DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to arguments/amendments filed 12/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Specification
The title objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The lack of antecedent basis rejection of claims 3 and 13 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The indefinite rejection of claims 5 and 15 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The indefinite rejection of claims 3 and 13 is maintained. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below with newly bolded text.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 9, and 19, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to the Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-20:
The request to hold the rejections in abeyance is denied. MPEP section 804.I.B.1 states that an applicant must either A) Reply showing that the claims subject to rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or B) File a terminal disclaimer. A portion of MPEP section 804.I.B.1 has been reproduced below. Abeyance is reserved for matters of claim form and/or objection only. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.
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).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. 2025/0074468 A1; hereafter Park).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application, 18/659,065, are broader than the claims of Park, which shares the Applicant and Inventors with the instant application. See below for the claim by claim comparison.
Instant Application 18/659,065
Park et al. (US Pub. 2025/0074468 A1)
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
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 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 3-8 and 13-18 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
The determining of the target location for the vehicle to stop is stated to occur “based on a determination that there is an inappropriate area for the vehicle to stop,” however, no such determination of an “inappropriate area” has been made in claim 3 nor claim 13. The bounds of the claims are unclear, and thus indefinite. Examiner believes the claim 2 (or 12) limitation of “determining whether there is an area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop;” must occur before claims 3 and 13. Examiner recommends amending claims 3 and 13 to depend from claims 2 and 12, respectively.
Claims 4-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Claims 14-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2022/092682 A1; hereafter Yang) in view of Vanterpool et al. (US Pub. 2020/0346648 A1, hereafter Vanterpool).
Yang was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches:
An apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
at least one sensor, based on sensing surrounding environment of the vehicle, configured to generate surrounding environment information (At least Page 4, ¶ 3 “The sensor 110 may sense an environment around the vehicle 100 and generate data related to the surroundings of the vehicle 100”);
a processor (Processor 130); and
a controller configured to control operations of the vehicle (Controller 120),
wherein the processor is configured to:
generate, based on a vehicle state of the vehicle, vehicle state information (At least Page 9, ¶ 6 “the processor 130 may detect the vehicle 100 and a state around the vehicle 100.”),
during autonomous driving of the vehicle (At least Page 6, ¶ 8 “The driving state S1 may mean a state in which the vehicle 100 is driving. According to embodiments, in the driving state S1 , the vehicle 100 may drive under the control of the processor 130 . For example, the driving state S1 may mean a state in which the vehicle 100 is autonomously driving.”), determine, based on at least one of the surrounding environment information or the vehicle state information, whether a minimal risk maneuver is to be performed (At least Page 7, ¶ 1 “the vehicle 100 may determine whether a minimum risk operation is required according to various methods”), wherein the minimal risk maneuver comprises controlling autonomous driving of the vehicle for reducing a risk of collision (At least Page 7, ¶ 1 “In the minimum risk operation state S2 , the vehicle 100 may perform an operation for reducing the risk of the vehicle 100 .”),
determine, based on a determination that the minimal risk maneuver is to be performed, a minimal risk maneuver type (At least Page 10, ¶ 1 “The vehicle 100 may select a type of minimum risk operation ( S130 ). According to embodiments, the vehicle 100 may select the type of minimum risk operation suitable for the current failure state based on the determination result of the failure state.”) and a target location for the vehicle to stop (At least Page 16, ¶ 4 “In addition, the potential stopping area referred to in the present disclosure refers to an area in which stopping of the own vehicle is possible as an area adjacent to the current location of the own vehicle. For example, the potential still area may be determined using location information such as an HD map, sensing information input through a sensor, information input through a communication device, and the like.”), and
control, based on the determined minimal risk maneuver type and the target location, autonomous driving of the vehicle by causing the controller to operate the vehicle to stop at the target location (At least Page 10, ¶ 3 “The vehicle 100 may initiate the minimum risk operation by using the selected minimum risk operation type ( S140 ). According to example embodiments, the vehicle 100 may control the vehicle 100 according to the selected minimum risk manipulation type. For example, the processor 130 of the vehicle 100 may transmit a control command corresponding to the selected minimum risk manipulation type to the controller 120 , and the controller 120 may control the vehicle 100 according to the control command.”).
Yang does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the target location for the vehicle to stop based on a minimum change of a preset deceleration rate.
However, Vanterpool, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the target location for the vehicle to stop based on a minimum change of a preset deceleration rate (At least ¶ [0040] “The optimal braking location 130 may be based on a specific deceleration rate, e.g., a constant deceleration rate, in which the hybrid vehicle 100 maintains regenerative braking.” and ¶ [0049] “The energy module 420 may use … a constant deceleration rate between the predicted braking location 145 and the stopping location 120 …” A constant deceleration rate is analogous to a 0% change of the deceleration rate (i.e. the most minimal change to a deceleration rate possible.). Additionally, the stopping location 120 is dependent on the braking location. Therefore, the stopping location (i.e. target location for the vehicle to stop) is based on a constant deceleration (i.e. minimum change to a deceleration rate).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang with Vanterpool. This modification would have been obvious as both Yang and Vanterpool contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and Yang, page 2, ¶ 4 notes that “…if an appropriate response to the event is not performed, the vehicle may be in a dangerous state...”. Introducing Vanterpool to Yang may help mitigate a dangerous state. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that drastically altering a deceleration rate (e.g. increasing) may create a dangerous situation for those proximate to the AV through sudden deceleration leading to a rear-end collision. Vanterpool teaches a constant deceleration rate. This constant rate creates a more predictable environment for those proximate to the AV, and also a more comfortable driving experience for those traveling in the AV.
Claim 11 recites a method which is performed by the apparatus detailed in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yang and Vanterpool teaches the method of claim 11, Yang further teaches stopping, based on the minimal risk maneuver, the vehicle in an event of a failure during autonomous driving of the vehicle (At least Page 7, ¶ 3 “the vehicle 100 may automatically detect a specific event and automatically perform a minimum risk operation according to the occurrence of the specific event.” and Page 7, ¶ 4 “The specific event may include failure of components of the vehicle 100 , deviation of the vehicle 100 , or failure of control of the vehicle 100 .”).
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Vanterpool, in further view of Miller et al. (US Pub. 2018/0004215 A1; hereafter Miller).
Miller was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang and Vanterpool teaches The apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Yang and Vanterpool does not teach:
determine whether there is an area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop; and
after determining that there is no area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop, determine, based on the minimal risk maneuver type and the preset deceleration rate, the target location for the vehicle to stop.
However, Miller, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
determine whether there is an area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop (At least ¶ [0015] “the path planning system 100 receives and processes sensor data and/or map data to determine whether an area in an upcoming path includes a keep clear zone. As used herein, a keep clear zone is an area of the roadway that the vehicle 10 should not stop in, such as, but not limited to, an intersection, railroad tracks, a cross walk, etc.”); and
after determining that there is no area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop, determine, based on the minimal risk maneuver type and the preset deceleration rate, the target location for the vehicle to stop (At least ¶ [0040] “the advice 96 takes into account keep clear zones with the lane and selectively indicates stop points along the planned path 98. The path planner module 82 processes the advice 96 along with other information (e.g., other stop points from other motion planners) to determine whether the stop points can be achieved when finalizing the vehicle path 98.” and ¶ [0048] “If the semantic map defines the lane as a lane that should avoid stopping in at 410, then a keep clear zone is created at 412 and stored in a datastore at 414. If, however, the lane is not a lane that should avoid stopping in, then the method continues to process the next lane at 406. Once all of the lanes of the lane plan have been processed at 406, an empty list of stop points is created at 416 and stored at 418.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yang and Vanterpool with Miller. This modification would have been obvious as both the Yang/Vanterpool combination and Miller contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and Yang, page 2, ¶ 4 notes that “…if an appropriate response to the event is not performed, the vehicle may be in a dangerous state...”. Introducing Miller to Yang helps alleviate the danger that an AV may face in the event of an emergency maneuver. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identifying areas in which the AV should not stop (i.e. railroad tracks, intersection) constitutes part of an “appropriate response”. Identifying and avoiding dangerous areas would lead to increased safety for the occupants of the AV, as well as any others proximate to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yang and Vanterpool teaches The apparatus of claim 1. Miller further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, based on a determination that there is an area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop, determine, based on the minimal risk maneuver type and the preset deceleration rate, the target location for the vehicle to stop to avoid the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop (At least ¶ [0015] “When a keep clear zone is identified in the upcoming path, the path planning system 100 seeks advice from a motion planner on whether the vehicle 10 could be stopped outside of the keep clear zone … The path planning system 100 plans a final path plan for the vehicle 10 to follow based on the advice.” and ¶ [0024] “identify keep clear zones within an upcoming path, generate advice as to whether the vehicle 10 can be stopped outside of keep clear zone, and plan the path of the vehicle 10 based on the advice.” and ¶ [0043] “the motion planner module 84 may further take into account, in various embodiments, vehicle data such as jerk values, acceleration values, and/or deceleration values when determining if it is possible, so as to determine if the stop would be a “comfortable stop.” If it is possible to “comfortably” stop the vehicle 10, the motion planner module 84 creates a stop point and generates the advice 96 including the stop point.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 3, Miller further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the target location by determining an area, for the vehicle to stop, that is located before the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop or past the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop to be the target location (At least ¶ [0043] “When it is determined that a stop (and/or speed below a threshold) is expected to occur in a keep clear zone 103 (or at an end of a keep clear zone 103), the motion planner module 84 determines if it is possible to stop the vehicle 10 outside of the keep clear zone 103 based on the current speed 101 and current position 102.” and ¶ [0052] “If, however, it is determined that the vehicle can be “comfortably” stopped at the beginning (or other location outside) of the keep clear zone at 430, a boolean keep clear signal is created at 432. In various embodiments, a low pass filter and/or one or more hysteresis are applied to the keep clear signal at 434; and so long as the keep clear signal is active at 436, a stop point is maintained at the start point of the keep clear zone at 438.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 4, Miller further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine, based on the minimum change of the preset deceleration rate, the target location for the vehicle to stop as one of the area located before the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop and the area located past the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop (At least ¶ [0043] “When it is determined that a stop (and/or speed below a threshold) is expected to occur in a keep clear zone 103 (or at an end of a keep clear zone 103), the motion planner module 84 determines if it is possible to stop the vehicle 10 outside of the keep clear zone 103 based on the current speed 101 and current position 102.” and ¶ [0052] “If, however, it is determined that the vehicle can be “comfortably” stopped at the beginning (or other location outside) of the keep clear zone at 430, a boolean keep clear signal is created at 432. In various embodiments, a low pass filter and/or one or more hysteresis are applied to the keep clear signal at 434; and so long as the keep clear signal is active at 436, a stop point is maintained at the start point of the keep clear zone at 438.” “Comfortably stopping” a vehicle is analogous to basing the stop on a minimum change of a preset deceleration rate (i.e. not stopping abruptly or slamming on the brakes).).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 4, Yang further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the controller to adjust the preset deceleration rate or adjust a starting point of deceleration initiation such that the vehicle stops at the target location (At least Page 21, ¶ 4 “This preset deceleration may be different depending on the MRM type, and may be a constant value regardless of the MRM type (eg, 4m/s^2).” A different preset deceleration is analogous to adjusting a preset deceleration rate.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 4, Yang further teaches wherein the processor is configured to use an emergency brake to increase a deceleration rate above the preset deceleration rate such that the vehicle stops at the target location (At least Page 5, ¶ 7 “the controller 120 may control to automatically operate the emergency brake when a collision is expected.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 2, Miller further teaches wherein the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop comprises railroad crossings, intersections, building entrances, or building exits (At least ¶ [0015] “a keep clear zone is an area of the roadway that the vehicle 10 should not stop in, such as, but not limited to, an intersection, railroad tracks, a cross walk, etc.”). While Vanterpool further teaches:
