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 .
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. US 18/792507 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are being anticipated by claims 1-20 of copending Application No. US 18/792507.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim s 8 and 18 recite the limitation "the other vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 2021/0155267 A1).
As to claims 1 and 12, Goto discloses a vehicle control device/method, comprising: a sensing information receiver receiving sensing information from a sensor (Fig. 1) configured in a vehicle; a driving path estimator estimating a driving path for each preconfigured driving path estimation algorithm according to each driving path estimation algorithm using the sensing information (para. 0005); a driving path evaluator evaluating a reliability of the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm (para. 0005); a driving path fuser producing a fused driving path based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and the reliability information (para. 0005); and a control signal outputter outputting a control signal for controlling a behavior of the vehicle according to the fused driving path (para. 0005).
As to claims 2 and 13, Goto further discloses wherein the driving path estimator generates a location point for the driving path produced for each driving path estimation algorithm, and estimates the location point as a driving path of the vehicle (para. 0030).
As to claims 7 and 17, Goto further discloses wherein the driving path evaluator evaluates a reliability of the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm based on an evaluation of a reliability evaluation factor preset for each driving path estimation algorithm (para. 0032, 0044-0048).
As to claims 8 and 18, Goto further discloses wherein the reliability evaluation factor is set to at least one of distance information between the vehicle and a location point for the driving path produced for each driving path estimation algorithm, distance information between the vehicle and the other vehicle used to produce the driving path, state information about the sensor (para. 0032), or behavior.
As to claims 9 and 19, Goto further discloses wherein the driving path fuser produces the fused driving path using a location point (para. 0030) generated based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm, the reliability information (para. 0032-0033), and preset weight information (para. 0033, 0071).
As to claim 11, Goto further discloses wherein the control signal outputter outputs the control signal to allow the vehicle to drive according to a location point produced by the fused driving path (para. 0033-0034).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Ishimaru et al. (JP 2018-045500 A, IDS).
As to claims 3 and 14, Goto does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claims 3 and 14. However, Ishimaru teaches each preconfigured driving path estimation algorithm includes at least two of an other vehicle-based driving path estimation algorithm that estimates a driving path of the vehicle using other vehicle information detected based on the sensing information (para. 0022-0024), a lane-based driving path estimation algorithm that estimates the driving path of the vehicle based on lane information detected based on the sensing information, an environment information-based driving path estimation algorithm that estimates the driving path of the vehicle using a road structure detected based on the sensing information (para. 0025-0026), and a map data-based driving path estimation algorithm that estimates the driving path of the vehicle based on location information about the vehicle and precise map data information (para. 0020). Therefore, given the teaching of Ishimaru, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying device/method of Goto, by employing the well-known or conventional features of using at least two driving path estimation algorithms, to estimate a plurality of driving paths of the vehicle.
As to claims 4 and 15, Ishimaru further teaches wherein the other vehicle-based driving path estimation algorithm estimates the driving path of the vehicle based on a driving trajectory of the other vehicle by selecting the other vehicle located within a preset transverse distance from the vehicle and within a preset longitudinal time gap with the vehicle (para. 0022-0024).
As to claims 5 and 16, Ishimaru further teaches wherein the other vehicle-based driving path estimation algorithm estimates a future driving trajectory in a preset time interval based on a past driving trajectory in a preset time interval of the selected other vehicle and speed information about the other vehicle, and estimates the past driving trajectory and the future driving trajectory as the driving path of the vehicle according to location information about the other vehicle (para. 0024).
As to claim 6, Ishimaru further teaches wherein the lane-based driving path estimation algorithm estimates the driving path so that the vehicle drives while following a lane based on the lane information, wherein the environment information-based driving path estimation algorithm generates a virtual lane based on the environment information and estimates the driving path to drive while following the virtual lane, and wherein the map data-based driving path estimation algorithm maps location information about the vehicle to the precise map data information to estimate the driving path so that the vehicle drives while following the lane according to the precise map data information (para. 0020-0021, 0026).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Ferguson (US 2014/0088855 A1).
As to claims 10 and 20, Goto further discloses adjusts a roughness of the fused driving path using the preset weight information (para. 0033, 0041, 0067-0069), but does not explicitly disclose the driving path fuser fuses the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm based on the location point and the reliability information using a smoothing spline algorithm. However, Ferguson teaches the driving path fuser fuses the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm based on the location point and the reliability information using a smoothing spline algorithm (para. 0101, 0119-0122). Therefore, given the teaching of Ferguson, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying device/method of Goto, by employing the well-known or conventional features of smoothing spline algorithm, to produce a smooth fused driving path from plurality of driving paths.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661