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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-8, 10, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,136,273, as further detailed in the table below:
Instant Application
United States Patent No. 12,136,273
Claim 1. A system comprising: a sensing system of a vehicle, the sensing system configured to:
obtain an image of a region of an environment of the vehicle; and
a perception system of the vehicle, the perception system configured to: classify a first sign in the image as an image-true sign,
wherein to classify the first sign as an image-true sign, the perception system is to identify the first sign as a sign whose mirror image corresponds to a valid sign type; and
identify, based at least on a spatial relationship of the first sign and one or more objects in the region of the environment of the vehicle, the first sign as a real sign.
Claim 1. A system comprising: a sensing system of a vehicle, the sensing system configured to:
obtain a combined image comprising a camera image of a region of an environment of the vehicle and a depth information for the region of the environment of the vehicle,
wherein the depth information comprises at least one of a lidar data, a radar data, a stereo image data, or an ultrasonic data; and
a perception system of the vehicle, the perception system configured to:
classify a first sign in the combined image as an image-true sign, wherein to classify the first sign as an image-true sign, the perception system is to identify the first sign as a sign whose mirror image corresponds to a valid sign type;
perform a spatial validation of the first sign, the spatial validation comprising evaluation of a spatial relationship of the first sign and one or more objects in the region of the environment of the vehicle; and
identify, based on the performed spatial validation, the first sign as a real sign.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 2
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 7
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 10
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claim 9. A system comprising: a sensing system of a vehicle, the sensing system configured to:
obtain an image of a region of an environment of the vehicle; and
a perception system of the vehicle, the perception system configured to: generate one or more scores characterizing a first sign in the image;
obtain a classification of the first sign as a real sign or an image sign based on the one or more scores,
wherein the one or more scores comprises a geometry score characterizing a likelihood that the first sign corresponds to a plurality of classes comprising at least: a class of image-true signs, wherein an image belonging to the class of image-true signs has a mirror image of a valid sign type, and a class of image-false signs,
wherein an image belonging to the class of image-false signs has a mirror image of an invalid sign type; and
cause a driving path of the vehicle to be determined in view of the obtained classification of the first sign.
Claim 14. A method comprising:
obtaining, using a sensing system of a vehicle, a combined image that comprises a camera image of a region of an environment of the vehicle and a depth information of the region of the environment of the vehicle,
wherein the depth information comprises at least one of a lidar data, a radar data, a stereo image data, or an ultrasonic data;
classifying a first sign in the combined image as an image-true sign, wherein classifying the first sign as an image-true sign the perception system comprises identifying the first sign as a sign whose mirror image is a valid sign;
performing a spatial validation of the first sign, the spatial validation comprising evaluation of a spatial relationship of the first sign and one or more objects in the region of the environment of the vehicle; and
identifying, based on the performed spatial validation, the first sign as a real sign.
Claim 10
Claim 15
Claim 11
Claim 16
Claim 12
Claim 17
Claim 13
Claim 18
Claim 14
Claim 17
Claim 15. A method comprising:
obtaining, using a sensing system of a vehicle, an image of a region of an environment of a vehicle;
generating, using a perception system of the vehicle, one or more scores characterizing a first sign in the image;
obtaining a classification of the first sign as a real sign or an image sign based on the one or more scores,
wherein the one or more scores comprises a geometry score characterizing a likelihood that the first sign corresponds to a plurality of classes comprising at least: a class of image-true signs,
wherein an image belonging to the class of image-true signs has a mirror image of a valid sign type, and a class of image-false signs,
wherein an image belonging to the class of image-false signs has a mirror image of an invalid sign type; and
causing a driving path of the vehicle to be determined in view of the obtained classification of the first sign.
Claim 14. A method comprising:
obtaining, using a sensing system of a vehicle, a combined image that comprises a camera image of a region of an environment of the vehicle and a depth information of the region of the environment of the vehicle,
wherein the depth information comprises at least one of a lidar data, a radar data, a stereo image data, or an ultrasonic data;
classifying a first sign in the combined image as an image-true sign, wherein classifying the first sign as an image-true sign the perception system comprises identifying the first sign as a sign whose mirror image is a valid sign;
performing a spatial validation of the first sign, the spatial validation comprising evaluation of a spatial relationship of the first sign and one or more objects in the region of the environment of the vehicle; and
identifying, based on the performed spatial validation, the first sign as a real sign.
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 17
Claim 16
Claim 18
Claim 17
Claim 19
Claim 18
Claim 20
Claim 17
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent claims include all the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, " a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claim preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET G WEBB whose telephone number is (571)270-7803. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/MARGARET G WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights