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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings are incomplete. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant has submitted updated drawings with the majority of the blocks simply labeled as “FUNCTIONAL BLOCK” in Fig. 5-7. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if the blocks have different functions or all the same functions.
The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Nonstatutory 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claim of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of co-pending Application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding US 201501422078; this is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding US patent No. 9,296,383; this is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicated to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statue does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent. MPEP 804.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang US 20190382003.
1. A method for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
Fig. 5AB teaches receiving desired control signals representative of a desired control for an actuator system of the motor vehicle for controlling a transverse and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle; 153; 501, the twin client causes the sensors of the ego vehicle to record the sensor data [desired control signals]. 53; ADAS adaptive cruise control [actuator system for controlling a transvers guidance of motor vehicle], … collision avoidance system.
receiving surroundings signals representative of surroundings of the motor vehicle; 53; blind spot monitor
generating actuator control signals to be provided to the actuator system for the at least partly automated control of the transverse and/or the longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on 61; provides sufficient autonomous features to the ego vehicle 123 to render the ego vehicle 123 an autonomous vehicle. Also Fig.5B based on the senor data.
(i) the desired control signals, 61; The ADAS system set 180 provides sufficient autonomous features [desired control signals]
(ii) the surroundings signals, and 52-53; onboard systems of the vehicle include one or more ADAS systems which monitor for and seek to avoid traffic accidents, and generate digital data describing when such events/accidents occur.
(iii) a predefined limitation of the desired control; and 53; ADAS system may include a lane keeping assistant system. [limited to assistance but not fully lane keeping]
controlling the motor vehicle using the actuator system based on the actuator control signals to move the motor vehicle for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle. 61; The ADAS system set 180 provides sufficient autonomous features to the ego vehicle 123 to render the ego vehicle 123 an autonomous vehicle.
Markush Groups
Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Claims that set forth a list of alternatives from which a selection is to be made are typically referred to as Markush claims, after the appellant in Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196-97 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)
A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use. See subsections II - IV, below, for guidelines regarding the determination of whether a Markush grouping is improper, a Markush grouping may be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
A claim which recites a list of alternatives to define a limitation such as “(i), (ii), (iii)” recited in the claim. As such only one of the selections of the limitation needs to be addressed with a rejection to fully reject the claim.
2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
predicting a risk state of the motor vehicle based on the desired control signals and the predefined limitation of the desired control; and 78; twin client 196 of the ego vehicle 123 performs a risk analysis and determines that a collision involving a remote vehicle 124 is likely. [based at least on traveling lane]
generating the actuator control signals based on the risk state. 97; the modification data is digital data that is operable to modify the operation of one or more ADAS systems of the ego vehicle 123 so that the operation of the ego vehicle 123 is less risky because the one or more ADAS systems of the ego vehicle 123 are modified to mitigate the risk posed by a driver's behavior. 55; the ADAS system may be a vehicular system that is operable to perform or control the performance of one or more of the following vehicle functions: the steering of the vehicle; the braking of the vehicle; the acceleration of the vehicle;
3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
predicting the surroundings of the motor vehicle; and 46; perform a risk analysis to predict whether collisions are likely in different portions of the roadway currently being traveled by the ego vehicle based in part on the estimated future behaviors of the remote drivers and the estimated future behavior of the ego driver
generating the actuator control signals further based on the predicted surroundings. 55; the ADAS system may be a vehicular system that is operable to perform or control the performance of one or more of the following vehicle functions: the steering of the vehicle; the braking of the vehicle; the acceleration of the vehicle;
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein:
the risk state of the motor vehicle is evaluated in a context of the predicted surroundings, and 46; the current driving contexts and (b) ego driver's patterns of behavior and how the ego driver behaves in different contexts; perform a risk analysis [risk state] to predict whether collisions are likely in different portions of the roadway[surroundings] currently being traveled by the ego vehicle based in part on the estimated future behaviors of the remote drivers and the estimated future behavior of the ego driver;
the actuator control signals are generated further based on the risk state. 55; the ADAS system may be a vehicular system that is operable to perform or control the performance of one or more of the following vehicle functions: the steering of the vehicle; the braking of the vehicle; the acceleration of the vehicle;
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the actuator control signals are only generated when the risk state is evaluated as unsafe.
MPEP 2111.04(11)
Regarding the method claim 1, the limitation “only generated when the risk state is evaluated as unsafe”. Examiner notes, since the claims are all method claims, the conditional step are not required to be rejected because it is an "when or if" statement which is conditioned from the steps of "only generated when". According to MPEP 2111.04(11) and Ex parte Schulhauser. As such Examiner will not be considering the non-selected option.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein:
the desired control comprises a desired manipulated variable vector for one or more actuators of the actuator system, and 55; the ADAS system may be a vehicular system that is operable to perform or control the performance of one or more of the following vehicle functions: the steering of the vehicle; the braking of the vehicle; the acceleration of the vehicle; [both steering and braking are variable vectors as the variables chance, vectors as they have a direction and magnitude, and are actuator controlled]
the predefined limitation comprises a limitation of the desired manipulated variable vector and/or a limitation of a temporal derivative. 55; steering and braking [both are predefined limitation as both are limited with steering angles and braking force. Both are temporal derivatives as they are both in the real world]
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the desired control comprises one or more of:
desired control from a driver of the motor vehicle, 55; the ADAS system may be a vehicular system that is operable to perform or control the performance [desired control] of one or more of the following vehicle functions: the steering of the vehicle; the braking of the vehicle;
desired control from an algorithm for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle, and
desired control from teleoperation software for implementing control instructions from a teleoperator of the motor vehicle.
8. A device configured to perform the method according to claim 1. Fig.1
9. A system for the at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle, comprising:
the device according to claim 8,
wherein the device is configured to limit the desired control and to control one or more actuators based on the limited desired control, and 61; The ADAS system set 180 provides sufficient autonomous features to the ego vehicle 123 to render the ego vehicle 123 an autonomous vehicle. [limit form level 0 to 5]
wherein the device is configured to control the one or more actuators of the actuator system based on the actuator control signals and no longer based on the limited desired control. 68; The automated system can drive to any location where it is legal to drive and make its own decision. [level 5 not limited by human desired control such as assisted lane keeping]
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein a computer program comprises instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, prompt the computer to perform the method.
MPEP 2111.04(11)
Regarding the method of claim 10, the limitation “when the computer program is executed”. Examiner notes, since the claims are all method claims, the conditional step are not required to be rejected because it is an "when or if" statement which is conditioned from the steps of " when the computer program is executed ". According to MPEP 2111.04(11) and Ex parte Schulhauser. As such Examiner will not be considering the non-selected option.
11. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 10 is stored. Fig.1 memory 127B
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein:
the desired control comprises a desired manipulated variable vector for one or more actuators of the actuator system, and 55; the ADAS system may be a vehicular system that is operable to perform or control the performance of one or more of the following vehicle functions: the steering of the vehicle; the braking of the vehicle; the acceleration of the vehicle; [both steering and braking are variable vectors as the variables chance, vectors as they have a direction and magnitude, and are actuator controlled]
the predefined limitation comprises a limitation of the desired manipulated variable vector and/or a limitation of a first and/or 55; steering and braking [both are predefined limitation as both are limited with steering angles and braking force. Both are temporal derivatives as they are both in the real world]
a second temporal derivative of the desired manipulated variable vector.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moser US 20030171865; Jales US 20200065978.
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 SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664