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 the Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 13 July 2026. Claims 15-34 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections, Claim Interpretation, rejection of claims 15-34 under 35 USC 112(b) and 101, and rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 13 April 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections, Claim Interpretation, rejection of claims 15-34 under 35 USC 112(b) and 101, and rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 13 April 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 15-21 and 24-34 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 13 April 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26 is indefinite because of the recited limitations of “wherein the reference driving path is designed such that the reference driving path is able to be used as target trajectory for an at least partially self-driving vehicle in a run through the road section”. The connection or lack therefore between the bolded limitations and the previously recited “a target trajectory” and “a vehicle” in amended claim 1 is unclear, to the Examiner.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-28 and 30 of copending Application No. 18/726,043 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application/patent with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application/patent are read in light of the reference application/patent specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application/patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 15, 17-21, 25-28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US20180348761A1) in view of Shack (US20190266419A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses a device for determining a reference driving path for a road section (see at least [0016]), the device comprising at least one processor (see at least [0025]) configured to: determine a plurality of measured driving paths of one or more vehicles for a corresponding plurality of runs through the road section (see at least [0016], [0030], [0046] and [0048]); divide a profile of the road section into a sequence of interpolation point segments (see at least [0016], [0029] and [0049]); for each of the plurality of measured driving paths, determine a respective sequence of points of proximity of the respective measured driving path with the corresponding sequence of interpolation point segments, to obtain a sequence of sets of interpolation points (see at least [0016], [0030] and [0050]); for each of the sequence of interpolation point segments, determine a respective set of interpolation points on a basis of the determined points of proximity with the respective interpolation point segment (see at least [0016], [0030] and [0050]); and determine at least one reference driving path for the road section on a basis of the sequence of sets of interpolation points for the corresponding sequence of interpolation point segments (see at least [0016], [0030], [0050] and [0053]); determine a target trajectory of a vehicle for at least partially automated longitudinal and/or transverse guidance of the vehicle on a basis of the at least one reference driving path (see at least [0016] and [0056]); and guide the vehicle at least partially automatically along the determined target trajectory through the road section (see at least [0016] and [0056]).
Zhu doesn’t explicitly disclose for the sequence of interpolation point segments to be sequence of interpolation point planes and for the sequence of points of proximity to be sequence of points of intersection. However, Shack teaches the sequence of interpolation point segments being sequence of interpolation point planes and the sequence of points of proximity being sequence of points of intersection (see at least [0046], [0069], [0075]-[0077], [0082], [0083] and [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Shack which teaches the sequence of interpolation point segments being sequence of interpolation point planes and the sequence of points of proximity being sequence of points of intersection since they are both directed to road section analysis for use in vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Shack would increase accuracy of the determinations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 17, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify one or more points of intersection from the points of intersection with an interpolation point plane as outliers (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”); and leave the one or more points of intersection identified as outliers unconsidered when determining the set of interpolation points for the interpolation point plane (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a subset of points of intersection for an interpolation point from the determined points of intersection with an interpolation point plane on a basis of a clustering algorithm (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”); and determine the interpolation point as a trimmed average of the subset of points of intersection (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein a measured driving path of a vehicle in each case comprises a sequence of measurement points of a position of a reference point of the vehicle in a run through the road section; and/or a measured driving path of a vehicle indicates a driving trajectory of the vehicle in a run through the road section (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030], [0046] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a map profile of the road section recorded in a digital map based on the digital map in relation to the road section (see at least Zhu Figure 1, Figure 3, [0016], [0029], [0033], [0040], [0043] and [0048]); and use the map profile of the road section as the profile for division of the road section into the sequence of interpolation point planes (see at least Zhu [0016], [0029], [0033], [0040], [0043], [0048] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine the sequence of interpolation point planes such that: directly consecutive interpolation point planes along the profile of the road section are each at a predefined distance from one another; and/or the interpolation point planes are each arranged perpendicular to the profile of the road section (see at least Zhu [0049] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Regarding claim 25, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: provide the determined reference driving path as map data in relation to the road section for a digital map (see at least Zhu Figure 1, Figure 3, [0016], [0029], [0033], [0040], [0043] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 26, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the reference driving path is designed such that the reference driving path is able to be used as target trajectory for an at least partially self-driving vehicle in a run through the road section; and/or the reference driving path indicates a sequence of target positions of a reference point of a vehicle in a run through the road section (see at least Zhu [0016]).
Regarding claim 27, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine the reference driving path independently of road markings of the road section that are recorded using sensors; and/or determine the reference driving path on a basis of the plurality of measured driving paths as well when the road section does not have any road markings able to be recorded using sensors for identifying one or more lanes (see at least Zhu [0003], [0016], [0030], [0050] and [0053]).
Regarding claims 28 and 30-34, claims 28 and 30-34 are commensurate in scope with claims 15 and 17-21, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 15 and 17-21.
Claims 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US20180348761A1) in view of Shack (US20190266419A1) in further view of Ester (NPL, ‘A Density-Based ...”, attached by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine the set of interpolation points for an interpolation point plane on a basis of a clustering algorithm, for clustering the determined points of intersection with the interpolation point plane (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Zhu as modified by Shack fails to disclose the clustering algorithm to be a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm. However, Ester teaches the clustering algorithm being a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm (see at least abstract and section 4. “DBSCAN ...” on pages 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu as modified by Shack to incorporate the teachings of Ester which teaches the clustering algorithm being a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm since they are directed to clustering points and incorporation of the teachings of Ester would introduce another possible way known to one of ordinary skill in the art to cluster points and increase utility and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is commensurate in scope with claim 16. See above for rejection of claim 16.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US20180348761A1) in view of Shack (US20190266419A1) in further view of Gao (WO2023061740A1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 24, Zhu as modified by Shack discloses a path segment between a first interpolation point of a first interpolation point plane and a second interpolation point of a second interpolation point plane of the reference driving path, one or more points of intersection of a first subset of measured driving paths from which the first interpolation point was determined; one or more points of intersection of a second subset of measured driving paths from which the second interpolation point was determined (see at least Zhu [0016], [0030] and [0050]; see rejection of claim 1 for “plane” and “intersection”).
Zhu as modified by Shack does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine an empirical speed for the path segment by: determining first speed values for the first subset of measured driving paths; determining second speed values for the second subset of measured driving paths; and determining the empirical speed for the path segment on a basis of an average of the first and/or second speed values. However, Gao teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine an empirical speed for the path segment by: determining first speed values for the first subset of measured driving paths; determining second speed values for the second subset of measured driving paths; and determining the empirical speed for the path segment on a basis of an average of the first and/or second speed values (see at least [0013], [0029]-[0032], [0035]-[0037] and [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Zhu as modified by Shack to incorporate the teachings of Gao which teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine an empirical speed for the path segment by: determining first speed values for the first subset of measured driving paths; determining second speed values for the second subset of measured driving paths; and determining the empirical speed for the path segment on a basis of an average of the first and/or second speed values since they are directed to measured driving paths in vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Gao would increase utility and applicability of the overall system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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 (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights