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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 9/27/2024.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-4 (pre-amended) are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
6. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “...autonomous vehicle...” or “...by its external design ...”, (see pending claims 1-4).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
7. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
9. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “...autonomous vehicle...” or “emergency vehicle” or “a driving behavior” , “a movement pattern in the trajectory”, or “...by its external design ...”, (see pending claims 1-4).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure(s) to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
12. If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
14. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
15. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaves et al (US 20220355802 A1 – hereafter “Chaves”), in view of Abbaspour et al (US Pub. 20230343214 A1 – hereafter “Abbaspour”) in view of Vassilovski et al (US Pat 11908327 B2 – hereafter “Vassilovski”).
A. Per claim 1: Chaves discloses a method for operating an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: detecting wherein data of an environment of the autonomous vehicle, including a vehicle driving ahead, are detected by using a sensor system positioned in front of the autonomous vehicle, wherein data of the environment is and are made available to a computing unit (see Chaves para [0002], and [0009], see also Abbaspour para. [0015], [0017]).
Chaves does not disclose that the vehicle moving in front is an emergency/ambulance vehicle; however, Abbaspour suggests this claimed limitation (see Abbaspour para. [0008] or claim 6) based on an active special light signal (see Abbaspour para. [0018], and claims 5, 15) and/or an active special acoustic signal (e.g., a siren sound from an ambulance vehicle, see Abbaspour claim 14, para. [0008], [0015], and [0046]).
Abbaspour also suggests about identifying when a movement pattern in the trajectory is detected which persists over a period of more than 20 seconds and in which the emergency vehicle (4) drives back and forth over a plurality of lanes, (see Abbaspour para.[0008], [0015]. [0046]).
Abbaspour does not disclose that “wherein a trajectory of the vehicle driving ahead driving back and forth over a plurality of lanes of a multi-lane roadway is tracked by the sensor system”; however, Vassilovski discloses that limitation (see Vassilovski Fig. 15B emergency vehicle 1510A and autonomous vehicle 1500) and/or the computing unit.
Vassilovski also teaches a step of “adapting” the driving behavior of the autonomous vehicle: a vehicle driving behind another vehicle/object is automatically braked to avoid a collision (e.g., an autonomous vehicle of Waymo: using a vehicle front sensor while moving on a road) such that the autonomous vehicle drives at a distance behind the emergency vehicle and stops when the emergency vehicle stops (see Vassilovski col. 34 lines 28-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chaves, and Abbaspour with Vassilovski to stop an autonomous vehicle when a recognized emergency vehicle stop ahead to make room for emergency person(s) perform rescuing at an accident site in a fast, and safety manner.
B. Per dependent claim 2: Abbaspour also suggests the vehicle driving ahead is recognized as an emergency vehicle also by its external design (e.g., with “markers” on a firetruck or a police car, see Abbaspour para. [0008], and [0023]).
16. Claims 3- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaves, in view of Abbaspour, in view of Vassilovski, and in view of Lawrenson et al (US 20190009785 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
A. Per dependent claim 3: Applicant claims a step of if the vehicle 44 driving ahead is not recognized as an emergency vehicle 44) based on the external design and/or by the absence of a special light signal €8} and/or by the absence of a special acoustic signal €9) and/or if the trajectory G9} with violations G4 of the traffic regulations lasts 20 seconds or less (see Lawrenson et al para. [0033], [0049]) “a following distance of two seconds” (or more) may be considered safe), a reckless or drunken driver in the vehicle (4) driving ahead is inferred and the driving behavior of the [[ego]] autonomous vehicle G} is adapted so that it drives at a distance behind the vehicle 4) driving ahead, wherein a message about the detected reckless or drunk driver is also being sent to a backend (16).
B. Per dependent claim 4: Applicant claims a step of if the vehicle driving ahead is not recognized as an emergency vehicle based on the external design and/or by the absence of a special light signal and/or by the absence of a special acoustic signal and/or if the trajectory with violations of the traffic regulations lasts 20 seconds or less, a reckless or drunken driver in the vehicle driving ahead is inferred and the driving behavior of the autonomous vehicle is adapted so that it drives at a distance behind the vehicle driving ahead (e.g., using a following vehicle equipped with a familiar front sensor), wherein a message about the detected reckless or drunk driver is also being sent to a backend (e.g., a familiar use of a machine-learn model, see Abbaspour para. [0004], and [0031]), and a V2V communication (see Abbaspour para. [0033]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chaves, in view of Abbaspour in view of Vassilovski with Lawrenson et al suggestion to avoid a collision on a travel route since a distance of two seconds or more are normal for a vehicle’s prompt reaction in which this task has been a successful expectation.
Conclusion
17. Pending claims 1-4 are rejected.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664