wherein the target location for the vehicle to stop is determined, among a plurality of candidate target locations for the vehicle to stop, based on the minimum change of the preset deceleration rate (At least ¶ [0040] “The optimal braking location 130 may be based on a specific deceleration rate, e.g., a constant deceleration rate, in which the hybrid vehicle 100 maintains regenerative braking.” and ¶ [0049] “The energy module 420 may use … a constant deceleration rate between the predicted braking location 145 and the stopping location 120 …” A constant deceleration rate is analogous to a 0% change of the deceleration rate (i.e. the most minimal change to a deceleration rate possible.). Additionally, the stopping location 120 is dependent on the braking location. Therefore, the stopping location (i.e. target location for the vehicle to stop) is based on a constant deceleration (i.e. minimum change to a deceleration rate).), and
wherein an initiation of a deceleration of the determined minimal risk maneuver type is delayed based on a condition for the determined minimal risk maneuver type associated with the target location being satisfied (At least ¶ [0043] “the coasting guidance system 380 may communicate the ideal coasting location 125 and the optimal braking location 130 to the autonomous driving module(s) 360. Accordingly, the autonomous driving module(s) 360 may instruct the appropriate vehicle systems 340 to release the accelerator pedal at the ideal coasting location 125 and apply the energy dissipating brakes at the optimal braking location 130.” An initiation of a deceleration is analogous to applying brakes at location 130. This initiation of deceleration is delayed by coasting in between points 125 and 130, with location 130 being based on stopping (i.e. a condition for the determined MRM associated with the target location) at a stopping point 120 (i.e. target location being satisfied).).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 2, Yang further teaches wherein the minimal risk maneuver comprises stopping the vehicle in an event of a failure during autonomous driving (At least Page 7, ¶ 3 “the vehicle 100 may automatically detect a specific event and automatically perform a minimum risk operation according to the occurrence of the specific event.” and Page 7, ¶ 4 “The specific event may include failure of components of the vehicle 100, deviation of the vehicle 100 , or failure of control of the vehicle 100 .”).
Claims 12-15 and 17-19 recite a method which is performed by the apparatus in claims 2-5 and 7-9 respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Vanterpool, in view of Miller, in further view of Willoughby et al. (US Pub. 2023/0138981 A1; hereafter Willoughby).
Willoughby was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller teaches The apparatus of claim 4.
The combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine whether a condition that prevents stopping in an area past the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop is satisfied, and
determine, based on the condition being satisfied, an area for the vehicle to stop before the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop.
However, Willoughby, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine whether a condition that prevents stopping in an area past the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop is satisfied (At least ¶ [0091] “the control device 1050 determines whether the target lane 112 still provides available space with at least the length of the autonomous vehicle 1002 on the other side of the railroad. For example, the control device 1050 may re-evaluate the target lane 112 to determine whether it still provides available space with at least the length of the autonomous vehicle 1002 on the other side of the railroad, similar to that described in FIG. 2. If it is determined that the target lane 112 still provides available space with at least the length of the autonomous vehicle 1002 on the other side of the railroad, method 300 proceeds to operation 320. Otherwise, method 300 proceeds to operation 316.”), and
determine, based on the condition being satisfied, an area for the vehicle to stop before the area inappropriate for the vehicle to stop (At least ¶ [0092] “At operation 316, the control device 1050 instructs the autonomous vehicle 1002 to stop before entering the railroad crossing 104, for example, by gradually applying breaks 1048b (see FIG. 10). At operation 318, the control device 1050 waits until the target lane 112 again provides available space with at least the length of the autonomous vehicle 1002 on the other side of the railroad.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yang, Vanterpool, and Miller with Willoughby. This modification would have been obvious as both the Yang/Vanterpool/Miller combination and Willoughby contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and Yang, page 2, ¶ 4 notes that “…if an appropriate response to the event is not performed, the vehicle may be in a dangerous state...”. Introducing Willoughby to the Yang/Vanterpool/Miller combination helps eliminate a dangerous state at a railroad crossing. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Willoughby method of comparing the length of the available space on the opposite side of a railroad track with the length of the autonomous vehicle would lessen the chance that the AV would be put into a dangerous state (e.g. rear bumper hanging in front of path of train). This method helps increase the safety of the passenger(s) of the AV.
Claim 16 recites a method which is performed by the apparatus detailed in claim 6, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J Lee can be reached at (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 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668