DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the originally filed application papers. Claims filed on 01/12/2024 are being examined. Claims 1-13 are being considered and further pending examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 01/12/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages XXX, filed XXX, with respect to the restriction(s) of claim(s) XXX have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argued the following:
Applicant argues that search and/or examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden.
Regarding point a, applicant argues at least because a thorough search and/or examiner of the claims of species I would be relevant to search of the claims in species II. However, examiner maintains a restriction is proper. While generally related, a search for species I, wherein, a drone is required to autonomous place markers, would require separate search as species II specifically uses a robotic arm attached to the vehicle to place markers. These two species would require separate searches as the species use two separate methods requiring separate technological capabilities where are un-related to one another to perform the functions. Examiner maintains that an robotic arm attached to a vehicle would not show up in searches in which a drone, which is a second separate entity capable of operation independent of the vehicle, is used in conjunction with an autonomous vehicle. As such examiner maintains the requirement for restriction is proper.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (“a drone placement device”, “a memory device”) that is coupled with functional language (“for locating”, “storing”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
”a drone placement device for locating each of the at least one markers” recited in claims 1-3. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take “a drone placement device” as a drone, robot, and/or vehicle or equivalent based on the following excerpt(s) from the specification:
Para [0066]: “However it should be understood that although a flying drone is shown schematically in FIGS. 10A-10C, the methodology for deploying the markers 600 shown in FIGS. 10A-10C may also be applied to drone 920.”
”a memory device, the memory device storing instructions” recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take “a memory device” as any hardware device allowing for information and/or data to be stored and retrieved or equivalent based on the following excerpt(s) from the specification:
Para [0038]: “The memory 306 may be any device allowing information such as executable instructions and/or data to be stored and retrieved.”
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 16/933,543 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “a drone placement device” and “a device” of claim 1 of the instant application may be interpreted to be the same thing as “a placement device” of claim 1 of application 16/933,543.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
16/933,543
1. An autonomous vehicle comprising:
a frame including a support frame;
at least one marker supported on the support frame;
a marker deployment system, the marker deployment system including a drone placement device for locating each of the at least one markers from the support base to a desired location relative to the vehicle; and
an autonomy system, the autonomy system including a processing system comprising a processor, and a memory device, the memory device storing instructions that when executed by the processor transmit signals to the device causing the device to locate each of the at least one markers at the desired location relative to the autonomous vehicle.
1. An autonomous vehicle comprising:
a frame including a support frame;
at least one marker supported by the support frame;
a marker deployment system, the marker deployment system including a placement device for locating each of the at least one markers from the support frame to a desired location relative to the vehicle; and
an autonomy system, the autonomy system including a processing system comprising, a processor, and a memory device, the memory device storing instructions that when executed by the processor transmit signals to the placement device causing the placement device to locate each of the at least one markers at the desired location relative to the autonomous vehicle.
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 1-4 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “location each of the at least one marker from the support base to a desired location” and “causing the device to locate each of the at least one markers” however this limitation is unclear as the context of the claim it is uncertain if the drone placement device/ device is intended only to determine a location of a placed marker or if locate/locating is used to indicate an action of placing a marker. For the purpose of compact prosecution the examiner will interpret this limitation as an action of placing/placement of a marker or similar.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 are dependent on claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies thereof, therefore are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Price et al (US 20210394674 A1) henceforth referred to as Price.
Regarding Claim 1 Price teaches An autonomous vehicle comprising (para [0079] : “Referring still to FIG. 1, the example embodiment of the ecosystem 101, and the vehicle operational subsystems 140 therein, can include a variety of vehicle subsystems in support of the operation of the vehicle 105. In general, the vehicle 105 may take the form of a car, truck, motorcycle, bus, boat, airplane, helicopter, lawn mower, earth mover, snowmobile, aircraft, recreational vehicle, amusement park vehicle, farm equipment, construction equipment, tram, golf cart, train, and trolley, for example. Other vehicles are possible as well. The vehicle 105 may be configured to operate fully or partially in an autonomous mode.”):
a frame including a support frame (para [0103] : “In certain embodiments, the roadside signaling system 300 includes a signaling device housing 302, one or more signaling device(s) 304, one or more signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306, and a control system 308.”);
at least one marker supported on the support frame (para [0103] : “Each of the signaling device(s) 304 can be mounted to one of the signaling device transportation vehicles 306.”, Fig. 12A, fig 12A shows the signaling device transportation vehicles 206 in and supported on the signaling device housing 302);
a marker deployment system, the marker deployment system including a drone placement device for locating each of the at least one markers from the support base to a desired location relative to the vehicle (para [101] : “FIG. 2 illustrates an autonomous vehicle 105 on the roadway 310 and having an emergency roadside signaling system 300 (also referred to as an object placing device 300) in accordance with aspects of this disclosure.”, para [0103] : “Each of the signaling device(s) 304 can be mounted to one of the signaling device transportation vehicles 306.”); and
an autonomy system, the autonomy system including a processing system comprising a processor, and a memory device, the memory device storing instructions that when executed by the processor transmit signals to the device causing the device to locate each of the at least one markers at the desired location relative to the autonomous vehicle (para [0104] : “As discussed herein, the control system 308 can be configured to control the signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306 to transport the signaling device(s) 304. In some embodiments, the control system 308 can include a data processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory in order to process signals received from the sensor(s) 316 and to provide instructions to the signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306.”).
