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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12124263B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are grammatical/presentation (e.g. the instant application uses features of prior applications dependent claim in the instant independent claims).
Instant Application
12124263B2
1, 10, 20
5, 15
2
1 (and incorporating material of dependent claim 5, this applies to all the subsequent equivalencies)
3, 13
3, 13
4-5, 14-15
4, 14
6, 16
7, 17
7-9, 17-19
8-10, 18-20
11
11
Claims 21-22 don’t have direct parallel to the claims in US12124263B2, and thus are not covered in the double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US20180170395A1) in view of Redding (US20180089563A1) and Frazzoli (US20170277195A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luo teaches;
A method of maneuvering a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode (taught as a
system to determine control characteristics for an autonomous driving vehicle, paragraph 0017), the method comprising:
[[for a predetermined driving situation encountered by the vehicle,]] identifying, by one or more processors, [[from a plurality of predetermined maneuvering options,]] a set of predetermined maneuvering options associated with the predetermined driving situation, each one of the set of predetermined maneuvering options defining a respective maneuvering behavior for the vehicle (taught as a decision module, element 303, deciding what to do with a given object, such as "pass the object", paragraph 0037, using a set of criteria such as traffic or driving rules, paragraph 0036);
generating, by the one or more processors, for each predetermined maneuvering option in the set of predetermined maneuvering options, a corresponding trajectory incorporating the respective maneuvering behavior for that predetermined maneuvering option (taught as a planning module, element 304, determining the next route/path segment [trajectory] to accomplish the decision module's plan, paragraph 0037);
selecting, by the one or more processors, a trajectory from the generated trajectories (taught as planning and control data determining how the vehicle would move [trajectory], paragraph 0038, filtering by availability and the safety of occupants, paragraph 0040); and
maneuvering, by the one or more processors, the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode according to the selected trajectory (taught as, based on the planning and control data, controlling the vehicle, paragraph 0038).
While Luo does not explicitly teach "each one of the plurality of predetermined maneuvering options defining a respective maneuvering behavior for the vehicle that is different from any other predetermined maneuvering option in the plurality of predetermined maneuvering steps", it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not repeat calculations to get the same result, as this would be inefficient and time-consuming in an environment of driving where every second of action counts in avoiding collisions and promoting the passenger's safety. Luo's teaching of general actions to take, such as overtake, yield, stop, pass etc. (paragraph 0036) would indicate separate and distinct maneuvers/actions to choose from. Thus, it would be obvious to only generate unique trajectories/maneuvers for consideration.
However, Luo does not explicitly teach; for a predetermined driving situation encountering by the vehicle, identifying, by one or more processors, from a plurality of predetermined maneuvering options, a set of predetermined maneuvering options associated with the predetermined driving situation,
determining, by the one or more processors, a priority level for each of the plurality of predetermined maneuvering options; filtering, by one or more processors, the set of predetermined maneuvering options based on the determined priority levels.
Redding teaches; for a predetermined driving situation encountered by the vehicle (taught as an emergency scenario, governed by emergency response rules, paragraph 0037), identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of predetermined maneuvering options, a set of predetermined maneuvering options associated with the predetermined driving situations (taught as emergency response rules, which include deterministic behaviors, paragraph 0037, including specific maneuvers like move off the road with a predetermined speed, paragraph 0038, and determining an action model with such data that uses a selected subset of representative actions which meet certain criteria to be considered, paragraph 0038)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deterministic/specific maneuvering options as taught by Redding in the system taught by Luo in order to improve speed of processing. As taught by Redding, using more deterministic processes for emergencies and can simplify decisions that have to be made rapidly (paragraph 0037).
However, Redding doesn’t explicitly teach; determining, by the one or more processors, a priority level for each of the plurality of predetermined maneuvering options; filtering, by one or more processors, the set of predetermined maneuvering options based on the determined priority levels.
