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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-14 have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an first set” in line 2, which should be “a first set”.
Claim 1 recites “a primary context” in lines 9-10; however, there is already “a primary context” associated with each action model defined above. This limitation should be “the primary context” to properly refer back to the previous limitation.
Claim 2 recites “a secondary context” and “a primary context”, which lack clarity as to whether or not they refer back to previous recitations or not. The Office recommends “determining a secondary context within the set of secondary contexts that does not match any of the primary contexts associated with the first set of action models” as providing more clarity.
Claim 2 recites “primary contexts similar to the secondary context” in line 5, which is unclear because the previous limitation refers to “a secondary context that does not match a primary context”. The Office recommends “each associated with primary contexts similar to another secondary context within the set of secondary contexts”.
Claim 2 recites “model weights” in line 6, which lacks clarity if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous recitation. The Office recommends “the model weights”.
Claim 2 recites “measurement of the second route” in the last line, which is unclear if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous recitation. The Office recommends “the measurements of the second route”.
Claim 3 recites “model weights”, which is unclear if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous recitation. The Office recommends “the model weights”.
Claim 4 recites “the aggregated weights”, which appears to be referring to the weights from the subset of trajectory models, however, there is a previous recitation of “the aggregated weights” referring to model weights. These limitations should be clearly distinguished, such as changing “the aggregated weights” in claim 1 to “the aggregated model weights”.
Claims 5 recites “sensor data” in line 4, which is unclear if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous recitation. The Office recommends “the sensor data”.
Claims 11 recites “model weights”, which is unclear if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous recitation. The Office recommends “the model weights”.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 8-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,037,011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent cover the scope of the current claims. For example, claim 1 is covered as follows:
Current Claim 1
12,037,011 Claim 1
determining an first set of action models specific to a first route, wherein each action model is associated with a primary context and is configured to
determining an initial set of models for operation of the autonomous vehicle along a 1st set of fixed routes,
based on a road context
determine an autonomous vehicle action based on environmental information
determine a set of actions for the autonomous vehicle based on a road context associated with an environment of the autonomous vehicle
generating a second set of action models specific to a second route, comprising, for a set of secondary contexts associated with the second route:
expanding the initial set of models for operation of the autonomous vehicle along a 2nd set of fixed routes
identifying a subset of action models from the first set of action models, wherein each of the subset of action models is associated with a primary context similar to a secondary context within the set of secondary contexts;
selecting a subset of the 1st set of models, the subset of the 1st set of models associated with a set of contexts, the selecting the subset of the 1st set of models based on a 1st shared set of features between the context type and the set of contexts
aggregating model weights from the subset of action models;
aggregating model weights associated with the subset of the 1st set of models to produce a 1st set of aggregated weights;
refining the aggregated weights based on measurements of the second route to generate the second set of action models;
refining the 1st set of aggregated weights based on a set of sensor data collected during traversal of the second 2nd set of fixed routes, thereby producing the 3rd set of models
operating an autonomous vehicle based on the second set of action models.
operating the autonomous vehicle along a fixed route of the second 2nd set of fixed routes based on the 3rd set of models
Similarly, the scope of claims 2, 4, 5, and 8-14 are covered by the scope of claims 1-5, 9-12, 14, and 16 of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0191407 teaches using models to control vehicles that have been trained to infer results in environments that a sufficiently similar to other environments.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0194426 teaches action models for vehicles that determine the action for different scenarios based on context and risk mitigation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665