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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 42-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowert, WO 2016/090282 A1.
As per Claim 42, Kowert teaches one or more integrated circuits (¶ 55; “ASICs”), configured to:
receive sensor data captured using one or more sensors during manual navigation of a vehicle along a driving route (¶¶ 57-58), wherein the one or more sensors are installed in the vehicle and connected to the one or more integrated circuits at the vehicle (¶¶ 58-60);
cause an updated characterization of the driving route to be generated based, at least in part, on the sensor data and a previously generated characterization of the driving route (¶ 37), wherein the previously generate characterization was generated based, at least in part, on previously captured sensor data associated with one or more prior vehicle navigations along the driving route (¶¶ 42-43, 55-56);
cause a confidence value for the updated characterization of the driving route to be determined, wherein the confidence value is determined based, at least in part, on a comparison of the updated characterization with the previously generated characterization (¶¶ 88-90); and
enable autonomous navigation by the vehicle along at least a portion of the driving route according to an evaluation of the confidence value with respect to a threshold value that allows autonomous navigation of the vehicle to be enabled for the driving route (¶¶ 86-87).
As per Claim 49, Kowert teaches one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media (¶ 161), storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more integrated circuits installed in a vehicle (¶ 55; “ASICs”), cause the one or more integrated circuits to:
obtain sensor data using one or more sensors during manual navigation of a vehicle along a driving route (¶¶ 57-58), wherein the one or more sensors are installed in the vehicle and connected to the one or more integrated circuits at the vehicle (¶¶ 58-60);
cause an updated characterization of the driving route to be generated based, at least in part on the sensor data and a previously generated characterization of the driving route (¶ 37), wherein the previously generate characterization was generated based, at least in part, on previously captured sensor data associated with one or more prior vehicle navigations along the driving route (¶¶ 42-43, 55-56);
cause a confidence value for the updated characterization of the driving route to be determined, wherein the confidence value is determined based, at least in part, on a comparison of the updated characterization with the previously generated characterization (¶¶ 88-90); and
enable autonomous navigation by the vehicle along at least a portion of the driving route according to an evaluation of the confidence value with respect to a threshold value that allows autonomous navigation of the vehicle to be enabled for the driving route (¶¶ 86-87).
As per Claims 43 and 50, Kowert teaches that to cause the updated characterization of the driving route to be generated, the one or more integrated circuits are configured to send the sensor data via a wireless communication to a remote service that generates the updated characterization of the driving route and returns the updated characterization of the driving route via a second wireless communication to the one or more integrated circuits (¶¶ 60, 95).
As per Claims 44 and 51, Kowert teaches that to cause the confidence value for the updated characterization of the driving route to be determined, the one or more integrated circuits are configured to receive the confidence value with the updated characterization of the driving route from the remote service (¶¶ 87-89), wherein the confidence value is determined by the remote service after generating the updated characterization of the driving route (¶¶ 35-36).
As per Claims 45 and 52, Kowert teaches that to cause the updated characterization of the driving route to be generated, the one or more integrated circuits are configured to:
obtain the previously generated characterization of the vehicle route from a remote service via wireless communication (¶¶ 94-95); and
use the previously generated characterization of the vehicle route and the sensor data to generate the updated characterization of the driving route (¶¶ 113-114; to update from route 620 to route 630 as shown in Figure 6).
As per Claims 46 and 53, Kowert teaches that the one or more integrated circuits are further configured to cause a proposal to enable autonomous navigation of the vehicle to be displayed at a display device installed in the vehicle; and wherein the autonomous navigation is enabled responsive to receiving a request that accepts the proposal (¶¶ 113-114).
As per Claims 47 and 54, Kowert teaches that the previously captured sensor data was captured using one or more sensors of another vehicle that navigated the vehicle route (¶¶ 70-72; either within vehicle 302 or vehicle 332 of Figure 3).
As per Claims 48 and 55, Kowert teaches that the previously generated characterization of the vehicle route was generated by another vehicle that navigated the vehicle route (¶ 72).
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.
Claims 42-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,451,425 (“the ‘425 patent), over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,221 (“the ‘221 patent”), and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,865 (“the ‘865 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘425 patent, the ‘221 patent and the ‘865 patent each claim a method for routing an autonomous vehicle from a starting point to a destination that includes steps of: receiving an initial route wirelessly from a remote service; determining a confidence factor for the received initial route; comparing the confidence factor with an acceptable threshold; and determining whether to follow the received initial route autonomously, or to navigate manually along a different route.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661