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 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 November 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment/response of 04 November 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 16-19, and 22-26 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for abeyance. The Nonstatutory Double Patenting remains with the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, and it will be re-evaluated pending the manner in which this application is amended in
future correspondence.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that Nemec, Ichinose and Herbach, taken alone or in any combination, do not teach or suggest each and every feature of claim 1, as amended.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Such a statement amounts to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in the independent dependent claims and nakedly asserting that none of the cited prior art references teach or
suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that
are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support is
afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc.
v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective
evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F,2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See MPEP 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.Sti 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion to what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prime fade case of obviousness.'').
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “indicate a user input being in an activate state”. It appears to the Examiner that the limitation is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “a busy roadway”. The term “busy” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “busy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 18-19, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), and further in view of Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1).
a. Regarding claim 1, Nemec et al. discloses A system comprising one or more processors configured to: (Column 4 lines 31-39 “a vehicle's autonomous driving computer may receive profile data for a user… and may define the access rights and permissions of the user with respect to the vehicle… the vehicle may receive information identifying a user.”)
responsive to successful authentication of the user, allow the user to board the vehicle at the pickup location; (Column 4 lines 50-52 “If a user profile is identified, the autonomous driving computer may determine whether the user currently has permission to use the vehicle.”)
subsequent to the user boarding the vehicle and initiation of travel to the destination, indicate a user input being in an activate state, (Column 12 lines 50 – 56 “if the user does have permission to use the vehicle at the present time, the vehicle may allow the user to enter a destination. For example, the user may speak a destination or enter one into the vehicle's navigation system 186 using a touch screen (such as touch screen 217 of FIG. 2), buttons (such as input buttons 219 of FIG. 2), or another input device.”, and column 16 lines 22 – 46 “If the user does have permission to use the vehicle, or if there are no particular date and/or time restrictions, the user may provide a destination. This destination is received by the autonomous driving computer at block 1214… Returning to block 1216, if the received destination is permissible, the autonomous driving computer again checks the user's profile to determine whether there is a predefined route to the destination at block 1222… The autonomous driving computer then either displays the generated route as a set of turn-by-turn directions to a user driving the vehicle manually or follows the generated route to the destination autonomously (or semi-autonomously) at block 1226.”)
Nemec et al. fails to explicitly disclose receive a pickup location and a destination; prior to a vehicle reaching the pickup location
Ichinose et al. teaches receive a pickup location and a destination; (column 19 lines 52-59 “The autonomous mobile device instruction means 139 reverse calculates the time at which the autonomous mobile device 1 should depart from the waiting area based on the boarding time, and transmits an instruction to the autonomous mobile device 1 at that time to begin traveling toward the boarding site (step S106). When the autonomous mobile device 1 arrives at the boarding site (step S107), it waits for the user to board.” and column 19 lines 61-67 “the autonomous mobile device instruction means 139 transmits a presentation instruction to the network terminal 161 so that the current location of the autonomous mobile device 1 that has been called by the user is presented to the user so that he/she can easily find his/her own autonomous mobile device 1.”)
prior to a vehicle reaching the pickup location, (column 20 lines 27-31 “Once the autonomous mobile device 1 has approached within a certain distance to the boarding site 91, an identical identification mark is presented on both the network terminal 161 and the external display means 4 of the autonomous mobile device 1.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. to incorporate a pickup system, including verifying the identity of the user before reaching the pickup location as taught by Ichinose et al. for the purpose of enabling a smooth and secure pickup of the correct passenger, increasing safety and convenience.
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein an input from the user at the user input in the active state initiates a request for the vehicle to pull over during travel to the destination; receive, at the user input, input from the user; in response to receipt of the input at the user input in the active state, cause the vehicle to pull over and stop.
