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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1. The applicant argues that the rejection is rendered moot by the amendments to the claim. However, the amendment to claim 1 of the reference application filed 01/08/2026 corresponds to the amendment to claim 1 of the present application, and thus the nonstatutory double patenting rejection remains valid.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to all other rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112(a).
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 1, 6, 13, 15-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/667,912 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broadest reasonable interpretations of a drivable region and a non-drivable region, respectively, are inclusive of a non-parking area and a parking area (e.g., a roadway with designated parking spaces along one side of the roadway). Similarly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that controlling an autonomous vehicle to park in a designated location (Claim 1 of the reference application) is a specific form of “controlling the autonomous vehicle to traverse the environment” (Claim 1 of the present application).
Similarly, claim 18 of the present application differs from claim 19 of the reference application, in that the present application claims traversing a construction zone whereas the reference application claims traversing a parking destination map area. However, both these traversals include drivable and non-drivable regions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the techniques used in traversing these regions autonomously are the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses that the top-down representation can include “a multi-channel image or polylines” [0011]. Furthermore, Fig. 1 shows a top-down representation 114 with a dynamic object 108; however, the specification fails to disclose how velocity information is incorporated into the image(s) of the top-down representation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 13: As discussed in the previous action, the combination of Kaplan et al. (US 12013256, previously cited) and Green et al. (US 2024014087) teaches receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with an autonomous vehicle, receiving map data of an environment, determining, based on the sensor data, a dynamic object in the environment, and determining, based on the sensor data and the map data, a top-down representation of the environment, wherein the top-down representation comprises at least road marking and velocity information associated with the dynamic object.
Furthermore, the closest available art, Picard et al. (WO 2020165544, previously cited) teaches acquisition and sequential image processing of video data obtained (Picard – [0038]). Furthermore, Picard et al. teaches inputting said data into a neural network in order to receive a first output comprising a first probability that a first element of the first output represents a drivable area and a second output comprising a second probability that a second element of the second output represents a non-drivable area, generating a trajectory based on the first output and the second output, and controlling the autonomous vehicle to traverse the environment based on the trajectory. However, the video data of Picard et al. does not include velocity information associated with a dynamic object, nor does Picard et al. teach a means by which velocity data could be incorporated into the video data.
Cong et al. (“DACR-AMTP”) teaches “fusing the trajectory features output by the LSTM network with the area features output by the dynamic drivable area”. However, Cong et al. is referring to fusing outputs of a neural network, rather than fusing trajectory features and area features into a top-down representation which is used as input for a neural network.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14-20: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claims 1, 6, and 13 and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669