DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/9/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101-Double Patenting
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent 12,205,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claim limitations in Claim 1 are taught by patented Claim 1 of US Patent 12,205,420. Both have the same identifying step, generating step, and the responsive step which the same metes and bounds and wording.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 8 of US Patent 12,205,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claim limitations in Claim 8 are taught by patented Claim 8 of US Patent 12,205,420. Both have the same identifying step, generating step, and the responsive step which the same metes and bounds and wording.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 15 of US Patent 12,205,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claim limitations in Claim 15 are taught by patented Claim 15 of US Patent 12,205,420. Both have the same identifying step, generating step, and the responsive step which the same metes and bounds and wording.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to Claims 1-20: Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been found to contain allowable subject matter. Any claims that depend there from are also found to contain allowable subject matter due to their dependency on the allowable subject matter.
Reasons for Allowance
The allowable subject matter found in the Claims 1, 8, and 15 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows: “identify, by applying at least one machine learning algorithm to a set of a plurality of data records associated with the plurality of AVs, a software-environment interaction between at least one software application operating onboard the at least one AV and at least one environmental condition resulting in a particular outcome of operation of the at least one AV in the at least one environmental condition; generate a confidence indicator indicating a strength of a correlation between the software-environment interaction and the particular outcome, the confidence indicator representing a likelihood that the software-environment interaction contributes to the particular outcome; and in response to the confidence indicator exceeding a predetermined threshold, cause at least one of (i) a user device associated with an operator of the at least one AV or (ii) the at least one AV to notify the operator of the particular outcome”.
The closest prior art of reference is Kislovskiy et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0341276). Kislovskiy is also a software risk evaluation system, however Kislovskiy does not specifically state a system with the limitations as stated above.
Another prior art of reference is Fung et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0012551). Fung is also system and method for software implementation on autonomous vehicles, however Fung does not specifically state the limitations as stated above.
Both of these references either independently or in combination fail to anticipate or teach the limitations as stated above in combination with the other claimed limitations. Therefore Claims 1, 8, and 15 contain allowable subject matter and any claims that depend there from are also found to contain allowable subject matter.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is disclosed on PTO form 892 attached with this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c