at least suggests using “information about a sensitivity of the at least one vehicle occupant to motion sickness, while performing an activity selected from a group consisting of reading and manipulating a computer mouse.” Specifically, in paragraph 92, Larner at least suggests that the vehicle receives information about the passenger’s field of view, and that “an alert may be played or sent to the passenger to encourage the passenger to avoid looking down and/or reading.” Larner ¶ 92.
Additionally, Schmidt explicitly teaches a vehicle that receives and uses information about at least one vehicle occupant to mitigate the occupant’s motion sickness. Schmidt ¶ 15. Importantly, Schmidt further teaches:
the information about the at least one vehicle occupant includes information about a sensitivity of the at least one vehicle occupant to motion sickness, while performing an activity selected from a group consisting of reading and manipulating a computer mouse.
“[T]he tendency of the passenger to get motion sickness is classified depending on [an] evaluation result,” Schmidt ¶ 15, with the classification describing the amount of susceptibility to motion sickness, together with the passenger’s “ability to read in the vehicle without motion sickness.” Schmidt ¶ 16.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the data that Larner’s autonomous vehicle uses with Schmidt’s information about the extent to which reading affects a passenger’s susceptibility to motion sickness. One would have been motivated to consider this additional information because it is “feared that the incidence of motion sickness will increase, especially as former drivers are now becoming passengers and because in autonomous driving passengers will want to use the journey for other activities, for example for reading or working, especially on mobile devices.” Schmidt ¶ 3.
IV. Tang and Larner teach claims 21–23 and 27.
Claims 21–23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Larner.
Claim 21
Tang teaches the method of 18, but does not say whether the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of motion sickness is a preference
Larner, however, teaches a very similar method, but further teaches:
the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of motion sickness is a preference.
By way of background, Larner (much like Tang and the claimed invention) teaches a method for assessing motion sickness values of different routes, see Larner ¶¶ 78–79, and then selecting a route that optimizes for several different factors, including motion sickness. Larner ¶ 80. Larner then further discloses that feedback may be received from a passenger, so that the threshold value for motion sickness may be updated. Larner ¶ 83. In view of this information “[r]outing options with total motion sickness values greater than the threshold value may be removed from consideration during selection. For example, if a threshold value for the total motion sickness values is set at 0.5, the assertive driving style for Route 1 may be removed from consideration during selection.” Larner ¶ 83.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Tang’s method with Larner’s facilities for receiving passenger feedback about motion sickness, thereby factoring-in passenger preferences against routes that induce motion sickness. One would have been motivated to improve Tang with Larner’s technique because “a passenger with motion sickness may experience a level of discomfort, which can make a trip in a vehicle unpleasant for that passenger as well as any other passengers in the vehicle.” Larner ¶ 3.
Claim 22
Tang teaches the method of 18, but does not say whether the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of lateral acceleration is a preference.
Larner, however, teaches a very similar method, but further teaches:
wherein the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of lateral acceleration of a vehicle body is a preference.
By way of background, Larner (much like Tang and the claimed invention) teaches a method for assessing motion sickness values of different routes, see Larner ¶¶ 78–79, and then selecting a route that optimizes for several different factors, including motion sickness. Larner ¶ 80. Larner then further discloses that feedback may be received from a passenger, so that the threshold value for motion sickness may be updated. Larner ¶ 83. In view of this information “[r]outing options with total motion sickness values greater than the threshold value may be removed from consideration during selection. For example, if a threshold value for the total motion sickness values is set at 0.5, the assertive driving style for Route 1 may be removed from consideration during selection.” Larner ¶ 83.
The passenger’s feedback concerning his or her threshold for motion sickness is an “indication” that the passenger would prefer a reduction of lateral acceleration because lateral acceleration is one of the three factors that contribute to the total motion sickness value for which the user has now set a threshold. See Larner ¶¶ 26–28.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Tang’s method with Larner’s facilities for receiving passenger feedback about motion sickness, thereby factoring-in passenger preferences against routes that induce motion sickness—including lateral acceleration. One would have been motivated to improve Tang with Larner’s technique because “a passenger with motion sickness may experience a level of discomfort, which can make a trip in a vehicle unpleasant for that passenger as well as any other passengers in the vehicle.” Larner ¶ 3.
Claim 23
Tang teaches the method of 18, but does not say whether the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of vertical acceleration is a preference.
Larner, however, teaches a very similar method, but further teaches:
wherein the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of lateral acceleration of a vehicle body is a preference.
By way of background, Larner (much like Tang and the claimed invention) teaches a method for assessing motion sickness values of different routes, see Larner ¶¶ 78–79, and then selecting a route that optimizes for several different factors, including motion sickness. Larner ¶ 80. Larner then further discloses that feedback may be received from a passenger, so that the threshold value for motion sickness may be updated. Larner ¶ 83. In view of this information “[r]outing options with total motion sickness values greater than the threshold value may be removed from consideration during selection. For example, if a threshold value for the total motion sickness values is set at 0.5, the assertive driving style for Route 1 may be removed from consideration during selection.” Larner ¶ 83.
Importantly, the passenger’s feedback concerning his or her threshold for motion sickness is an “indication” that the passenger would prefer a reduction of vertical acceleration because vertical acceleration (a.k.a. heave motion) is one of the three factors that contribute to the total motion sickness value for which the user has now set a threshold. See Larner ¶¶ 26–28.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Tang’s method with Larner’s facilities for receiving passenger feedback about motion sickness, thereby factoring-in passenger preferences against routes that induce motion sickness—including vertical acceleration. One would have been motivated to improve Tang with Larner’s technique because “a passenger with motion sickness may experience a level of discomfort, which can make a trip in a vehicle unpleasant for that passenger as well as any other passengers in the vehicle.” Larner ¶ 3.
Claim 27
Tang teaches the method of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose selecting a lane in a multilane portion of the selected route.
Larner, however, teaches a method similar to that of claim 18, and further teaches:
selecting the route includes selecting a lane in a multilane portion of the selected route.
“In some examples, the detailed map information may include predetermined virtual rails along which computing device 110 may maneuver vehicle 100. These rails may therefore be associated with direction information indicative of the direction of a lane (or direction traffic should move in that lane) in which the rail appears.” Larner ¶ 33.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Tang’s navigation method with information about lane-level navigation via Larner’s “rail” technique. One would have been motivated to improve Tang with Larner’s rail technique because, “[b]y following the rails, vehicle 100’s future locations along a route may be predicted with a high degree of accuracy.” Larner ¶ 33. This rationale offered in Larner’s disclosure would have been extremely relevant to any skilled person implementing Tang’s navigation method, because Tang’s navigation method is continuously performed in “real time,” and “during driving.” Tang ¶ 39. Since Tang’s primary mode of operation includes predicting potential problems with the current navigation strategy based on the vehicle information and the upcoming road information, Larner’s promise of predicting the vehicle’s future locations “with a high degree of accuracy” was highly relevant to Tang’s mode of operation.
V. Tang and Freedman teach claim 20.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tang as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0018323 A1 (“Freedman”).
Claim 20
Tang teaches the method of claim 18, but does not further provide a way for the user to specify “reduction of tire wear” as a preference for selecting a route.
Freedman, however, teaches a method in which information is received from a user interface for selecting a desired route,
wherein the information received from the user interface includes an indication that reduction of tire-wear is a preference.
A “navigation server 300 may combine route and terrain maps into a navigation map that reflects vehicle type and location, terrain conditions and the risk scores associated with the vehicle for each portion of various candidate routes,” and then, using the risk scores, “a ranked series of candidate routes may be presented to the user, who may select a desired route.” Freedman ¶ 35. Importantly, “wear scores, and/or loss-to-a-vehicle-subsystem scores” may be assigned to each route, including scores about “tire wear.” Freedman ¶ 22.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Tang’s user interface with Freedman’s additional information about tire wear on each potential route, so that the vehicle occupant could select a route that minimizes wear on the vehicle’s tires. One would have been motivated to improve Tang’s user interface with Freedman’s tire wear score because, for vehicle owns with more expensive tires, “tire wear may be a more important consideration than general vehicle wear and tear” when deciding which route to take. See Freedman ¶ 22.
Ⅵ. Tang, Freedman, and Larner teach claims 24–26.
Claims 24–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Freedman as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Larner.
Claim 24
Tang and Freedman teach the method of claim 20, but neither reference explicitly describes selecting a speed for at least a portion of the selected route.
Larner, however, teaches a method of routing a vehicle, the method further comprising:
selecting a speed for at least a portion of the selected route.
“When an indication that a passenger is experiencing symptoms of motion sickness is received, the autonomous vehicle may automatically start operating using a less assertive driving style. In some examples, the autonomous vehicle may operate at a slower speed.” Larner ¶ 82.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Tang and Freedman’s respective systems/methods with Larner’s technique of selecting an ideal speed for a vehicle to operate for at least a portion of the route. One would have been motivated to improve Tang and Freedman with Larner’s technique because such a technique would help alleviate passenger motion sickness during the ride. See Larder ¶ 82.
Claim 25
Tang and Freedman teach the method of claim 20, but neither reference explicitly describes selecting a speed for at least a portion of the selected route.
Larner, however, teaches a method of routing a vehicle, the method further comprising:
selecting a maximum speed for at least a portion of the selected route.
“For the moderate driving style, a vehicle may operate slightly below posted speed limits, for example 5 to 10 miles per hour below posted speed limits, and may accelerate at a regular rate . . . . For the cautious driving style, a vehicle may operate at slower speeds, such as half the posted speed limits, and may accelerate at a slower rate than a vehicle operating at the moderate driving style.” Larner ¶ 35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Tang and Freedman’s respective systems/methods with Larner’s technique of selecting an ideal speed for a vehicle to operate for at least a portion of the route. One would have been motivated to improve Tang and Freedman with Larner’s technique because such a technique would help alleviate passenger motion sickness during the ride. See Larder ¶ 82.
Claim 26
Tang and Freedman teach the method of claim 20, but neither reference explicitly describes selecting a speed for at least a portion of the selected route.
Larner, however, teaches a method of routing a vehicle, the method further comprising:
selecting a minimum speed while traveling along at least a portion of the selected route.
“For the assertive driving style, a vehicle may operate at posted speed limits and may accelerate at a faster rate than a vehicle operating at the moderate driving style.” Larner ¶ 35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Tang and Freedman’s respective systems/methods with Larner’s technique of selecting an ideal speed for a vehicle to operate for at least a portion of the route. One would have been motivated to improve Tang and Freedman with Larner’s technique because such a technique would help accommodate for different preferences of traveling in a vehicle. See Larner ¶ 35.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F. 4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well”) (citing Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
2 Bump, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bump
3 Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F. 4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well”) (citing Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
Prosecution Insights