Regarding Claim 2 Price teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, further Price teaches wherein the drone placement device comprises a remote-controlled vehicle (para [0178] : “In some implementations, the signaling device transportation vehicles 306 may be embodied as remotely controlled road vehicles 2702, for example, as illustrated in FIGS. 27A-27D.”).
Regarding Claim 3 Price teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, further Price teaches wherein the drone placement device comprises a flying drone (para [0145] : “In certain embodiments, the drone 306 is further configured to pick up one or more signaling devices 304 and fly to one of the locations defined by the predefined criteria for the placement of the signaling devices 304.”).
Regarding Claim 4 Price teaches The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, further Price teaches wherein the support defines a chamber, the chamber having a base and a ramp provided in the base, the ramp being movable toward and away from the base (para [0180] : “In certain implementations, after the autonomous vehicle 105 has stopped or slowed on the roadway 310, the signaling device housing 302 can lower a ramp 2704 on which the signaling device transportation vehicle 2702 can travel to reach the roadway 310.”, Fig. 27B, fig 27B shows a ramp 2704 lowered away from compartment 302).
Regarding Claim 5 Price teaches A method for deploying markers relative to an autonomous vehicle in response to an emergency stop; the method comprising (para [0115] : “FIG. 5 illustrates an example method 400 for deploying emergency roadside signaling device(s) 304 in accordance with aspects of this disclosure.”):
determining if an emergency stop has occurred (para [0116] : “The method 400 begins at block 401. At block 405, the control system 308 receives a signal that the autonomous vehicle 105 is stopped. For example, the control system 308 may receive a signal from the in-vehicle control system 150 indicating that the autonomous vehicle 105 has parked on or near the roadway 310. In some aspects, the in-vehicle control system 150 may generate the signal when the autonomous vehicle 105 is forced to make an unplanned stop. The unplanned stop may be due to mechanical failure, unsafe driving conditions (e.g., poor visibility, heavy rain, icy roadways, strong winds, etc.), or any other situation in which the autonomous vehicle is forced to stop on or near the roadway 310.”, para [0117] : “In certain embodiments, the control system 308 may receive the signal indicating that the autonomous vehicle 105 is stopped from the sensor(s) 316. For example, the sensor(s) 316 may detect when the autonomous vehicle 105 has stopped.”);
determining the location of the emergency stop (para [0116] : “For example, the control system 308 may receive a signal from the in-vehicle control system 150 indicating that the autonomous vehicle 105 has parked on or near the roadway 310.”);
defining where the at least one marker should be located (para [0118] : “At block 410, the control system 308 determines where to place the signaling device(s) 304.”); and
using an autonomous vehicle marker deployment system drone to place the at least one marker in the at least one defined location (para [0121] : “At block 415, the control system 308 provides instructions to the signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306 to position the signaling device(s) 304.”).
Regarding Claim 6 Price teaches The method of claim 5 further Price teaches wherein the drone is a remote-controlled vehicle (para [0178] : “In some implementations, the signaling device transportation vehicles 306 may be embodied as remotely controlled road vehicles 2702, for example, as illustrated in FIGS. 27A-27D.”).
Regarding Claim 7 Price teaches The method of claim 5 further Price teaches wherein the drone is a flying drone (para [0145] : “In certain embodiments, the drone 306 is further configured to pick up one or more signaling devices 304 and fly to one of the locations defined by the predefined criteria for the placement of the signaling devices 304.”).
Regarding Claim 8 Price teaches The method of claim 5, further Price teaches wherein using the deployment system drone further comprises placing a marker on the drone and causing the drone to complete at least one delivery loop to place the marker in the defined location (para [0103] : “Each of the signaling device(s) 304 can be mounted to one of the signaling device transportation vehicles 306.”, para [0121] : “At block 415, the control system 308 provides instructions to the signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306 to position the signaling device(s) 304.”).
Regarding Claim 9 Price teaches The method of claim 8 further Price teaches wherein each delivery loop comprises leaving a support frame chamber, locating the marker at the defined location and returning to the support frame chamber (para [0145] : “In certain embodiments, the drone 306 is further configured to pick up one or more signaling devices 304 and fly to one of the locations defined by the predefined criteria for the placement of the signaling devices 304. The drone 306 can then place the signaling device 304 at the signaling device location and return to the signaling device housing 302.”).
Regarding Claim 10 Price teaches The method of claim 9 further Price teaches further comprising lowering a ramp before the drone leaves the support frame chamber with the marker (para [0180] : “In certain implementations, after the autonomous vehicle 105 has stopped or slowed on the roadway 310, the signaling device housing 302 can lower a ramp 2704 on which the signaling device transportation vehicle 2702 can travel to reach the roadway 310.”).
Regarding Claim 11 Price teaches The method of claim 8 further Price renders obvious wherein the drone completes three deliver loops (para [0038] : “In some embodiments, the plurality of signaling devices comprise three bidirectional emergency reflective triangles that conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.”, para [0143] : “The example locations for the signaling device housing 302 shown in FIGS. 11A-11C may be employed for embodiments in which one or more signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306 are used to deploy the signaling devices 304.”, para [0145] : “In certain embodiments, the drone 306 is further configured to pick up one or more signaling devices 304 and fly to one of the locations defined by the predefined criteria for the placement of the signaling devices 304. The drone 306 can then place the signaling device 304 at the signaling device location and return to the signaling device housing 302.”, in a case where the is one drone picking up more than one signaling device (the three bidirectional emergency reflective triangles), in order to place them, the drone would be required to complete 3 delivery loops).
Regarding Claim 12 Price teaches The method of claim 5 further Price teaches wherein using the deployment system drone further comprises placing a plurality of markers on the drone and causing the drone to complete one delivery loop to place the markers in the defined locations (para [0038] : “In some embodiments, the plurality of signaling devices comprise three bidirectional emergency reflective triangles that conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.”, para [0103] : “Each of the signaling device(s) 304 can be mounted to one of the signaling device transportation vehicles 306.”, this occurs in a case where there is one drone with the signaling device mounted to the drones).
Regarding Claim 13 XXX teaches A method for deploying markers relative to an autonomous vehicle in response to an emergency stop; the method comprising:
determining if an emergency stop has occurred (para [0116] : “The method 400 begins at block 401. At block 405, the control system 308 receives a signal that the autonomous vehicle 105 is stopped. For example, the control system 308 may receive a signal from the in-vehicle control system 150 indicating that the autonomous vehicle 105 has parked on or near the roadway 310. In some aspects, the in-vehicle control system 150 may generate the signal when the autonomous vehicle 105 is forced to make an unplanned stop. The unplanned stop may be due to mechanical failure, unsafe driving conditions (e.g., poor visibility, heavy rain, icy roadways, strong winds, etc.), or any other situation in which the autonomous vehicle is forced to stop on or near the roadway 310.”, para [0117] : “In certain embodiments, the control system 308 may receive the signal indicating that the autonomous vehicle 105 is stopped from the sensor(s) 316. For example, the sensor(s) 316 may detect when the autonomous vehicle 105 has stopped.”);
determining the location of the emergency stop (para [0116] : “For example, the control system 308 may receive a signal from the in-vehicle control system 150 indicating that the autonomous vehicle 105 has parked on or near the roadway 310.”);
defining where the at least one marker should be located (para [0118] : “At block 410, the control system 308 determines where to place the signaling device(s) 304.”); and
using an autonomous vehicle marker deployment system to place the at least one marker in the at least on defined location (para [0121] : “At block 415, the control system 308 provides instructions to the signaling device transportation vehicle(s) 306 to position the signaling device(s) 304.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Gordon et al (US 20180190042 A1) teaches a system which deploys a road safety flare near a faulty self-driving vehicle with one or more processors to detect a driving problem severity level, asses environmental conditions at the location of the faulty SDV, determine an opportune position for deploying the flare based on the environmental conditions, and the deploy a road safety flare to the opportune position.
Goldberg et al (US 20180061235 A1) teaches a system for an aerial drone which is coupled to a warning sign for warning other vehicles of a presence of a faulty vehicle. The drone is positioned at a location of the faulty vehicle, where, in response to detecting the faulty vehicle, the drone assessed environmental conditions at the location of the vehicle and an optimal position for the warning sign is determined and the drone is positioned at the optimal position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668