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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, line 7 through page 7, line 8, and the amendment to the independent claims, filed July 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pronovost (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0210942 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pronovost (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0210942 A1) has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant has not provided any arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612. The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 is both reasonable and proper, and is hereby maintained.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed towards the common subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The claims in the present application define the invention differently from the claims in the copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612, however they are not patentably distinguishable from the claims in the other copending application. In re White et al., 160 USPQ 417, In re Thorington et al., 163 USPQ 644.
For example, comparing representative claim 1 of the present application with representative claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612. Claim 1 of the present application recites: a method of using an artificial neural network to generate granular image level representations for driving, the method comprising (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: a method of providing a granular image level representation for driving in interaction with unknown elements, the method comprising); obtaining a sensed information unit that captures a first element in an environment of a vehicle (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: obtaining a sensed information unit that captures an unclassified element in an environment of a vehicle); generating, by a machine learning process using the artificial neural network trained across road elements, a first set of tokens for the first element each representing a respective attribute characterizing the first element in the environment (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: generating, by a machine learning process trained across road elements using an artificial neural network, a first set of tokens for the unclassified element each representing a respective attribute characterizing the unclassified element in the environment); processing, by the machine learning process, the first set of tokens in correspondence with at least a second set of tokens generated for a second element in the environment of the vehicle (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: processing, by the machine learning process, the first set of tokens in correspondence with at least a second set of tokens generated in the environment of the vehicle); producing, based on the processing of the first set of tokens in correspondence with the second set of tokens, an image-level representation for the first element with respect to the second element (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: determining, based on the processing and according to an image-level representation for the unclassified element with respect to the vehicle); determining, based on the image-level representation, an interaction between the first element and the second element in the environment in real time (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: determining, based on the processing and according to an image-level representation for the unclassified element with respect to the vehicle, an interaction between the unclassified element and the vehicle in the environment in real time); determining, based on the determined interaction, a driving related output with respect to the vehicle (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: and determining, based on the determined interaction, a driving related output with respect to the vehicle); and wherein one of the first element and the second element is a road element of an unclassified class or otherwise unclassified (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 recites: and wherein the unclassified element is one of an unclassified or otherwise unclassified; and wherein the unclassified element is defined by segmentation).
As the comparison shows the claims recite common subject matter, and the differences relate to variations of the claimed limitations, and the processing is carried out on the data and/or elements in no way affects how the data would be received from an input, processed and output within the context of the claims. Therefore, the substitution of the different variations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. While claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612 includes additional limitations that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising" in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements, so that instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612. Furthermore, the elements of instant claim 1 are fully anticipated by the patented claim, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 2-20 of the present application recite limitations which are in most cases word for word the same limitations as found in claims 2-14 respectively of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/800,612.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akbarzadeh and Moustafa both disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. 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 Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights