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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,977 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
Regarding claims 1-14 of the currently examined application:
The examined application claim 1 and the reference claims 21 and 22 include the following common features: “A vehicular control system, the vehicular control system comprising: a forward viewing camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of the equipped vehicle and viewing through the windshield forward of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the forward viewing camera comprises a CMOS imaging array having at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns; wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a forward sensing lidar sensor; a first electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein the electronic circuitry of the first ECU processes the sensor data captured by at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors to detect presence of an object; wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to processing by the processor of sensor data captured by the at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors, detects an object in a path of travel of the equipped vehicle as the equipped vehicle travels along a traffic lane of a road, and wherein the object comprises a pothole ahead of the equipped vehicle in the traffic lane of the road, wherein the first ECU, responsive to detecting the object in the path of travel of the equipped vehicle, provides output to a second ECU of the equipped vehicle, wherein the second ECU of the equipped vehicle is operable to at least control braking of the equipped vehicle; and wherein the second ECU, responsive to receiving the provided output, controls braking of the equipped vehicle, and controls steering of the equipped vehicle.”
The differences between the claims are minor because: the examined claim 1 requires “the forward-viewing camera is operable to capture image data,” “forward-sensing radar sensor senses forward of the equipped vehicle,” “an advance driver-assistance system (ADAS) electronic control unit (ECU),” and “at least one selected from the ground consisting of (i) the equipped vehicle decelerates to mitigate impact with the pothole.” The reference claims include the forward viewing camera that is similar to the forward viewing camera recited in the examined claim 1. The forward viewing camera is configured to capture image data because it comprises a CMOS imaging array. The forward sensing lidar sensor recited in the reference claims and the forward-sensing radar sensor appear to be similar as both sensors sense forward of the equipped vehicle. The vehicle control system described in the reference claims is considered an advance driver-assistance system (ADAS) because it uses a suite of automated sensors (forward-viewing camera, lidar, and electronic control units) to monitor the vehicle's surroundings and detect objects in its path. The second ECU of the equipped vehicle, responsive to the receiving the output from the first ECU, controls braking of the equipped vehicle. The second ECU of the reference claims is provided for decelerating to mitigate impact with the pothole. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the wordings are different, in the limitation the limitations carried are either inherently implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For that reason, the current claim 1 would have been obvious over the reference claims 21 and 22 of the patent ‘977 B2.
The current claims 2-14 would have been obvious over the reference claims 2-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 17.
Regarding claims 15-28 of the currently examined application:
The examined application claim 15 and the reference claims 21 and 22 include the following common features: “A vehicular control system, the vehicular control system comprising: a forward viewing camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of the equipped vehicle and viewing through the windshield forward of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the forward viewing camera comprises a CMOS imaging array having at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns; wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a forward sensing lidar sensor; a first electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein the electronic circuitry of the first ECU processes the sensor data captured by at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors to detect presence of an object; wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to processing by the processor of sensor data captured by the at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors, detects an object in a path of travel of the equipped vehicle as the equipped vehicle travels along a traffic lane of a road, and wherein the object comprises a road debris ahead of the equipped vehicle in the traffic lane of the road, wherein the first ECU, responsive to detecting the object in the path of travel of the equipped vehicle, provides output to a second ECU of the equipped vehicle, wherein the second ECU of the equipped vehicle is operable to at least control braking of the equipped vehicle; and wherein the second ECU, responsive to receiving the provided output, controls braking of the equipped vehicle, and controls steering of the equipped vehicle.”
The only difference is that the examined claim 15 requires “the forward-viewing camera is operable to capture image data,” “forward-sending radar sensor senses forward of the equipped vehicle,” “an advance driver-assistance system (ADAS) electronic control unit (ECU),” and “at least one selected from the ground consisting of (i) the equipped vehicle decelerates to mitigate impact with the road debris and (ii) the equipped vehicle is steered to avoid with the road debris.” Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the wordings are different, in the limitation the limitations carried are either inherently implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For that reason, the current claim 15 would have been obvious over the reference claims 21 and 22 of the patent ‘977 B2.
The current claims 16-28 would have been obvious over the reference claims 2-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 17.
Regarding claims 29-40 of the currently examined application:
The examined application claim 29 and the reference claim 21 include the following common features: “A vehicular control system, the vehicular control system comprising: a forward viewing camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of the equipped vehicle and viewing through the windshield forward of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the forward viewing camera comprises a CMOS imaging array having at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns; wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a forward sensing lidar sensor; a first electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein the electronic circuitry of the first ECU processes the sensor data captured by at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors to detect presence of an object; wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to processing by the processor of sensor data captured by the at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors, detects an object in a path of travel of the equipped vehicle as the equipped vehicle travels along a traffic lane of a road, and wherein the object comprises a speed bump ahead of the equipped vehicle in the traffic lane of the road, wherein the first ECU, responsive to detecting the object in the path of travel of the equipped vehicle, provides output to a second ECU of the equipped vehicle, wherein the second ECU of the equipped vehicle is operable to at least control braking of the equipped vehicle; and wherein the second ECU, responsive to receiving the provided output, controls braking of the equipped vehicle, and controls steering of the equipped vehicle.”
The only difference is that the examined claim 29 requires “the forward-viewing camera is operable to capture image data,” “forward-sending radar sensor senses forward of the equipped vehicle,” “an advance driver-assistance system (ADAS) electronic control unit (ECU),” and “at least one selected from the ground consisting of (i) the equipped vehicle decelerates to mitigate impact with the speed bump.” Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the wordings are different, in the limitation the limitations carried are either inherently implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For that reason, the current claim 29 would have been obvious over the reference claims 21 of the patent ‘977 B2.
The current claims 30-40 would have been obvious over the reference claims 2-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 17.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2021/0316721 A1 by Lim which discloses a system and method for enhancing safety during turning maneuvers, such as u-turns or left turns by using images to identify the driver’s intention and perform collision avoidance control; US 2018/0126990 A1 by Shimada et al. which discloses a vehicle control system and method for enabling instant activation of the highest level of travel assistance at a specific moment through a single user action; US 2018/0081359 A1 by Otaki et al. which discloses an autonomous driving control system that adjusts the intensity of driver engagement prompts (actions) based on a dynamic, mapped relationship between the driver's current vigilance level and the system's reliance level; US 2021/0229659 A1 by Kamatani et al. which discloses a system that prioritizes driver notification for dynamic “risk factors” over static “deceleration targets”; EP-3460402-A1 by Choi which discloses a system/method for autonomously generating and continuously updating its own local map data for a specific geographic section using on-board object detection when pre-existing map data is not available.
None of the prior art has been found discloses or even suggests the limitations as claimed.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vivek D Koppikar, can be reached on (571) 272-5109.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667