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 .
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, US 2006/0208169 A1, in view of Kammel, et al., US 2015/0006012 A1.
As per Claim 1, Breed teaches a vehicular control system (¶ 143; “ECU”), the vehicular control system comprising:
an electronic control unit disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular control system (¶ 143);
a camera disposed at a windshield of the vehicle, wherein the camera views at least forward of the vehicle through the windshield (¶¶ 345, 347); and
wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array (¶ 140) having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in columns and rows, and wherein the camera is operable to capture image data (¶¶ 2003-2004; to achieve “a 1 million to one dynamic range at each pixel”);
wherein the vehicular control system is operable to at least partially control driving of the vehicle (¶ 428).
Breed does not expressly teach: that, responsive to a blown tire of the vehicle occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a road, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the road; that the vehicular control system, while at least partially controlling driving of the vehicle along the road responsive to the blown tire of the vehicle, and at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera, determines a target stopping location ahead of the vehicle; and that the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle to the target stopping location. Kammel teaches:
that, responsive to a blown tire of the vehicle occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a road, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the road (¶¶ 31-33);
that the vehicular control system, while at least partially controlling driving of the vehicle along the road responsive to the blown tire of the vehicle, and at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera (¶¶ 23, 26; either “an optical camera” or “an internal camera”), determines a target stopping location ahead of the vehicle (¶ 35); and
that the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle to the target stopping location (¶¶ 38-39).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the sensor system of Breed with the emergency control system of Kammel in order to help a troubled vehicle reach a safe stopping location more quickly, without disrupting other traffic.
As per Claim 2, Breed does not expressly teach that, responsive to an indication that is indicative of a driver of the vehicle not wanting to stop the vehicle at the target stopping location, the vehicular control system does not stop the vehicle at the target stopping location. Kammel teaches that, responsive to an indication that is indicative of a driver of the vehicle not wanting to stop the vehicle at the target stopping location, the vehicular control system does not stop the vehicle at the target stopping location (¶ 36; “the guidance of the vehicle may continue to be carried out by the driver, at least partially”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 3, Breed teaches that the indication comprises the driver accelerating the vehicle (¶¶ 2126-2127).
As per Claim 4, Breed teach that the vehicular control system, when at least partially controlling driving of the vehicle, controls at least one from the group consisting of (i) steering of the vehicle (¶¶ 849-851), (ii) braking of the vehicle (¶¶ 817-818) and (iii) acceleration of the vehicle (¶ 817).
As per Claim 5, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system determines the blown tire of the vehicle responsive to one or more sensors of the vehicle (¶ 443, 448, 451, 2296-2297, 2879).
As per Claim 6, Breed teach that the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle (¶¶ 1874, 2778).
As per Claim 7, Breed does not expressly teach that, responsive to the blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a road construction zone, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the road construction zone, and teach that the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the road construction zone responsive to the blown tire, and at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera, determines the target stopping location ahead of the vehicle. In light of Kammel’s teaching of operating near construction sites (¶ 6), monitoring with an “air-pressure sensor in the tires” (¶ 24), and an “optimal stopping place” (¶ 38), a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious that control driving of the vehicle along a road construction zone. See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 8, Breed does not expressly teach that, responsive to the blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a narrow section of a road, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the narrow section of the road, and wherein the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the narrow section of the road responsive to the blown tire, and responsive to determining that the road widens, determines the target stopping location ahead of the vehicle. Kammel teaches that, responsive to the blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a narrow section of a road (¶ 31; as determined by “tire pressure”), the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the narrow section of the road (¶ 33; “control unit 8 develops a strategy for safely parking the vehicle on the road shoulder based on the present situation” as per Figure 1), and that the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the narrow section of the road responsive to the blown tire, and responsive to determining that the road widens, determines the target stopping location ahead of the vehicle (¶¶ 38-39; “optimal stopping place”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 9, Breed does not expressly teach that, responsive to the blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a section of a road that does not have a shoulder, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the section of the road that does not have a shoulder, and wherein the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the section of the road responsive to the blown tire, and responsive to determining that a shoulder of the road begins, determines the target stopping location ahead of the vehicle. Kammel teaches that, responsive to the blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a section of a road that does not have a shoulder (¶¶ 35-38; based on measurable characteristics and suitability of a shoulder), the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the section of the road that does not have a shoulder (¶ 33; through control unit 8 of Figure 1), and that the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the section of the road responsive to the blown tire, and responsive to determining that a shoulder of the road begins, determines the target stopping location ahead of the vehicle (¶¶ 38-39; “optimal stopping place”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 10, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system activates an emergency support system responsive to the blown tire of the vehicle (¶¶ 2296-2297).
As per Claim 11, Breed teaches a vehicular control system (¶ 143; “ECU”), the vehicular control system comprising:
an electronic control unit disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular control system (¶ 143);
a camera disposed at a windshield of the vehicle, wherein the camera views at least forward of the vehicle through the windshield (¶¶ 345, 347);
wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array (¶ 140) having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in columns and rows, and wherein the camera is operable to capture image data (¶¶ 2003-2004; to achieve “a 1 million to one dynamic range at each pixel”); and
wherein the vehicular control system is operable to at least partially control driving of the vehicle (¶ 428).
Breed does not expressly teach: that, responsive to a blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a section of a road that does not have a shoulder, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the section of the road that does not have a shoulder; wherein the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the section of the road responsive to the blown tire, and responsive to determining, at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera, that a shoulder of the road begins, determines a target stopping location ahead of the vehicle; wherein the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle to the target stopping location; and wherein, responsive to an indication that is indicative of a driver of the vehicle not wanting to stop the vehicle at the target stopping location, the vehicular control system does not stop the vehicle at the target stopping location. Kammel teaches:
that, responsive to a blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a section of a road that does not have a shoulder, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the section of the road that does not have a shoulder (¶ 31-33, 35; after “checking the suitability of the road shoulder for parking the vehicle”);
that the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the section of the road responsive to the blown tire, and responsive to determining, at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera (¶¶ 23, 26; either “an optical camera” or “an internal camera”), that a shoulder of the road begins, determines a target stopping location ahead of the vehicle (¶¶ 35-36);
that the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle to the target stopping location (¶¶ 38-39); and
that, responsive to an indication that is indicative of a driver of the vehicle not wanting to stop the vehicle at the target stopping location, the vehicular control system does not stop the vehicle at the target stopping location (¶ 44; if “the driver does not accept” a driver assistance function).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 12, Breed teaches that the indication comprises the driver accelerating the vehicle (¶¶ 2126-2127).
As per Claim 13, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system, when at least partially controlling driving of the vehicle, controls at least one from the group consisting of (i) steering of the vehicle (¶¶ 849-851), (ii) braking of the vehicle (¶¶ 817-818) and (iii) acceleration of the vehicle (¶ 817).
As per Claim 14, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system determines the blown tire of the vehicle responsive to one or more sensors of the vehicle (¶ 443, 448, 451, 2296-2297, 2879).
As per Claim 15, Breed teaches that the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle (¶¶ 1874, 2778).
As per Claim 16, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system activates an emergency support system responsive to the blown tire of the vehicle (¶¶ 2296-2297).
As per Claim 17, Breed teaches a vehicular control system (¶ 143; “ECU”), the vehicular control system comprising:
an electronic control unit disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular control system (¶ 143);
a camera disposed at a windshield of the vehicle, wherein the camera views at least forward of the vehicle through the windshield (¶¶ 345, 347);
wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array (¶ 140) having at least one million photosensor elements arranged in columns and rows, and wherein the camera is operable to capture image data (¶¶ 2003-2004; to achieve “a 1 million to one dynamic range at each pixel”);
wherein the vehicular control system is operable to at least partially control driving of the vehicle (¶ 428).
Breed does not expressly teach that, responsive to a blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a road construction zone, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the road construction zone; wherein the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the road construction zone responsive to the blown tire, and at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera, determines a target stopping location ahead of the vehicle; wherein the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle to the target stopping location; and wherein, responsive to an indication that is indicative of a driver of the vehicle not wanting to stop the vehicle at the target stopping location, the vehicular control system does not stop the vehicle at the target stopping location. Kammel teaches:
that, responsive to a blown tire occurring while the vehicle is traveling along a road construction zone, the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle along the road construction zone (¶ 6, 31-33);
that the vehicular control system, while controlling driving of the vehicle along the road construction zone responsive to the blown tire, and at least in part via processing of image data captured by the camera (¶¶ 23, 26; either “an optical camera” or “an internal camera”), determines a target stopping location ahead of the vehicle (¶ 35);
that the vehicular control system at least partially controls driving of the vehicle to the target stopping location (¶¶ 38-39); and
wherein, responsive to an indication that is indicative of a driver of the vehicle not wanting to stop the vehicle at the target stopping location, the vehicular control system does not stop the vehicle at the target stopping location (¶ 44; if “the driver does not accept” a driver assistance function).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 18, Breed teaches that the indication comprises the driver accelerating the vehicle (¶¶ 2126-2127).
As per Claim 19, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system, when at least partially controlling driving of the vehicle, controls at least one from the group consisting of (i) steering of the vehicle (¶¶ 849-851), (ii) braking of the vehicle (¶¶ 817-818) and (iii) acceleration of the vehicle (¶ 817).
As per Claim 20, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system determines the blown tire of the vehicle responsive to one or more sensors of the vehicle (¶ 443, 448, 451, 2296-2297, 2879).
As per Claim 21, Breed teaches that the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle (¶¶ 1874, 2778).
As per Claim 22, Breed teaches that the vehicular control system activates an emergency support system responsive to the blown tire of the vehicle (¶¶ 2296-2297).
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 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,978 (“the ‘978 patent”) , over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,442 (“the ‘442 patent”), and over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,889,293 (“the ‘293 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘978 patent, the ‘442 patent and the ‘293 patent each teach an autonomous vehicle with a set of sensors, including a CMOS camera mounted on the windshield that looks forward from the vehicle, determines an emergency driving situation, controls either a steering, acceleration or braking function of the vehicle, and guides the vehicle to a safe stopping location along a shoulder of the road on which the vehicle is traveling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661