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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 contains the phrases “a proper function of the sensor” (line 4) and “information from the sensor” (line 5). It is ambiguous as to whether the reference is to the sensor referred to in claim 1 or to the “another sensor” in claim 3. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “the sensor” refers to the new sensor introduced in claim 3.
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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,702 (henceforth ‘702). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other due to obviousness and because the scopes of claims of the present application overlaps and surpasses that of the claims of ‘702:
18/931,173 (claim 1)
12,151,702 (claim 1)
A method comprising:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor on a transport, at least one notification related to a malfunction of a sensor;
determining by a processor that a sensor of a transport is experiencing a malfunction based on sensor data received from the sensor
determining by the processor that a severity level of the malfunction is related to one or more operational characteristics of the transport based on a mapping of one or more sensor malfunction notifications to the one or more operational characteristics;
receiving a plurality of sensor malfunction notifications within a certain time period by the processor;
identifying, by the processor, a severity level of the malfunction of the sensor by comparing a number or a frequency of the at least one notification received within a certain time period to a plurality of threshold values corresponding to a plurality of different severity levels;
identifying the severity level of the malfunction by the processor by comparing a number or frequency of the plurality of sensor malfunction notifications received within the certain time period to a plurality of threshold values corresponding to a plurality of different severity levels;
and responsive to the severity level exceeding a certain threshold value of the plurality of threshold values, lowering, by the processor, an autonomous operation level of the transport.
responsive to the severity level exceeding a certain the threshold value of the plurality of threshold values, lowering an autonomous operation level of the transport by the processor
and responsive to the severity level continuing to exceed the certain threshold value, restricting by the processor an operation of the transport to a new lower maximum level for the one or more operational characteristics until the restricting of the operation is removed.
The second clause of ‘173 is not the same as the second clause of ‘702, but the second clause of ‘173 is obvious in light of the second clause of ‘703. It would have been obvious for a deduction of the existence of a failed sensor be sent from a processor in a sensor to a processor “on a transport” (i.e., something that provides transportation to goods or occupants; see definition in [0002]) since this is known in the art.
Claim 2 (18/931,173)
Claim 2 (12,151,702)
The method of claim 1, comprising:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving additional data of another sensor by the transport from another transport that is in proximity to the transport, wherein the additional data indicates a proper function of the sensor;
receiving additional sensor data by the transport from another transport that is in proximity to the transport, wherein the sensor data indicates a proper function of the sensor;
and raising the autonomous operation level based on the additional data.
and raising the autonomous operation level based on the sensor data.
Claim 3 (18/931,173)
Claim 3 (12,151,702)
The method of claim 1, comprising:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving additional data of another sensor by the transport from one or more occupant devices within the transport, wherein the additional data indicates a proper function of the sensor;
receiving additional sensor data by the transport from one or more occupant devices within the transport, wherein the sensor data indicates a proper function of the sensor;
and replacing information from the sensor with the additional data from the one or more occupant devices.
and replacing information from the sensor that is experiencing the malfunction with the additional sensor data from the one or more occupant devices.
Claim 4 (18/931,173)
Claim 4 (12,151,702)
The method of claim l, comprising:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying a different sensor of the transport to replace an intended output of the sensor;
identifying a different sensor of the transport to replace an intended output sensor that is experiencing the malfunction
obtaining other sensor data from the different sensor;
obtaining sensor data from the different sensor
and responsive to the severity level continuing to exceed the certain threshold value, restricting an operation of the transport based on the intended output of the sensor.
and responsive to the severity level continuing to exceed the certain threshold value, restricting the operation of the transport based on the intended output of the sensor that is experiencing a malfunction
Claim 5 (18/931,173)
Claim 5 (Pat. 12,151,702)
The method of claim 1, comprising:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
providing one or more of a visual or audible notification to an occupant of the transport in response to the severity level increasing but not exceeding the certain threshold value;
providing one or more of a visual or audible notification to an occupant of the one or more transport occupants in response to the severity level increasing but not exceeding the certain threshold value;
and maintaining the autonomous operation level of the transport and not restricting an operation of the transport.
and maintaining the autonomous operation level of the transport and not restricting the operation of the transport.
Claim 6 (18/931,173)
Claim 6 (Pat. 12,151,702)
The method of claim 1, comprising:
The method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving a first form of sensor data from a different sensor of the transport that has been identified as replacing an intended output of the sensor that is experiencing the malfunction;
receiving a first form of sensor data from a different sensor of the transport that has been identified as replacing an intended output of the sensor that is experiencing the malfunction
responsive to the severity level continuing to exceed the certain threshold value, restricting an operation of the transport based on the intended output;
responsive to the severity level continuing to exceed the certain threshold value, restricting the operation of the transport based on the intended output;
and detecting a loss of the first form of sensor data by the processor.
and detecting a loss of the first form of sensor data by the processor.
Claim 7 (18/931,173)
Claim 7 (Pat. 12,151,702)
The method of claim l, comprising:
The method of claim l, comprising:
providing one or more of a visual or audible indication in response to lowering the autonomous operation level of the transport;
providing one or more of a visual or-audible indication in response to lowering the autonomous operation level of the transport;
and receiving a visual or audible acknowledgment comprising an action to control the transport.
and receiving a visual or audible acknowledgment comprising an action to control the transport.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-20 are allowed.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights