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
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks, et al., US 2017/0232943 A1, in view of Hiroma, et al., US 2016/0267796 A1.
As per Claim 1, Brooks teaches a computer-implemented method of directing an autonomous vehicle to join an autonomous vehicle train (¶¶ 8-9), the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, via at least one of one or more processors or associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train (¶¶ 256-257), a request from a requesting autonomous vehicle that is not part of the autonomous vehicle train to join the autonomous vehicle train along a route (¶¶ 374-375; after “identifying, using a control system, plural vehicle systems for combining into a larger convoy of vehicle systems”).
Brooks does not expressly teach: determining, using autonomous vehicle data, a rendezvous point along the route; transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route; and directing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route. Hiroma teaches:
determining, using autonomous vehicle data, a rendezvous point along the route (¶¶ 99-100; between independent vehicle 1-3 and communication vehicle 1-1 of Figure 8);
transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route (¶ 97; as per “a request information to incorporate its own vehicle into the group of convoy vehicles”); and
directing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route (¶ 108; as per steps S3 and S4 of Figure 9).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the control system of Brooks with the travel controller of Hiroma in order to keep a consistent distance between vehicles within a procession.
As per Claim 8, Brooks teaches a system comprising one or more processors (¶ 11) and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions (¶ 46) that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via at least one of one or more processors or associated transceivers of an autonomous vehicle train (¶¶ 256-257), a request from a requesting autonomous vehicle that is not part of the autonomous vehicle train to join the autonomous vehicle train along a route (¶¶ 374-375; after “identifying, using a control system, plural vehicle systems for combining into a larger convoy of vehicle systems”).
Brooks does not expressly teach: determining, using autonomous vehicle data, a rendezvous point along the route; transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route; and directing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route. Hiroma teaches:
determining, using autonomous vehicle data, a rendezvous point along the route (¶¶ 99-100; between independent vehicle 1-3 and communication vehicle 1-1 of Figure 8);
transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route (¶ 97; as per “a request information to incorporate its own vehicle into the group of convoy vehicles”); and
directing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route (¶ 108; as per steps S3 and S4 of Figure 9).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 15, Brooks teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions than when executed by one or more processors (¶ 149), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, via at least one of one or more processors or associated transceivers of an autonomous vehicle train (¶¶ 256-257), a request from a requesting autonomous vehicle that is not part of the autonomous vehicle train to join the autonomous vehicle train along a route (¶¶ 374-375; after “identifying, using a control system, plural vehicle systems for combining into a larger convoy of vehicle systems”).
Brooks does not expressly teach: determining, using autonomous vehicle data, a rendezvous point along the route; transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route; and directing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route. Hiroma teaches:
determining, using autonomous vehicle data, a rendezvous point along the route (¶¶ 99-100; between independent vehicle 1-3 and communication vehicle 1-1 of Figure 8);
transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route (¶ 97; as per “a request information to incorporate its own vehicle into the group of convoy vehicles”); and
directing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train at the rendezvous point along the route (¶ 108; as per steps S3 and S4 of Figure 9).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 2, 9 and 16, Brooks does not expressly teach that receiving the request from the requesting autonomous vehicle occurs before the autonomous vehicle train begins to travel along the route. However, in light of Brooks’s teaching of vehicles joining together “between various combinations of the locations in the transportation system 2000 to get the vehicles 1906, 1908 to the appropriate destination locations” (¶ 335), a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious that receiving the request from the requesting autonomous vehicle occurs before the autonomous vehicle train begins to travel along the route.
As per Claims 3, 10 and 17, Brooks does not expressly teach that receiving the request from the requesting autonomous vehicle occurs while the autonomous vehicle train is travelling along the route. Hiroma teaches that receiving the request from the requesting autonomous vehicle occurs while the autonomous vehicle train is travelling along the route (¶¶ 89-90; if “the independent vehicle is travelling behind the group of convoy vehicles”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 4, 11 and 18, Brooks teaches that transmitting the communication occurs before the autonomous vehicle train is travelling along the route (¶ 335; “by the control system 1900 sending control signals to output devices instructing operators of the vehicle systems 1902 on which vehicles 1908 to include in a vehicle system 1902” of Figure 19).
As per Claims 5, 12 and 19, Brooks does not expressly teach that transmitting the communication occurs while the autonomous vehicle train is travelling along the route. Hiroma teaches that transmitting the communication occurs while the autonomous vehicle train is travelling along the route (¶¶ 100-101). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claims 6 and 13, Brooks teaches directing the requesting autonomous vehicle occurs before the autonomous vehicle train is traveling along the route (¶ 333; as with convoys 2002C, 2002D and 2002F of Figure 20).
As per Claims 7, 14 and 20, Brooks teaches at least one of: determining the rendezvous point along the route comprises: establishing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a time of arrival at one or more geographical locations along the route (¶ 50; “to instruct the operator of which operational settings to use at a current time and/or which settings to use at upcoming times when the system 100 arrives at one or more upcoming locations” as in Figure 1); or comparing, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, operational data of the autonomous vehicle train with vehicle data of the requesting autonomous vehicle to determine the rendezvous point based on the one or more geographical locations along the route. Brooks does not expressly teach: prior to transmitting the communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train, verifying, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, that the requesting autonomous vehicle is equipped with one or more autonomous vehicle systems to join the autonomous vehicle train; or that directing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train comprises: transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle to maneuver the requesting autonomous vehicle to the rendezvous point; or facilitating, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to dynamically join the autonomous vehicle train while the autonomous vehicle train is travelling towards a destination location of the requesting autonomous vehicle; or facilitating the requesting autonomous vehicle to dynamically join the autonomous vehicle train further comprises: establishing, via one or more processors or associated transceivers of the requesting autonomous vehicle, a communication with a lead autonomous vehicle, a rear autonomous vehicle, or another vehicle of the autonomous vehicle train to determine a rendezvous location within the autonomous vehicle train.
Alternatively, Hiroma teaches: prior to transmitting the communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle authorizing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train, verifying, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, that the requesting autonomous vehicle is equipped with one or more autonomous vehicle systems to join the autonomous vehicle train; or that directing the requesting autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train comprises: transmitting, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, a communication to the requesting autonomous vehicle to maneuver the requesting autonomous vehicle to the rendezvous point (¶ 100; as communication vehicles 1-1 and 1-2 determine that independent vehicle 1-3 may join as in Figure 8); or facilitating, via the at least one of the one or more processors or the associated transceivers of the autonomous vehicle train, the requesting autonomous vehicle to dynamically join the autonomous vehicle train while the autonomous vehicle train is travelling towards a destination location of the requesting autonomous vehicle; or facilitating the requesting autonomous vehicle to dynamically join the autonomous vehicle train further comprises: establishing, via one or more processors or associated transceivers of the requesting autonomous vehicle, a communication with a lead autonomous vehicle, a rear autonomous vehicle, or another vehicle of the autonomous vehicle train to determine a rendezvous location within the autonomous vehicle train. See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
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 nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,008 (“the ‘008 patent”), over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,520,354 (“the ‘354 patent”), and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,698,421 (“the ‘421 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘008 patent, the ‘354 patent and the ‘421 patent eachteach a method of directing an independent autonomous vehicle to join an autonomous vehicle train, including steps of: receiving data from the independent autonomous vehicle; sending messages to and receiving messages from the independent autonomous vehicle; and directing the independent autonomous vehicle to join the autonomous vehicle train.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Peter 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661