DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application, which was filed May 23, 2024 as a continuation of US Patent Application 18/538,312, filed December 13, 2023, which claims the benefit of US Provisional Applications 63/432,137, filed December 13, 2022 and 63/442,636, filed February 1, 2023. The application contains Claims 1-20.
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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “category risk” should read --category of risk--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,027,053 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Instant Application:
Parent Prior Art. App : # 18/538,312
Patent # US 12,027,053 B2
Independent claim 1
Independent claim 1
1. A method comprising:
during operation of a vehicle, identifying a set of environmental objects in an environment of the vehicle based on a dataset of environmental information;
simulating a plurality of future scenarios based on the dataset, the plurality of future scenarios comprising:
a first set of scenarios representing the environment; and
a second set of scenarios, each representing a respective alteration of the environment;
determining a set of risks based on the first set of scenarios; calculating a set of metrics based on the set of risks, the second set of scenarios, and a set of velocity metrics associated with the plurality of future scenarios; and
controlling the vehicle based on the set of metrics.
1. A method for evaluating risk for a vehicle, the method comprising: at each of a set of times during operation of the vehicle: collecting a dataset of environmental information; identifying a set of environmental objects in an environment of the vehicle based on the dataset; simulating a set of future scenarios based on the dataset, the set of future scenarios comprising: a first scenario representing the environment; a second scenario representing a first alteration of the environment; a third scenario representing a second alteration of the environment; based on the first scenario, identifying a set of risks; calculating a set of metrics based on the set of risks and a set of velocity metrics associated with the set of future scenarios, wherein calculating the set of metrics comprises: calculating a first set of metrics based on the first scenario; calculating a second set of metrics based on the first scenario and at least one of the second or third scenario; and controlling the vehicle according to the set of metrics.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the second set of scenarios comprises a first scenario and a second scenario, wherein, in the first scenario, movement of only the set of environmental objects is simulated.
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the second set of scenarios comprises a first scenario and a second scenario, wherein: in the first scenario, movement of only the set of environmental objects is simulated; and…
3. The method of claim 2, wherein, in the second scenario, movement of only the vehicle is simulated.
…in the second scenario, movement of only the vehicle is simulated.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of risks comprises multiple categories of risk, the multiple categories of risk comprising a first category of risk, wherein the first category risk involves multiple objects of a set of objects, the set of objects comprising the vehicle and the set of environmental objects.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of risks comprises multiple categories of risk, the multiple categories of risk comprising a first category of risk, wherein the first category risk involves multiple objects of a set of objects, the set of objects comprising the vehicle and the set of environmental objects.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the first category of risk comprises a simulated collision in the first set of scenarios.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first category of risk comprises a simulated collision in the first scenario.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the multiple categories of risk further comprise a second category of risk, wherein a metric of the set of metrics is calculated based on the second category of risk, wherein the metric is determined based only on movement of a single object of the set of objects.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the multiple categories of risk further comprises a second category of risk, wherein a metric of the second set of metrics calculated based on the second category is determined based only on movement of a single object of the set of objects.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the second category of risk is not associated with a simulated collision.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the second category of risk is not associated with a simulated collision.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed in accordance with a single policy option of a set of multiple policy options for the vehicle.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed in accordance with a single policy option of a set of multiple policy options for the vehicle.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of metrics comprises a temporal risk profile.
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the aggregated risk comprises a temporal risk profile.
Independent claim 11
Independent claim 1
11. A method for a vehicle, comprising: identifying a set of environmental objects in an environment of the vehicle based on a dataset of environmental information; based on the dataset, simulating a plurality of future scenarios comprising a set of alteration scenarios which represent a respective alteration of the environment; determining a set of risks based on a scenario of the plurality of future scenarios; calculating a set of metrics based on the set of risks, the set of alteration scenarios, and a set of velocity metrics associated with the plurality of future scenarios; and controlling the vehicle based on the set of metrics.
1. A method for evaluating risk for a vehicle, the method comprising: at each of a set of times during operation of the vehicle: collecting a dataset of environmental information; identifying a set of environmental objects in an environment of the vehicle based on the dataset; simulating a set of future scenarios based on the dataset, the set of future scenarios comprising: a first scenario representing the environment; a second scenario representing a first alteration of the environment; a third scenario representing a second alteration of the environment; based on the first scenario, identifying a set of risks; calculating a set of metrics based on the set of risks and a set of velocity metrics associated with the set of future scenarios, wherein calculating the set of metrics comprises: calculating a first set of metrics based on the first scenario; calculating a second set of metrics based on the first scenario and at least one of the second or third scenario; and controlling the vehicle according to the set of metrics.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein at least one of the set of risks is determined based on a labeled map.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the multiple categories of risk is identified based on a set of predetermined zones in a labeled map.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one risk is further determined based on a simulated co-location of the vehicle and an environmental object of the set of environmental objects during the scenario.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the category of risk is further identified based on a simulated co-location of the vehicle and an environmental object of the set of environmental objects in one of the set of predetermined zones during the first scenario.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the set of risks comprises multiple categories of risk, the multiple categories of risk comprising a first category of risk, wherein the first category risk involves multiple objects of a set of objects, the set of objects comprising the vehicle and the set of environmental objects.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of risks comprises multiple categories of risk, the multiple categories of risk comprising a first category of risk, wherein the first category risk involves multiple objects of a set of objects, the set of objects comprising the vehicle and the set of environmental objects.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the first category of risk comprises a simulated collision in the first set of scenarios.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first category of risk comprises a simulated collision in the first scenario.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the multiple categories of risk further comprise a second category of risk, wherein a metric of the set of metrics is calculated based on the second category of risk, wherein the metric is determined based only on movement of a single object of the set of objects.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the multiple categories of risk further comprises a second category of risk, wherein a metric of the second set of metrics calculated based on the second category is determined based only on movement of a single object of the set of objects.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the second category of risk is not associated with a simulated collision.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the second category of risk is not associated with a simulated collision.
18. The method of claim 11, further comprising applying a scaling factor to at least one of the set of metrics, wherein the scaling factor is determined based on a set of uncertainty values produced in simulating the scenario.
14. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying a scaling factor to at least one of the set of metrics, wherein the scaling factor is determined based on at least one of: a set of uncertainty values produced in simulating the first scenario;
19. The method of claim 11, further comprising applying a scaling factor to at least one of the set of metrics, wherein the scaling factor is determined based on a set of classifications associated with the set of environmental objects.
a set of classifications associated with the set of environmental objects; and
20. The method of claim 11, further comprising applying a scaling factor to at least one of the set of metrics, wherein the scaling factor is determined based on a set of predetermined driving conventions.
a set of predetermined driving conventions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
iqs
Prosecution Insights