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 .
Status of claims: claims 22-41 are pending below. Claims 1-21 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/4/2024, 3/25/2025, 4/3/2025, 4/18/2025, 6/18/2025, 7/30/2025, 11/19/2025, 1/4/2026 and 4/13/2026 was filed and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 11,770,493. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 and dependent claims 12-14 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1, 19 and 24 in U.S. Patent No. 11,770,493. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-18 and 20-23 in U.S. Patent No. 11,770,493.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,598. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,177,598. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1, 13 and 17 in U.S. Patent No. 12,177,598. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-21 in U.S. Patent No. 12,177,598.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,603,101. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,603,101. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1, 18 and 19 in U.S. Patent No. 12,603,101. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-17 in U.S. Patent No. 12,603,101.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,730. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,392,730. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1, 10 and 15 in U.S. Patent No. 12,392,730. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,392,730.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,651,490. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,651,490. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1, 17 and 18 and dependent claim 4 in U.S. Patent No. 12,651,490. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-3, 5-16, 18 and 20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,651,490.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,541,840. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,541,840. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claim 4 in U.S. Patent No. 12,541,840. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-3 and 5-19 in U.S. Patent No. 12,541,840.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,597,114. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,597,114. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1, 11 and 19 and dependent claim 13 in U.S. Patent No. 12,597,114. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-10, 12, 14-18 and 20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,597,114.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,597,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,597,115. Independent claims 22, 34 and 41 in the current application 18/935278 are anticipated by the independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent claim 6 in U.S. Patent No. 12,597,114. Dependent claims 23-33 and 35-40 follow likewise mapping to dependent claims 2-5, 7-15 and 17-20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,597,115.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DMITRIEV (US 2021/0390720) teaches SYSTEM OF DEPTH ESTIMATION AND METHOD THEREOF - generated depth map can be used in various applications. In some embodiments, the depth map can be used to detect anomalies for the target object(s)/scene captured in the images. An anomaly can refer to any item, object or observation appearing in the image that does not conform to an expected pattern, behavior or other items in the image. Typically, an identified anomaly can indicate certain kinds of potential defects, threats, malfunctions, etc. By way of example, in the case that the target object in the images is a vehicle undercarriage, the anomaly can be an additional object(s) embedded therein which does not originally belong to the vehicle, or an existing object(s) which is observed as having a different appearance than that which is expected. By way of another example, the anomaly can be a suspicious observation of the vehicle undercarriage, for instance, the frame of the undercarriage was painted to a different color which distinguishes it from a regular undercarriage appearance…machine learning (paragraph 0139).
Hever et al (US 12,140,501) teaches Single Pass Automated Vehicle Inspection System And Method - roof camera images would be transmitted to the controller 208 along with the undercarriage, tire and side images for inclusion in the synchronized analysis process. Potential defects such as dents, rust or leaked fluids could then be identified on the roof sections of inspected vehicles. The roof sensor maybe a wide-angle machine vision camera mounted overhead through an environmental enclosure (column 6 line 1-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
