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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 7/1/2024. Claims 1-51 are pending and considered below.
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.vehicular driving assist system,
Claims 1-51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-62 of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Comparing claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 with claims 1-17 of the instant application:
“A vehicular driving assist system, said vehicular driving assist system comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “A vehicular driving assist system, the vehicular driving assist system comprising:” of the instant application;
“a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with said vehicular driving assist system, said camera viewing through the windshield at least forward of the equipped vehicle, said camera capturing image data; wherein said camera comprises an imaging array sensor having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driving assist system, the camera viewing through the windshield at least forward of the equipped vehicle; wherein the camera is operable to capture image data; wherein the camera comprises an imaging array sensor having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns;” of the instant application;
“a radar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle and sensing at least forward of the equipped vehicle, said radar sensor capturing sensor data;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “a radar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle and sensing at least forward of the equipped vehicle; wherein the radar sensor is operable to capture sensor data;” of the instant application;
“wherein captured image data is transferred from said camera to an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the equipped vehicle; wherein captured sensor data is transferred from said radar sensor to said ECU; wherein said ECU comprises at least one data processor; wherein transferred image data and transferred sensor data are processed at said ECU;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred from the camera to an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the equipped vehicle; wherein sensor data captured by the radar sensor is transferred from the radar sensor to the ECU; wherein the ECU comprises at least one data processor; wherein image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU is processed at the ECU; wherein sensor data captured by the radar sensor and transferred to the ECU is processed at the ECU;” of the instant application;
“wherein another vehicle forward of the equipped vehicle is detected via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data; wherein said ECU determines a difference between detection of the other vehicle via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and detection of the other vehicle via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein another vehicle forward of the equipped vehicle is detected via processing at the ECU of captured image data and via processing at the ECU of captured sensor data; wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines a difference between detection of the other vehicle via processing at the ECU of captured image data and detection of the other vehicle via processing at the ECU of captured sensor data;” of the instant application; and
“wherein the difference between detection of the other vehicle via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and detection of the other vehicle via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data is determined via said ECU determining misalignment of said radar sensor relative to said camera.” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines misalignment of the radar sensor relative to the camera based at least in part on the determined difference.” of the instant application.
Comparing claims 24-45 of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 with claims 18-34 of the instant application:
“A vehicular driving assist system, said vehicular driving assist system comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “A vehicular driving assist system, the vehicular driving assist system comprising:” of the instant application;
“a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with said vehicular driving assist system, said camera viewing through the windshield at least forward of the equipped vehicle, said camera capturing image data; wherein said camera comprises an imaging array sensor having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driving assist system, the camera viewing through the windshield at least forward of the equipped vehicle; wherein the camera is operable to capture image data; wherein the camera comprises an imaging array sensor having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns;” of the instant application;
“a 3D lidar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle and sensing at least forward of the equipped vehicle, said 3D lidar sensor capturing sensor data;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “a 3D lidar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle and sensing at least forward of the equipped vehicle; wherein the 3D lidar sensor is operable to capture sensor data;” of the instant application;
“wherein captured image data is transferred from said camera to an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the equipped vehicle; wherein captured sensor data is transferred from said 3D lidar sensor to said ECU; wherein said ECU comprises at least one data processor; wherein transferred image data and transferred sensor data are processed at said ECU;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred from the camera to an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the equipped vehicle; wherein sensor data captured by the 3D lidar sensor is transferred from the 3D lidar sensor to the ECU; wherein the ECU comprises at least one data processor; wherein image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU is processed at the ECU; wherein sensor data captured by the 3D lidar sensor and transferred to the ECU is processed at the ECU;” of the instant application;
“wherein another vehicle forward of the equipped vehicle is detected via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data; wherein said ECU determines a difference between detection of the other vehicle via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and detection of the other vehicle via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein another vehicle forward of the equipped vehicle is detected via processing at the ECU of captured image data and via processing at the ECU of captured sensor data; wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines a difference between detection of the other vehicle via processing at the ECU of captured image data and detection of the other vehicle via processing at the ECU of captured sensor data;” of the instant application; and
“wherein said ECU determines misalignment of said 3D lidar sensor relative to said camera responsive to (i) detecting the other vehicle at a first location via processing of transferred image data, (ii) detecting the other vehicle at a second location via processing of transferred sensor data, and (iii) determining that the second location of the detected other vehicle is different from the first location of the detected other vehicle by at least a threshold amount.” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines misalignment of the 3D lidar sensor relative to the camera based at least in part on the determined difference.” of the instant application.
Comparing claims 46-62 of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 with claims 35-51 of the instant application:
“A vehicular driving assist system, said vehicular driving assist system comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “A vehicular driving assist system, the vehicular driving assist system comprising:” of the instant application;
“a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with said vehicular driving assist system, said camera viewing through the windshield at least forward of the equipped vehicle, said camera capturing image data; wherein said camera comprises an imaging array sensor having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driving assist system, the camera viewing through the windshield at least forward of the equipped vehicle; wherein the camera is operable to capture image data; wherein the camera comprises an imaging array sensor having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns;” of the instant application;
“a non-vision sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle and sensing at least forward of the equipped vehicle, said non-vision sensor capturing sensor data;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “a non-vision sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle and sensing at least forward of the equipped vehicle; wherein the non-vision sensor is operable to capture sensor data;” of the instant application;
“wherein captured image data is transferred from said camera to an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the equipped vehicle; wherein captured sensor data is transferred from said non-vision sensor to said ECU; wherein said ECU comprises at least one data processor; wherein transferred image data and transferred sensor data are processed at said ECU;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred from the camera to an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the equipped vehicle; wherein sensor data captured by the non-vision sensor is transferred from the non-vision sensor to the ECU; wherein the ECU comprises at least one data processor; wherein image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU is processed at the ECU; wherein sensor data captured by the non-vision sensor and transferred to the ECU is processed at the ECU;” of the instant application;
“wherein a pedestrian forward of the equipped vehicle is detected via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data; wherein said ECU determines a difference between detection of the pedestrian via processing at said ECU of transferred image data and detection of the pedestrian via processing at said ECU of transferred sensor data;” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein another vehicle forward of the equipped vehicle is detected via processing at the ECU of captured image data and via processing at the ECU of captured sensor data; wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines a difference between detection of the other vehicle via processing at the ECU of captured image data and detection of the other vehicle via processing at the ECU of captured sensor data;” of the instant application; and
“wherein said ECU determines misalignment of said non-vision sensor relative to said camera responsive to (i) detecting the pedestrian at a first location via processing of transferred image data, (ii) detecting the pedestrian at a second location via processing of transferred sensor data, and (iii) determining that the second location of the detected pedestrian is different from the first location of the detected pedestrian by at least a threshold amount.” of U.S. Patent Number 12,024,181 is equivalent to “wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines misalignment of the non-vision sensor relative to the camera based at least in part on the determined difference.” of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 10-18, 27-35 and 44-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-17, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-17 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-17 are directed to a device (a camera, a radar sensor, and an electronic control unit (ECU)).
Claims 1-17 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-17 are directed to a device for determining misalignment of a radar sensor relative to a camera based at least in part on a determined difference between image data and radar sensor data. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a driver determining that a radar data display is misaligned with a camera image display based on the displayed location of a preceding vehicle. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 1-17 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of capturing camera image data and radar sensor data. The capturing of data amounts to mere data gathering. Claims 1 and 10-17 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 10-17 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicular driving assist systems).