Frazzoli teaches; determining, by the one or more processors, a priority level for each of the set of predetermined maneuvering options (taught as establishing priorities, such as the rule for avoiding collisions being higher priority than other rules, paragraph 0103);
filtering, by the one or more processors, the set of predetermined maneuvering options based on the determined priority levels (taught as following an optimal trajectory to reach a destination,
paragraph 0117, where an optimal trajectory is selected from candidate trajectories, paragraph 0008, based on established rules, paragraph 0103).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the current trajectory as taught by Frazzoli in the decision process of Luo in order to minimally interfere with a travel route. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that just because an object is detected, it does not necessarily warrant a deviation from the current trajectory, as the path of the detected object may not intersect the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; wherein determining the priority level for each of the plurality of predetermined maneuvering options is based on current driving context for the vehicle.
Frazzoli teaches; wherein determining the priority level for each of the plurality of predetermined maneuvering options is based on current driving context for the vehicle (taught as trajectory generation fulfilling properties in a context in which the environment is shared with other independent agents, paragraph 0053).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the current trajectory as taught by Frazzoli in the decision process of Luo in order to minimally interfere with a travel route. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that just because an object is detected, it does not necessarily warrant a deviation from the current trajectory, as the path of the detected object may not intersect the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; wherein the priority levels are related to a distance metric such that predetermined maneuvering options relating to nearby objects, nearby turns or nearby lane changing decisions are prioritized over those objects that are farther away.
Frazzoli teaches; wherein the priority levels are related to a distance metric such that predetermined maneuvering options relating to nearby objects, nearby turns or nearby lane changing decisions are prioritized over those objects that are farther away (taught as a safety metric, including headway distance to leading vehicles, paragraph 0141).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the current trajectory as taught by Frazzoli in the decision process of Luo in order to minimally interfere with a travel route. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that just because an object is detected, it does not necessarily warrant a deviation from the current trajectory, as the path of the detected object may not intersect the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Luo further teaches; wherein a first maneuvering option in the set of predefined maneuvering options is identified specifically to avoid a collision (taught as the generated maneuvers are intended to avoid obstacles based on surrounding traffic patterns, road conditions paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 8, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; wherein a second maneuvering option in the set of predefined maneuvering options is identified in order to follow a current route to a destination for the vehicle.
Frazzoli teaches; wherein a second maneuvering option in the subset of maneuvering options is
selected to follow a current route (taught as following an optimal trajectory to reach a destination, paragraph 0117, where an optimal trajectory is selected from candidate trajectories, paragraph 0008).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prioritize certain options over others as taught by Frazzoli in the system taught by Luo in order to improve safety. Should a collision be predicted, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the need for action based on minimizing/preventing the collision over the convenience of staying the course or driving comfortably.
Regarding claim 9, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 8 (see claim 8 rejection). Luo further teaches; wherein the first maneuvering option has a higher priority than the second maneuvering option (taught as prioritizing maneuvers that maximizes the safety, paragraph 0040, indicating maneuvering options with lower safety scores would be prioritized lower/less likely to be selected).
Regarding claims 10, 15-18 and 20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1 and 5-8. Therefore, claims 10, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 5-8 respectively, where claims 10 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, and claims 15-18 are rejected under the same rationales as claims 5-8 respectively.
Regarding claim 21, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; further comprising identifying, by the one or more processors based on contextual information, the predetermined driving situation from a plurality of predetermined driving situations.
Redding teaches; further comprising identifying, by the one or more processors based on contextual information, the predetermined driving situation from a plurality of predetermined driving situations (taught as the action model taking in behavior and observations of the world and emergency response rules to generate and apply representative actions which meet certain criteria, paragraph 0038).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deterministic/specific maneuvering options as taught by Redding in the system taught by Luo in order to improve speed of processing. As taught by Redding, using more deterministic processes for emergencies and can simplify decisions that have to be made rapidly (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 22, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 21 (see claim 21 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; wherein the contextual information includes at least one of map information of the vehicle or information regarding one or more perceived objects.
Redding teaches; wherein the contextual information includes at least one of map information of the vehicle or information regarding one or more perceived objects (taught as the action model taking in behavior, map navigation data, and observations of the world and emergency response rules to generate and apply representative actions which meet certain criteria, paragraph 0038).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deterministic/specific maneuvering options as taught by Redding in the system taught by Luo in order to improve speed of processing. As taught by Redding, using more deterministic processes for emergencies and can simplify decisions that have to be made rapidly (paragraph 0037).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US20180170395A1) as modified by Redding (US20180089563A1) and Frazzoli (US20170277195A1), and further in view of Phillips (US20190377351A1).
Regarding claim 2, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach;, wherein a number of maneuvering options in the set of maneuvering options is equal to a number of trajectories in the set of trajectories.
Phillips teaches; wherein a number of maneuvering options in the set of maneuvering options is equal to a number of trajectories in the set of trajectories (taught as determining a low-cost trajectory path for each possible maneuver, paragraph 0199; this occurs after the maneuvering options are determined, and fed through object classifiers, constraint generators, and constrain solvers to determine a low-cost trajectory path for each possible maneuver).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limiting of maneuvering options to the number of trajectories as suggested by Phillips in the system taught by Luo and Frazzoli in order to improve trajectory/maneuver selection and generation. As suggested by Phillips, such a system allows for a short term planning window for maneuver planning that spans over the course of the next several seconds (paragraph 0102). Furthermore, limiting the number of maneuvers and trajectories to evaluate ensures that the evaluation can be performed quickly and within a relevant timeframe of a short term motion plan.
Regarding claim 3, Luo as modified by Redding, Frazzoli, and Phillips teaches;
The method of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; wherein the number of the generated trajectories is a default number or a fixed number.
Phillips teaches; wherein the number of the generated trajectories is a default number or a fixed number (taught as pre-selecting a number of one or more possible route maneuvers down to a subset of all possibilities, paragraph 0183).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limiting of maneuvering options to the number of trajectories as suggested by Phillips in the system taught by Luo and Frazzoli in order to improve trajectory/maneuver selection and generation. As suggested by Phillips, such a system allows for a short term planning window for maneuver planning that spans over the course of the next several seconds (paragraph 0102). Furthermore, limiting the number of maneuvers and trajectories to evaluate ensures that the evaluation can be performed quickly and within a relevant timeframe of a short term motion plan.
Regarding claims 12-13, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 2-3. Therefore, claim 12-13 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3 respectively.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US20180170395A1) as modified by Redding (US20180089563A1) and Frazzoli (US20170277195A1) and further in view of Ferguson (US8825265B1).
Regarding claim 4, Luo as modified by Redding and Frazzoli teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Luo does not explicitly teach; wherein the filtering is further based on a desired number of the generated trajectories.
Ferguson teaches; wherein the filtering is further based on a desired number [the examiner notes that the desired number is not further limited in the claim language, and thus can be interpreted to any practical number of trajectories to generate and check] of the generated trajectories (taught as limiting the number of iterations for generating trajectories based on a maximum number, column 3 lines 1-8; while not exactly the same as a fixed number of trajectories, limiting a number of iterations for refining/determining trajectories to locations would effectively accomplish the requirement to filter based on a desired/determined number).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a desired number to filter generated trajectories as taught by Ferguson in the decision process of Luo in order to efficiently determine a course of action. Such actions of limiting iteration amounts would prevent possible stalling or computational hanging conditions, where the system would, rather than act, keep trying to determine a better route, reducing the allowable reaction time.
Regarding claim 14, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 6 that the double patenting rejection should be held in abeyance.
The examiner acknowledges the intent to provide a terminal disclaimer should the finalized claims still be rejectable as double patenting. However, the rejection will be maintained until either the claims are sufficiently different, or the terminal disclaimer are filed.
Applicant argues that neither Luo nor Frazzoli teach the “for a predetermined driving situation encountered by the vehicle, identifying….a set of predetermined maneuvering options associated with the predetermined driving situation” as claimed.
The examiner agrees and withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Redding is made above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US10654476B2 is highly relevant to the ideas in the amended claim language, for example;
distinct vehicle operational scenarios col 14 lines 3-9, each of which include a distinctly identifiable set of operative conditions that may affect the operation of an autonomous vehicle within a defined area/environment of the autonomous vehicle, column 13 lines 47-52.
US10678248B2 is highly relevant to maneuver selection, see Fig 2, column 5 lines 50-56.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights