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 .
1. This application is acknowledged as a Continuation of S.N. 17/888443, now US Patent N0. 11,947,354. Claims 1-33 are pending.
2. The IDS filed 4/1/24 and 8/6/24 have been considered as indicated (examiner notes that IDS filed 8/6/24 corrects citation of foreign document cited in the IDS filed 4/1/24). The cited documents were made of record in one or more of the parent applications. Note that cite nos. 13 and 14 listed under “US Patents” (IDS 4/1/24) have been stricken since these documents do not correspond to issued US Patents.
3. 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 6, 14, 15 and 19-33 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.
A. As per claim 6, “the at least one target objective” lacks antecedence in claim 1 (note claim 1, line 9 specifically recites “a target objective”).
B. As per claim 14, “the at least one target objective” lacks antecedence in claim 9 (note claim 9, line 12 specifically recites “a target objective”).
C. As per claim 15, “the at least one target objective” lacks antecedence in claim 9 (note claim 9, line 12 specifically recites “a target objective”).
D. As per claim 19, at line 2 the claim appears to be incomplete (i.e., collects what?). At line 5, “the target data” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of target data (this appears to relate to issue noted above at line 2).
E. As per claim 24, “the at least one target objective” lacks antecedence in claim 19 (note claim 19, lines 8-9 specifically recite “a target objective”).
F. As per claim 26, at line 4 the claim appears to be incomplete (i.e., collects what?). At line 10, “the target data” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of target data (this appears to relate to issue noted above at line 4).
G. As per claim 31, “the at least one target objective” lacks antecedence in claim 26 (note claim 26, lines 13-14 specifically recite “a target objective”).
H. As per claim 32, “the at least one target objective” lacks antecedence in claim 26 (note claim 26, lines 13-14 specifically recite “a target objective”).
I. All claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected for the same reasons.
4. 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.
4.1 Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,415,986. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim(s) is/are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim(s).
Taking application claim 1 as exemplary, the application claim will be shown on the left and the reference claim (patent claim 1) will be shown on the right with common subject matter underlined and differences in bold.
A method for determining an Automated Vehicle (AV) trajectory, the method comprising: communicatively coupling a content generating device to a system controller, wherein the content generating device and the system controller are included in an AV; collecting target data associated with a target, by the content generating device; extracting target features from the target data, by the system controller; comparing the extracted target features to target model data to determine a target pose, by the system controller; comparing the target pose with a target objective to determine an AV trajectory, by the system controller; determining an AV state, by an AV sensor; and determining a motor control command based upon the AV state, the target objective, and the AV trajectory, by the system controller.
A method for determining an Automated Vehicle (AV) trajectory, the method comprising: communicatively coupling a content generating device to a system controller, wherein the content generating device and the system controller are included in an AV; collecting target data associated with a target, by the content generating device; extracting target features from the target data, by the system controller; comparing the extracted target features to target model data to determine a target pose, by the system controller; comparing the target pose with at least one target objective to determine an AV trajectory, by the system controller; determining an AV state, by an AV sensor; and determining at least one motor control command based upon the AV state, the at least one target objective, and the AV trajectory, by the system controller; wherein the AV includes the AV sensor.
As shown above, the only significant differences between the claims is that the application claim recites “a target objective” and “a motor control command” whereas the reference/patent claim recites “at least one target objective” and “at least one motor control command”. The application claim is encompassed within the scope of the reference/patent claim and is thus anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim. The remaining claims were similarly compared and the results are as follows (app/pat): 2-8/2-8; 10-18/10-18.
4.2 Claims 19-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,947,354. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim(s) is/are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim(s).
Taking application claim 19 as exemplary, the application claim will be shown on the left and the reference claim (patent claim1) will be shown on the right with common subject matter underlined and differences in bold. Note: missing text [ ] in application claim is presumed to correspond to patent text regarding target data.
An Autonomous Vehicle (AV) system, the AV system comprising: a content generating device that collects [sic]; a system controller communicatively coupled to the content generating device, wherein the system controller performs the steps of: extracting target features from the target data; comparing the extracted target features to target model data to determine a target pose; determining the AV trajectory by comparing the target pose with a target objective; an AV sensor that determines an AV state; wherein the system controller determines a motor control command associated with the AV trajectory based on the AV state, the target objective, and the AV trajectory.
An Autonomous Vehicle (AV) system capable of determining a motor control command associated with an Automated Vehicle (AV) trajectory, the AV system comprising: a content generating device that collects a plurality of [target data associated with a target]; a system controller communicatively coupled to the content generating device, wherein the system controller performs the steps of: extracting target features from the target data; comparing the extracted target features to a plurality of target model data to determine a target pose; determining the AV trajectory by comparing the target pose with at least one target objective; an AV sensor that determines an AV state; wherein the system controller determines at least one motor control command associated with the AV trajectory based on the AV state, the at least one target objective, and the AV trajectory.
As shown above, the only significant differences between the claims is that the application claim recites “target model data”, “a target objective” and “a motor control command” whereas the reference/patent claim recites “a plurality of target model data”, “at least one target objective” and “at least one motor control command”. The application claim is encompassed within the scope of the reference/patent claim and is thus anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim. The remaining claims were similarly compared and the results are as follows (app/pat): 20-23/2-5; 24-30/9-15; 31/16,18,19; 32/17; 33/20.
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Jia et al. (Recent Developments in Vision Based Target Tracking for Autonomous Vehicles Navigation)- provides general background information on the state of the art in target tracking for autonomous vehicle navigation; evaluates extracted features of targets (landmarks) using techniques such as matching.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661