Herbach et al. teaches wherein an input from the user at the user input in the active state initiates a request for the vehicle to pull over during travel to the destination; receive, at the user input, input from the user; (Column 22 lines 57-61 “the computing device may be configured to receive a manual command/instruction (e.g., via a button or switch located inside the autonomous vehicle) for the computing device to access and execute the instructions for pulling over the autonomous vehicle.” and column 23 lines 4-13 “The computing device may be configured to receive information associated with the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle, such as driving conditions and road conditions (e.g., rain, snow, etc.). For example, information indicating that the road is icy or wet ahead of the vehicle may be taken into account by the computing device in determining a region, braking profile, and/or trajectory to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle, and determining whether to access and execute the instructions to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle”) in response to receipt of the input at the user input in the active state, cause the vehicle to pull over and stop. (Column 3 line 57 – column 4 line 3 “method for pulling over the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle may determine an adjusted trajectory based on the braking profile. The adjusted trajectory may include a route or path for the autonomous vehicle to travel within the identified region in order to pull over. Moreover, the adjusted trajectory may be determined such that the autonomous vehicle can navigate to avoid static and/or dynamic objects within the identified region and, in some examples, avoid static and/or dynamic objects before the autonomous vehicle reaches the identified region. After determining the adjusted trajectory, the autonomous vehicle may store in memory instructions for pulling over in accordance with the identified region, the braking profile, and the adjusted trajectory.” and column 4 lines 10-19 “When the autonomous vehicle executes the instructions to pull over, it may switch from its current trajectory to the adjusted trajectory. The execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over. In other events, including emergency scenarios, a driver or remote operator of the autonomous vehicle can manually provide a command to execute the instructions to pull over the autonomous vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. to incorporate dedicated input button/switches as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of allowing the passenger to input emergency stops and/or other commands, increasing safety.
b. Regarding claim 2, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Nemec et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to responsive to the successful authentication of the user, receive another input from the user to initiate travel of the vehicle to the destination. (Column 4, lines 59-62 “if the user does have permission to use the vehicle…the user may provide a destination… provided to the autonomous driving computer”)
c. Regarding claim 4, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Ichinose et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to attempt the authentication of the user when the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the pickup location. (column 20 lines 27-31 “Once the autonomous mobile device 1 has approached within a certain distance to the boarding site 91, an identical identification mark is presented on both the network terminal 161 and the external display means 4 of the autonomous mobile device 1.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate a pickup system, including verifying the identity of the user before reaching the pickup location as taught by Ichinose et al. for the purpose of enabling a smooth and secure pickup of the correct passenger, increasing safety and convenience.
d. Regarding claim 5, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Ichinose et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to attempt the authentication of the user via a short-range communication protocol. (column 20 lines 27-31 “Once the autonomous mobile device 1 has approached within a certain distance to the boarding site 91, an identical identification mark is presented on both the network terminal 161 and the external display means 4 of the autonomous mobile device 1.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate a short range communication protocol as taught by Ichinose et al. for the purpose of facilitating communication to verify the user.
e. Regarding claim 9, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses They system of claim 1,
Nemec et al. discloses further comprising the vehicle. (Fig. 3, 300)
f. Regarding claim 11, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify a location at which to stop the vehicle in response to the input. (Column 2 lines 4-13 “The system may comprise at least one processor. The system also may comprise a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform functions. The functions may comprise identifying a region of a road ahead of an autonomous vehicle in which to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle based on lane boundaries of the road, one or more road boundaries indicating an edge of the road, and a size of the autonomous vehicle.”, and see at least column 23 lines 4-33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate identifying stop locations as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of enabling a vehicle to safely stop along a road.
g. Regarding claim 12, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to the input, cause the vehicle to identify an unsafe location at which to avoid stopping the vehicle. (Column 24 lines 4-26 “Executing the instructions to either continue along the current trajectory or pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle may involve executing the instructions in accordance with one or more control strategies….a control strategy may comprise sets of instructions or rules associated with traffic interaction in various driving contexts. The control strategy, for example, may comprise rules that determine a speed of the autonomous vehicle, steering angle, and a lane that the autonomous vehicle may travel on while taking into account safety and traffic rules and concerns (e.g., other vehicles stopped at an intersection and windows-of-opportunity in yield situation, lane tracking, speed control, distance from other vehicles on the road, passing other vehicles, and queuing in stop-and-go traffic, and avoiding areas that may result in unsafe behavior such as oncoming-traffic lanes, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate identifying stop locations as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of enabling a vehicle to safely stop along a road.
h. Regarding claim 18, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the user input is a non-emergency stopping button. (Column 22 lines 57 – 63 “the computing device may be configured to receive a manual command/instruction (e.g., via a button or switch located inside the autonomous vehicle) for the computing device to access and execute the instructions for pulling over the autonomous vehicle. The manual instruction may be received by a driver of the autonomous vehicle or other person(s)” and column 12 lines 46 – 57 “the respective identified regions ahead of the autonomous vehicle may have an associated priority and/or quality score. For example, a quality and/or priority determined by the computing device may indicate to the computing device that a suitable region for pullover that is farther ahead of the autonomous vehicle is more suitable for pullover than another suitable region that is closer to the autonomous vehicle. Further, the pullover region that is farther away may have more pullover space than the closer region, and there may not be an immediate need to pullover (e.g., no emergency scenario).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate a non-emergency stop input button as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of enabling a user to request a smooth stop.
i. Regarding claim 19, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the user input is emergency stopping button or a non-emergency stopping button, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to the input, determine a period of time within which to stop the vehicle based on whether the input was received at the emergency stopping button or the non-emergency stopping button. (Column 22 lines 57 – 63 “the computing device may be configured to receive a manual command/instruction (e.g., via a button or switch located inside the autonomous vehicle) for the computing device to access and execute the instructions for pulling over the autonomous vehicle. The manual instruction may be received by a driver of the autonomous vehicle or other person(s)” and column 12 lines 46 – 57 “the respective identified regions ahead of the autonomous vehicle may have an associated priority and/or quality score. For example, a quality and/or priority determined by the computing device may indicate to the computing device that a suitable region for pullover that is farther ahead of the autonomous vehicle is more suitable for pullover than another suitable region that is closer to the autonomous vehicle. Further, the pullover region that is farther away may have more pullover space than the closer region, and there may not be an immediate need to pullover (e.g., no emergency scenario).”) . Examiner Notes: see “a period of time” as the time to reach a “suitable pullover region”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate a non-emergency stop input button as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of enabling a user to request a smooth stop.
j. Regarding claim 23, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses the system of claim 1,
Nemec et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, responsive to arrival of the vehicle at the destination, deactivate the user input. (Column 15 lines 52 – 58 “Once the vehicle has arrived at the destination, the vehicle may drop the particular occupant off at the destination. In some examples, the vehicle may wait until the passenger is ready to move to another destination. Again, upon return to the vehicle, the user may be required to identify him or herself to the vehicle so that the vehicle may identify the user's profile and any associated constraints.”, column 18 lines 11 – 13 “If the user leaves the vehicle at the destination and subsequently returns to the vehicle, the process returns to block 1206 of FIG. 12A and the user must provide identification information.”, and Column 12 lines 50 – 56 “if the user does have permission to use the vehicle at the present time, the vehicle may allow the user to enter a destination. For example, the user may speak a destination or enter one into the vehicle's navigation system 186 using a touch screen (such as touch screen 217 of FIG. 2), buttons (such as input buttons 219 of FIG. 2), or another input device.” )
k. Regarding claim 24, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses the system of claim 1,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to the input, cause the vehicle to pullover at a location other than the destination. (Column 3 line 57 – column 4 line 3 “method for pulling over the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle may determine an adjusted trajectory based on the braking profile. The adjusted trajectory may include a route or path for the autonomous vehicle to travel within the identified region in order to pull over. Moreover, the adjusted trajectory may be determined such that the autonomous vehicle can navigate to avoid static and/or dynamic objects within the identified region and, in some examples, avoid static and/or dynamic objects before the autonomous vehicle reaches the identified region. After determining the adjusted trajectory, the autonomous vehicle may store in memory instructions for pulling over in accordance with the identified region, the braking profile, and the adjusted trajectory.” and column 4 lines 10-19 “When the autonomous vehicle executes the instructions to pull over, it may switch from its current trajectory to the adjusted trajectory. The execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over. In other events, including emergency scenarios, a driver or remote operator of the autonomous vehicle can manually provide a command to execute the instructions to pull over the autonomous vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. to incorporate a command to execute instruction to pull over the autonomous vehicle as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of allowing the passenger to input emergency stops and/or other commands, increasing safety.
l. Regarding claim 25, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses the system of claim 1,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the user input in the active state to have a visual indicator of the active state. (Column 22 lines 57-61 “the computing device may be configured to receive a manual command/instruction (e.g., via a button or switch located inside the autonomous vehicle) for the computing device to access and execute the instructions for pulling over the autonomous vehicle.” and column 23 lines 4-13 “The computing device may be configured to receive information associated with the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle, such as driving conditions and road conditions (e.g., rain, snow, etc.). For example, information indicating that the road is icy or wet ahead of the vehicle may be taken into account by the computing device in determining a region, braking profile, and/or trajectory to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle, and determining whether to access and execute the instructions to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. to incorporate a button/switch to pull over the autonomous vehicle as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of allowing the passenger to input emergency stops and/or other commands, increasing safety.
m. Regarding claim 26, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses the system of claim 25,
Herbach et al. teaches wherein the visual indicator includes at least one of a color or a word. (Column 22 lines 57-61 “the computing device may be configured to receive a manual command/instruction (e.g., via a button or switch located inside the autonomous vehicle) for the computing device to access and execute the instructions for pulling over the autonomous vehicle.” and column 23 lines 4-13 “The computing device may be configured to receive information associated with the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle, such as driving conditions and road conditions (e.g., rain, snow, etc.). For example, information indicating that the road is icy or wet ahead of the vehicle may be taken into account by the computing device in determining a region, braking profile, and/or trajectory to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle, and determining whether to access and execute the instructions to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. to incorporate a button/switch to pull over the autonomous vehicle as taught by Herbach et al. for the purpose of allowing the passenger to input emergency stops and/or other commands, increasing safety. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the button/switch in such a manner that the button/switch would have obviously had a color or been labeled to indicate to the driver its function.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1), and further in view of Sampei Y (JP 2010222898 A).
a. Regarding claim 6, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al., and Herbach et al. The system of claim 1,
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause a door of the vehicle to unlock or open in response to the successful authentication of the user.
Sampei Y teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause a door of the vehicle to unlock or open in response to the successful authentication of the user. ([0002] “the portable device is authenticated using the identification number, and if the authentication is successful, the fixed unit allows the door lock device to perform unlocking.” and [0020] “the engine control device 16 and the door lock device 18 of the vehicle 10 are electrically connected to the in-vehicle unit 12. In this vehicle 10, a user (holder) who possesses the portable device 14 unlocks the door of the vehicle 10 and starts the engine when the portable device 14 is authenticated by the in-vehicle unit 12 without using a key. Can be executed. In other words, when the holder tries to perform an action that requires authentication of the portable device 14 in advance, the in-vehicle unit 12 authenticates the portable device 14 and when the portable device 14 is successfully authenticated, A certain engine control device 16 and door lock device 18 are controlled so as to permit the user's action.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate unlocking the door upon authentication of a user as taught by Sampei Y for the purpose of allowing the authorized user to enter the vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), in view of Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1), and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 5774069 A).
a. Regarding claim 8, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to the input, provide a notification to the user indicating that the vehicle is attempting pulling over.
Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to the input, provide a notification to the user indicating that the vehicle is attempting pulling over. (Column 3 line 60 – column 4 line 2 “the shift to the manual drive cannot be completed before reaching the destination because the timing to operate the changeover switch 16 was delayed, so that the shift to the manual drive is prohibited and an appropriate message is shown on the warning display 18 (S113). Then, the actuator 14 is activated to forcedly brake the vehicle to stop in a roadside zone (S114). In this case, after stopping in the roadside zone, the driver operates the changeover switch 16 again to switch to the manual drive.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate providing a notification to the user prior to the vehicle stopping as taught by Tanaka et al. for the purpose of informing the user of an upcoming stop, increasing user comfortability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), in view of Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1), and further in view of Ponsford A T (WO 2011154681 A1).
a. Regarding claim 10, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle does not have at least one of: a user-controlled steering mechanism which would allow the user to directly control steering of the vehicle; a user-controlled acceleration control which would allow the user to directly control acceleration of the vehicle; and a user-controlled deceleration control which would allow the user to directly control deceleration of the vehicle.
Ponsford A T teaches wherein the vehicle does not have at least one of: a user-controlled steering mechanism which would allow the user to directly control steering of the vehicle; a user-controlled acceleration control which would allow the user to directly control acceleration of the vehicle; and a user-controlled deceleration control which would allow the user to directly control deceleration of the vehicle. (Fig. 1, page 3 lines 3-9 “As can be seen from Figures 1 and 2, the autonomous vehicle 2 has seats 16, 18. The seats 16, 18 face inwardly towards a centre portion 20 of the passenger module 4 of the autonomous vehicle 2. The seats 16, 18 are symmetrically positioned so that the front part of the autonomous vehicle 2 mirrors the rear 5 part of the autonomous vehicle 2. This mirroring of the structure of the autonomous vehicle 2 is such that the autonomous vehicle 2 has a first bulk head 22 which is the same as a second bulk head 24. The similar first and second bulk heads 22, 24 is achievable because the autonomous vehicle 2 does not have a driver's cab”). Examiner Notes: The autonomous vehicle does not have a steering wheel as seen in Fig.1 of Ponsford A T.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate no physical driving controls for the passenger as taught by Ponsford A T for the purpose of ensuring the vehicle operates fully autonomously without human intervention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), in view of Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1), and further in view of Amame K (JP 2009122373 A).
a. Regarding claim 13, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 12
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the unsafe location is within an intersection, on train tracks or within a predetermined distance of the train tracks, or a busy roadway.
Amame K teaches wherein the unsafe location is within an intersection, on train tracks or within a predetermined distance of the train tracks, or a busy roadway. (Page 4 lines 26-30 “when it is determined that the subject vehicle is in a specific state (dangerous driving state), avoidance information is provided to the subject to avoid the dangerous driving state. The avoidance information is, for example, information on a target speed or deceleration for avoiding the dangerous driving state and stopping the vehicle before the intersection, or a target speed or acceleration for avoiding the dangerous driving state and passing the intersection”, and page 10 lines 4 – 10 “When the preceding vehicle is in the dangerous driving area, the dangerous driving area of the host vehicle can be determined as follows. First, when the preceding vehicle stops at the intersection to avoid the dangerous driving area, the own vehicle must also stop before the intersection and behind the preceding vehicle. From the curve represented by the stopping condition C of the own vehicle If it is in the lower area, the dangerous driving area can be avoided. That is, the area above the curve represented by the stop condition C of the host vehicle is a dangerous traveling area that cannot be stopped at the intersection (behind the preceding vehicle).”). Examiner Notes: See “unsafe location” as any stopping location(s) within the intersection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate avoid stopping the vehicle within an intersection as taught by Amame K for the purpose of ensuring that the “dangerous driving area can be avoided”. (page 10 line 8, Amame K)
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), in view of Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1), and further in view of Tanaka T (JP 2011057134 A).
a. Regarding claim 16, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to,
Tanaka T teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to the input, cause the vehicle to stop in a lane of a roadway and activate hazard lights of the vehicle. ([0018] “The stop button 5 is pressed by a passenger in an emergency, and a plurality of stop buttons 5 are provided in the same manner as the microphone 40, and are installed at several locations in the vehicle such as the vicinity of the driver's seat and the vicinity of the passenger seat… the stop button 5 is installed at a position that is visible to the passenger and easily operated by the passenger. When the stop button 5 is pressed, it outputs a signal (request signal) that informs the main ECU 20 (to be described later) of the emergency stop request of the passenger that it has detected the emergency stop request of the passenger.”, [0028] “the stop button 5 were provided as a passenger side stop request | requirement detection means and the passenger's emergency stop request…a strong automatic brake may be applied after the passenger's vehicle stop request is detected” and [0019] “the hazard lamp 7 notifies the surroundings that the bus 2 is in an emergency, and blinks at predetermined intervals in response to a control signal from a main ECU 20 described later. As the hazard lamp 7, an existing hazard lamp that informs the surroundings of the direction change or stop may be used, or a new lamp different from the existing hazard lamp may be provided. When using an existing hazard lamp, it is preferable that the blinking interval in this emergency is different from that at the time of turning or stopping.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate activation of hazard lights as taught by Tanaka T for the purpose of “informs the surroundings of the direction change or stop” (Tanaka T, [0019]).
b. Regarding claim 17, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user input is an emergency stopping button.
Tanaka T teaches wherein the user input is an emergency stopping button. ([0018] “The stop button 5 is pressed by a passenger in an emergency, and a plurality of stop buttons 5 are provided in the same manner as the microphone 40, and are installed at several locations in the vehicle such as the vicinity of the driver's seat and the vicinity of the passenger seat… the stop button 5 is installed at a position that is visible to the passenger and easily operated by the passenger. When the stop button 5 is pressed, it outputs a signal (request signal) that informs the main ECU 20 (to be described later) of the emergency stop request of the passenger that it has detected the emergency stop request of the passenger.” And [0028] “the stop button 5 were provided as a passenger side stop request | requirement detection means and the passenger's emergency stop request…a strong automatic brake may be applied after the passenger's vehicle stop request is detected)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. to incorporate a stop button as taught by Tanaka T for the purpose of allowing the user to stop the vehicle in emergency situations.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al. (US 8688306 B1) in view of Ichinose et al. (US 10055694 B2), in view of Herbach et al. (US 9523984 B1), and further in view of Lee Soo Sean (KR 20080074577 A).
a. Regarding claim 22, Nemec et al. in view of Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al. and Herbach et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to indicate the user input being in the activate state in response to a seatbelt being buckled.
Lee Soo Sean teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to indicate the user input being in the activate state in response to a seatbelt being buckled. (Steps 202 – 208, Figure 2, and page 5 lines 1 -5 “When the driver wears the seat belt in steps 206 to 208, the control unit 20 receives whether the seat belt is worn by the passenger seat from the seat belt unit 22, and when the seat belt is worn in both the driver's seat and the passenger seat, the controller (20) controls the driving control unit 26 of the navigation so that all the menu items of the navigation can be utilized even while the vehicle is running.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Nemec et al. in combination with Ichinose et al., and Herbach et al. to incorporate enabling navigation selection/menu when driver/passenger(s) wears seat belt as taught by Lee Soo Sean for the purpose of providing safety to the driver/passenger(s) within the vehicle.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 1 renders obvious instant claim 1 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 1 renders obvious instant claim 2 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 2 renders obvious instant claim 4 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 3 renders obvious instant claim 5 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claims 4 and 5 render obvious instant claim 6 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 8 renders obvious instant claim 6 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 1 renders obvious instant claim 10 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 11 renders obvious instant claim 11 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 12 renders obvious instant claim 12 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claims 13, 14, and 15 render obvious instant claim 13 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 16 renders obvious instant claim 16 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 18 renders obvious instant claim 17 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 18 renders obvious instant claim 18 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference of claim 17 renders obvious instant claim 19 since in order to implement the method of the reference U.S. Patent No. 11803183 B2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666