Claims 2-9 additionally include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of controlling a driving assist function based at least in part on the determined difference. This limitation positively recites a control function of the vehicular driving assist system; and provides a revised step 2A, prong two, additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-9 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 10-17 include the step 2B additional elements of a camera, a radar sensor, and an electronic control unit (ECU). Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0027-0032] (PGPub), indicates that the camera or sensor may comprise any suitable camera or sensor. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the camera, radar sensor, and ECU are anything other than conventional cameras, radar sensors, and ECUs. Generating data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function of cameras and radar sensors. Receiving and processing data from cameras and radar sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed using generic ECUs. Cameras, radar sensors, and ECUs are widely prevalent and in common use in vehicular driving assist systems. Cameras, radar sensors, and ECUs are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the vehicular driving assist system industry. Therefore, claims 1 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 18-34, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 18-34 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories. Claims 18-34 are directed to a device (a camera, a 3D lidar sensor, and an electronic control unit (ECU)).
Claims 18-34 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 18-34 are directed to a device for determining misalignment of a 3D lidar sensor relative to a camera based at least in part on a determined difference between image data and 3D lidar sensor data. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a driver determining that a 3D lidar data display is misaligned with a camera image display based on the displayed location of a preceding vehicle. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 18-34 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of capturing camera image data and 3D lidar sensor data. The capturing of data amounts to mere data gathering. Claims 18 and 27-34 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 18 and 27-34 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicular driving assist systems).
Claims 19-26 additionally include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of controlling a driving assist function based at least in part on the determined difference. This limitation positively recites a control function of the vehicular driving assist system; and provides a revised step 2A, prong two, additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 19-26 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 18 and 27-34 include the step 2B additional elements of a camera, a 3D lidar sensor, and an electronic control unit (ECU). Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0027-0032], indicates that the camera or sensor may comprise any suitable camera or sensor. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the camera, 3D lidar sensor, and ECU are anything other than conventional cameras, 3D lidar sensors, and ECUs. Generating data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function of cameras and 3D lidar sensors. Receiving and processing data from cameras and 3D lidar sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed using generic ECUs. Cameras, 3D lidar sensors, and ECUs are widely prevalent and in common use in vehicular driving assist systems. Cameras, 3D lidar sensors, and ECUs are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the vehicular driving assist system industry. Therefore, claims 18 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 35-51, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 35-51 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories. Claims 35-51 are directed to a device (a camera, a non-vision sensor, and an electronic control unit (ECU)).
Claims 35-51 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 35-51 are directed to a device for determining misalignment of a non-vision sensor relative to a camera based at least in part on a determined difference between image data and non-vision sensor data. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a driver determining that a non-vision sensor data display is misaligned with a camera image display based on the displayed location of a preceding vehicle. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 35-51 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of capturing camera image data and non-vision sensor data. The capturing of data amounts to mere data gathering. Claims 35 and 44-51 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 35 and 44-51 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicular driving assist systems).
Claims 36-43 additionally include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of controlling a driving assist function based at least in part on the determined difference. This limitation positively recites a control function of the vehicular driving assist system; and provides a revised step 2A, prong two, additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 36-43 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 35 and 44-51 include the step 2B additional elements of a camera, a non-vision sensor, and an electronic control unit (ECU). Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0027-0032], indicates that the camera or sensor may comprise any suitable camera or sensor. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the camera, non-vision sensor, and ECU are anything other than conventional cameras, non-vision sensors, and ECUs. Generating data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function of cameras and non-vision sensors. Receiving and processing data from cameras and non-vision sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed using generic ECUs. Cameras, non-vision sensors, and ECUs are widely prevalent and in common use in vehicular driving assist systems. Cameras, non-vision sensors, and ECUs are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the vehicular driving assist system industry. Therefore, claims 35 and 44-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
Conclusion
Baba (US-2014/0139369-A1) is the closest prior art to the applicant’s invention. Baba discloses a collision mitigation apparatus comprising a millimeter-wave radar, a monocular camera, and a collision mitigation electronic control unit (ECU). The millimeter-wave radar and the monocular camera are mounted in the front middle portion of a vehicle (paragraphs [0034-0036]). The collision mitigation ECU calculates a degree of confidence in determination that the radar object and the image object are the same. The degree of confidence is defined by an angle difference between the horizontal azimuth angle of the detection point of the radar object and the horizontal azimuth angle of the detection point of the image object (paragraph [0060]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667