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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on October 1, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on January 15, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 2, and 3-19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,813. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of each of claims 1-20 is fully encompassed by claims 1-2, 2, and 3-19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,813.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites transmitting, by the at least on computer processor the HD mapping which includes a typo. Specifically “on” should recite “one.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0188045 (hereinafter, “Wheeler”).
Regarding claim 1, Wheeler discloses A method comprising:
detecting, via a sensor coupled to a vehicle traversing a road found in a geographical environment, a physical object in the geographical environment (see at least Fig. 9 and [0080]-[0086] and [0108]-[0134] generally; objects may be detected while a vehicle traverses a road, and the data collection may be obtained by a plurality of different vehicles. Any one of the vehicles may qualify as the vehicle);
generating, by at least one computer processor and based at least in part on detecting the physical object, metadata for the physical object that comprises a probability, wherein the probability represents a property of at least one of the physical object or a similar physical object to the physical object that can be encountered while traversing the road (see at least [0108]-[0126]; map updates pertaining to detected physical objects and corresponding occupancy probabilities may be generated);
generating, by the at least one computer processor, a High Definition (HD) mapping, wherein the HD mapping includes a first layer that includes a first image representing the geographical environment and a second layer that includes the metadata (see at least [0108]-[0126]; the HD map includes a landmark map (i.e., geographic environment) and an occupancy map (i.e., metadata)); and
transmitting, by the at least on computer processor the HD mapping, wherein transmitting the HD mapping causes an autonomous vehicle or a partially autonomous vehicle to upload the HD mapping before traversing the road and use the HD mapping and a third sensor to detect the physical object or the similar physical object while in the geographical environment and responsive to detecting the physical object or the similar physical object, perform an action based at least in part on the probability of encountering the property as the autonomous vehicle or the partially autonomous vehicle traverses the road (see at least [0064]-[0066], [0080], [0088], and [0108]-[0126]; the vehicle may be controlled to avoid a high confidence value object found in the HD map that is received at a plurality of vehicles. Any one of the plurality that is not the vehicle may be the autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle. Additionally, one or more sensors at the autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle may be used to detect the objects and environmental surroundings of the vehicle. The property may include the object type amongst other metadata associated with the object).
Claim 8 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses the use of processors and memories; see at least Wheeler at [0165]-[0168]. Claim 15 is likewise rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses the use of a non-transitory computer readable medium; see at least Wheeler at [0165]-[0168].
Regarding claim 2, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses further comprising:
detecting, via a fourth sensor coupled to a second vehicle traversing the road, an additional object in the geographical environment (see at least [0108]-[0126]; any one of the vehicles that is not the vehicle or the autonomous/partially autonomous vehicle may be considered the second vehicle. The vehicles update the occupancy map while traversing the road which includes adding new objects such as, for example, a hole in the road);
based at least in part on detecting the additional object in the geographical environment, updating, by the at least one computer processor, the first layer to include a second image of the additional object (see at least [0108]-[0126]; the HD map may include images of the objects associated with the occupancy map via image sensors and may be updated with new image data); and
storing, by the at least one computer processor, the HD mapping to a data store (see at least [0112]; the HD map may store the updated occupancy information and corresponding image data).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses further comprising obtaining, via another sensor coupled to a second vehicle traversing the road, a second indication that another physical object has been detected in the geographical environment, wherein generating the HD mapping is further based on obtaining the second indication that the another physical object has been detected in the geographical environment (see at least [0108]-[0126]; any one of the vehicles that is not the vehicle or the autonomous/partially autonomous vehicle may be considered the second vehicle. The vehicles update the occupancy map while traversing the road which includes adding new objects such as, for example, a hole in the road. The second vehicle may do so via one or more sensors of the second vehicle).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise at least one of a real-time layer, a map priors layer, a semantic map layer, a geometric map layer, or a base map layer (see at least [0026]; the first layer may include geographic information, and the second layer may include an occupancy grid indicating the probability of one or more objects being present in a given portion of the HD map).
Claim 12 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses wherein the physical object or the similar physical object comprises a second vehicle, the property comprises a parked state of the second vehicle (see at least [0042]; the object may be a second vehicle and may be determined to be moving or not moving), and the action comprises the autonomous vehicle or the partially autonomous vehicle routing around the second vehicle (see at least [0064]; the vehicle may be controlled to avoid the object (i.e., routing around)).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 6.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler, as applied to claims 1, 10, and 15 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0379468 (hereinafter, “Harvey”) with claim 18 evidenced by U.S. Pub. 2019/0311327 (hereinafter, “Habbaba”).
Regarding claim 5, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Wheeler fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. Harvey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicle involves performing a shipping operation that includes delivering one or more parcels to destination addresses or drop off points within the geographical environment (see at least [0028] and [0050]-[0051]; a vehicle/autonomous vehicle/semi-autonomous vehicle may be a vehicle that performs a shipping operation for delivering parcels/packages within a mapped area (i.e., geographical environment)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Wheeler with the teachings of Harvey, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide autonomous delivery of parcels saving time of human drivers; see at least Harvey at [0007]-[0008].
Claim 11 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5. Examiner notes that this is likewise true pertaining to the second vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. However, Wheeler does not explicitly teach the limitation of claim 18. Instead, the limitation wherein the vehicle is a delivery drone that is configured to travel in air space to unload a parcel at a final destination or a drop off point within the geographical environment in response to a request to ship the parcel to the final destination or drop-off point is considered an obvious variant to the limitation found in claim 5 and is rejected under essentially the same reasoning. Specifically, a delivery drone is an obvious variant to a land delivery vehicle as both a drone and land delivery vehicle are known types of delivery vehicles as evidenced by Habbaba at least at [0037].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Wheeler with the teachings of Harvey, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide autonomous delivery of parcels saving time of human drivers; see at least Harvey at [0007]-[0008].
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0022245 (hereinafter, “Sivertsen”).
Regarding claim 7, Wheeler discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wheeler discloses wherein the physical object or the similar physical object comprises a traffic light (see at least [0086]-[0088]; the physical object may be a traffic light),… , and the action comprises the autonomous vehicle or the partially autonomous vehicle adjusting a speed of the autonomous vehicle or the partially autonomous vehicle (see at least [0043]; vehicle responsive actions may include changing the speed of the vehicle). However, Wheeler does not explicitly teach .
Sivertsen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the property comprises an amount of time in a current state of the traffic light (see at least [0036]; metadata of traffic signals (i.e., traffic lights) may include timing of the traffic signals).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Wheeler with the teachings of Sivertsen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide more comprehensive metadata for traffic lights; see at least Sivertsen at [0036].
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 7.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0130347 which relates to developing a high definition map using data procured from different logistics vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights