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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-12, 14 & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essame et al., US PG Pub 2013/0338868 A1., (hereafter Essame) in view of Lee., US PG Pub 2015/0353085 A1.
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Essame to have a system and method for active lane changing assistance for a motor vehicle. Where it is disclosed by Essame to have:
“A method of routing an autonomous vehicle[at least paragraph [0004, where they state, “Whether the vehicle is a self-guided or automatically guided motor vehicle, i.e. an autonomous vehicle capable of being displaced from an initial position into a final position by its own means, independently of a driver…”], the method comprising: maneuvering [at least paragraph [0009] where they state, “Based on a method for lane-changing assistance for a motor vehicle, in particular a self-guided motor vehicle, designed to assist said vehicle to maneuver a change of lane from an initial position on a first lane to a final position on a second lane…”], by one or more processors [at least paragraphs 9-11 where they state having a “controller” ], the vehicle along a route in a first lane [at least paragraph 17 where they state in part, “Based on a lane-changing assistance system designed to be provided on a motor vehicle, in particular a self-guided motor vehicle, and to facilitate a lane-changing maneuver of said vehicle from an initial position on a first lane to a final position on a second lane,…”]; determining, by the one or more processors, a maximum duration during which a lane change transition between the first lane and a second lane different from the first lane can be completed [at least paragraphs 18-20, 24-25 and 30 where they state the use of “…in order to permit for example a visualization of said initial position and said final position of said vehicle A over time.”]…, by the one or more processors [at least paragraphs 26-27 where they state using “controllers”],.”
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Essame to have, “…based on a speed limit associated with at least one of the first and second lanes; and identifying…” and “a plurality of possible lane change opportunities having respective durations up to a maximum duration.”
Lee is directed to a lane change path planning algorithm for autonomous vehicles and does teach the features of having, “…based on a speed limit associated with at least one of the first and second lanes; and identifying…[See at least paragraphs 81-83 where they describe using the roadway speed limit to determine the lane change for the vehicle]”, “a plurality of possible lane change opportunities having respective durations up to a maximum duration [at least paragraphs 26, 33-35 & 56-57].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Essame by the teachings of Lee, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling vehicles during lane changing maneuvers. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Essame by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Lee. Where in this instance the modification of Essame to have their system also use the speed limit to determine how quick the lane change would occur based on the speed of the vehicle to ensure that it can safely move into the area that it has determined is safe for it to move into.
Regarding claims 2-3 where it is further disclosed by Lee in at least paragraphs 74, 83 and 85 to have their system also use time component to help determine the period in which the lane change should occur within. This is read upon applicants claim to, “the maximum duration corresponds to a value relating to a comfortable lane change experience for a passenger of the vehicle[.]”, and “the maximum duration is approximately 40 seconds.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Essame by the teachings of Lee, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling vehicles during lane changing maneuvers. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Essame by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Lee. Where in this instance the modification of Essame to have their system also use the speed limit to determine how quick the lane change would occur based on the speed of the vehicle to ensure that it can safely move into the area that it has determined is safe for it to move into.
Regarding claim 4 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Lee to in at least figures 2, 4, 6 & 10 to have their system also, “the maneuvering is performed using map information [at least paragraph 9 where they use “map database”] identifying a first plurality of nodes representing locations within a first lane [at least paragraphs 52-53 where the “road segments” is interpreted as nodes], a second plurality of nodes representing locations within the second lane [at least paragraphs 52-53 where the “road segments” is interpreted as nodes], and the speed limit [speed is taught in at least paragraphs 4, 8, 25 & 33-35].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Essame by the teachings of Lee, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling vehicles during lane changing maneuvers. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Essame by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Lee. Where in this instance the modification of Essame to have their system also use the speed limit to determine how quick the lane change would occur based on the speed of the vehicle to ensure that it can safely move into the area that it has determined is safe for it to move into.
Regarding claim 5 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is disclosed further by Lee in at least paragraph 56 to have their system also numerous segments/nodes for each lane change based on the type of maneuver that might occur. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of pairs of the nodes corresponding to different possible transitions between the first lane and the second lane [at least paragraphs 52-53 & 56 where the “road segments” is interpreted as nodes], each pair of the nodes including a first node of the first plurality of nodes corresponding to the first lane and a second node of the second plurality of nodes corresponding to the second lane [at least paragraphs 52-53 & 56 where the “road segments” is interpreted as nodes].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Essame by the teachings of Lee, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling vehicles during lane changing maneuvers. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Essame by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Lee. Where in this instance the modification of Essame to have their system also use the speed limit to determine how quick the lane change would occur based on the speed of the vehicle to ensure that it can safely move into the area that it has determined is safe for it to move into.
Regarding claim 6 where all the limitations of claim 5 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Lee in at least paragraphs 57, 59, 65, 78-79, 83 & 85 to have their system, “assessing, by the one or more processors, a cost for each pair of nodes of the plurality of pairs of the nodes to perform a lane change.”
Regarding claim 7 where all the limitations of claim 6 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Lee to have their system in at least paragraphs 87-89 to be able to, “determining, by the one or more processors, whether the vehicle is able to perform the lane change transition from the first lane to the second lane to follow the route using the assessed cost.”
Regarding claim 11 where all the limitations of claim 5 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Lee in at least paragraphs 57, 59, 65, 78-79, 83 & 85 to have their system, “the assessing a cost includes applying a cost function based on a period of time during which one of the locations represented by the first node changes to one of the locations represented by the second node.”
Regarding claim 12 where all the limitations of claim 11 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Lee in at least paragraphs 4-5, 75 & 86 to have their system also have, “the cost function is based on current traffic conditions.”
Regarding claim 14 where all the limitations of claim 11 are disclosed by Essame and Lee as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Lee in at least paragraphs 27-28 & 53-57 to have their system also being able to have, “the cost function is based on whether a lane change between a selected pair of nodes of the first and second pluralities of nodes has been previously missed.”
Regarding claim 17 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 4 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 5 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 5 above.
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 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2 where applicant claims, “the maximum duration corresponds to a value relating to a comfortable lane change experience for a passenger of the vehicle.” This is indefinite as this limitation could be any value as it is subjective to the individual. Each individual has a value which could make them feel comfortable and thus the scope of this limitation is too broad and has too many possible values. The claim is indefinite and but for the purpose of compact prosecution it will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 3 where applicant claims, “the maximum duration is approximately 40 seconds.” This is indefinite as it is “approximately” the range/scope of the actual values cannot be ascertained and thus the claim will be examined as best understood for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,216. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Applicant claims in the current application for example claim 1 to include, “A method of routing an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: maneuvering, by one or more processors, the vehicle along a route in a first lane; determining, by the one or more processors, a maximum duration during which a lane change transition between the first lane and a second lane different from the first lane can be completed based on a speed limit associated with at least one of the first and second lanes; and identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of possible lane change opportunities having respective durations up to a maximum duration.”
This has also been anticipated in claim 1 of patent, 12,197,216, “A method of routing an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: maneuvering, by one or more processors, the vehicle along a route in a first lane using map information identifying a first plurality of nodes representing locations within a first lane, a second plurality of nodes representing locations within a second lane different from the first lane, and a speed limit associated with at least one of the first and second lanes; identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of pairs of the nodes corresponding to different possible transitions between the first lane and the second lane, each pair of the nodes including a first node of the first plurality of nodes corresponding to the first lane and a second node of the second plurality of nodes corresponding to the second lane; determining, by the one or more processors, a maximum duration during which a lane change transition between the first lane and the second lane can be completed based on the speed limit; and identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of possible lane change opportunities having respective durations up to the maximum duration.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 13 & 15-16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657