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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10262528. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent inventive scope is narrow than the inventive scope of the instant application. Thus, the broader inventive scope of the instant application is encompassed within the inventive scope of the patent.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haran (US 20170345292 A1, IDS) in view of Gordon et al. (“Gordon”, US 9513632 B1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Haran discloses an electronic device (¶35 with reference to Fig. 5: pedestrian unit 500 in the form of a smartphone) associated with a pedestrian (¶35), comprising: a non-transitory memory (¶40) configured to store computer executable instructions ¶40); and one or more processors (¶40) configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the one or more processors (¶40) to: As per the limitation receive an indication of a current operational mode transmitted by a nearby vehicle having one or more autonomous features, wherein the current operational mode of the nearby vehicle is one of autonomous or manual. Haran discloses, in ¶¶5, 11, 14, 19, 22, 30 with reference to Figs. 1 & 3, the concept of providing vehicle-to-pedestrian communications to enable a vehicle that can operate in autonomous mode to provide alert notifications when the proximity of a pedestrian may present a hazardous condition, see step 314. While, Haran does not specify providing a notification concerning the current operational mode of the vehicle. In the same art, Gordon discloses, in Col. 8, line 4 through Col. 10, line 26 with reference to Fig. 2, the concept of configuring a vehicle that operates in autonomous and manual operational modes to be able to determine its current operational mode, detect nearby pedestrians and provision notifications, to the pedestrian’s smartphone, to make the pedestrian aware of the vehicle being nearby and its current operational mode to assist in presence awareness and collision avoidance.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a vehicle that operates in autonomous and manual operational modes to be able to determine its current operational mode, detect nearby pedestrians and provision notifications, to the pedestrian’s smartphone, to make the pedestrian aware of the vehicle being nearby and its current operational mode to assist in presence awareness and collision avoidance, with the motivation to enhance the presence awareness and collision avoidance features of the system. As per the limitation determine a position of the electronic device associated with the pedestrian (Haran: Fig. 5, with regard to the radar-type display indicating proximity of nearby vehicles; also see Gordon: Col. 9, lines 60-65); determine a proximity of the nearby vehicle (Haran: Fig. 5, with regard to the radar-type display indicating proximity of nearby vehicles; also see Gordon: Col. 9, lines 60-65); and trigger an alert based, at least in part, on the current operational mode (Gordon discloses, in Col. 8, lines 35-36, the use of a smartphone carried by a pedestrian configured to receive electronic messages to alert the pedestrian of the operational mode that the vehicle is operating), when the proximity of the nearby vehicle is equal to or less than a minimum vehicle proximity (Haran: Fig. 3: step 306; Fig. 5; also see Gordon Fig. 2, indicating the pedestrian being proximate to the approaching vehicle), the alert configured to notify the pedestrian of the current operational mode of the nearby vehicle (Gordon discloses, in Col. 8, lines 35-56, the use of a smart phone carried by a pedestrian to receive electronic messages to enable the pedestrian to be alerted of the autonomous or manual operational status of a nearby vehicle, hence the reception of the electronic concerning the autonomous or manual operational status of the nearby vehicle to indicate the status to the pedestrian via the smartphone can be interpreted as the smartphone being configured to triggered the indication once the electronic message is received). 2) Regarding claims 2 and 9, wherein the alert is one or more of a sound, vibration, light, or display of the electronic device (Haran: ¶¶9, 35-36 with reference to Figs. 5-6; Gordon: Col. 8, line 45). 3) Regarding claims 7 and 14, wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive, via a user interface, an indication of a preference to trigger the alert based on the current operational mode (Gordon: Col. 9, lines 56-61, with regard to triggering an interrogation request via the smart phone).
Claim(s) 3 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haran in view of Gordon, and in further view of Singh et al. (“Singh”, US 20180114435 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 3 and 10, wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to: cease the alert upon receiving an indication of a dismissal of the alert by the pedestrian. Singh discloses, in ¶35, the concept of providing a user control for dismissal of an alert to be controlled and initiated by a pedestrian.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a user control for dismissal of an alert to be controlled and initiated by a pedestrian, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 4-6 & 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haran in view of Gordon, and in further view of Lee (US 2016/0272172 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 4 and 11, wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to cease the alert when the proximity of the nearby vehicle is greater than the minimum vehicle proximity. Haran discloses, in ¶¶33-35 with reference to Fig. 5, the concept of evaluating proximate data to determine when to provide alert notification. Notice that Haran discloses, in ¶33, evaluating a relative location of the pedestrian to the vehicle (corresponding a minimum vehicle proximity). Lee discloses, in ¶¶73-75, the concept of postponing an alert based on active evaluation of relative positioning with respect to a pedestrian and a vehicle. At the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of postponing an alert based on active evaluation of relative positioning with respect to a pedestrian and a vehicle, with the motivation to enhance the notification control features of the system. 2) Regarding claims 5 and 12, wherein the computer executable instructions causing the one or more processors to cease the alert when the proximity of the nearby vehicle is greater than the minimum vehicle proximity cause the one or more processors to: receive a current location of the nearby vehicle (Haran: ¶¶33, 35; Fig. 5); determine the current location of the electronic device (Haran: ¶¶33, 35; Fig. 5); determine, based on the current location of the nearby vehicle and the current location of the electronic device, that the proximity of the nearby vehicle to the electronic device is greater than the minimum vehicle proximity (Lee: ¶75); and cease the alert in response to determining that the proximity of the nearby vehicle to the electronic device is greater than the minimum vehicle proximity (see analysis of the rejection of claims 4 and 11). 3) Regarding claims 6 and 13, wherein the indication of the current operational mode transmitted by the nearby vehicle is a short-range signal (Gordan: Col. 1, lines 30-35; Col. 9, lines 50-65), and wherein the computer executable instructions causing the one or more processors to cease the alert when the proximity of the nearby vehicle is greater than the minimum vehicle proximity cause the one or more processors to cease the alert when the short-range signal is no longer received by the electronic device (Gordon discloses, in Col. 9, lines 50-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9043130 B2, pedestrian avoidance system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685