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 . This office action is in response to an amendment/argument submitted on01/29/2026. The applicant amends claims 13 and 23.
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 13 – 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,709,404. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same functional operation of "applying an extended Kalman filter to update, within the sliding window, each of the state estimates for the VINS and the features using the IMU data and the image data". The application does not claim a new or improved operation or structure to perform the patented inventive concept.
Claims 13 – 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,766,074. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying a location and displaying the information based upon a visual structure and an INU.
Claims 13 – 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying a location and displaying the information based upon a visual structure and an INU.
Claims 13 – 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,012,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying a location and displaying the information based upon a visual structure and an INU.
Claims 13 – 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,940,277. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same functional operation of "applying an extended Kalman filter to update, within the sliding window, each of the state estimates for the VINS and the features using the IMU data and the image data". The application does not claim a new or improved operation or structure to perform the patented inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The sections 101, 112, and 103 rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the double patenting rejections. Applicant alleges patents ‘074 and ‘971 do not disclose the feature of “computing a state vector comprising a sliding window of predicted state estimates”. Patent ‘074 has the feature of, “state information within a state vector representing estimates for the position and orientation of the frame of reference along the trajectory while excluding, from the state vector, state information representing estimates for positions within the environment for the features that were each observed from the multiple poses and for which the one or more constraints were computed.”, which is the functional equivalent of the alleged material feature. Patent ‘971 has the feature of, “determine uncertainty data for the state estimates, wherein the estimator maintains the uncertainty data as a square root factor of a Hessian matrix,”, which is the functional equivalent. Therefore, the applicant must amend the claim to distinguish from the patents or file a terminal disclaimer.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding patents ‘404, ‘074, ‘971, ‘504, and ‘277 applicant alleges the feature as well as patent families are different than the application and a disclaimer is not appropriate. The MPEP section 804 does not identify a patent family as a rationale for the absence of a terminal disclaimer. Therefore, the double patent rejection is maintained. Patent ‘404 has the feature of, “ a sliding window of state estimates for at least a position and orientation of the vision-aided inertial navigation system for a plurality of poses of the VINS along the trajectory and respective covariances for each of the state estimates, each of the respective covariances representing an amount of uncertainty in the corresponding state estimate, and wherein the estimator computes the state estimates by:”, which is the functional equivalent of the alleged material feature. Patent ‘504 has the feature of, “an estimator configured to process the IMU data and the image data to compute state estimates for poses of the IMU at each of the first set of time instances and poses of the image source at each of the second set of time instances along the trajectory, wherein the estimator is configured to compute each of the poses for the image source as an interpolation from a subset of the poses for the IMU along the trajectory.”, which is the functional equivalent. Patent ‘277 has the feature of, “limiting the updated state estimates according to constraints including the geometric constraint generated based upon the odometry data.”, which is the functional equivalent. Based upon the claim language of the respective patents and the disclosures it would be inappropriate to extend patent protection beyond the duration of the granted patents. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
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 TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664