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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
In accordance with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find "a needle in a haystack" is "probative of bad faith." The submitted Information Disclosure Statements lacked concise explanation of the relevance of any of the listed references by citing any pages, columns, lines, or paragraph numbers where relevant passages or relevant figures appear. According to MPEP Section 2004 “Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]”, “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance." Additionally, per MPEP Section 609.04(a)(lll): “applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability." See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v.Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). If additional IDS need to be submitted, the examiner is requesting that the applicant submit a reasonable number of references along with the concise explanation of the relevance of any of the listed references by citing any pages, columns, lines, or paragraph numbers where relevant passages or relevant figures appear, as per 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) and 37 CFR § 1.105.
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,259,724 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1 and 9 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 1 and 7 of Simon et al.
Claims 2 and 10 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 1 and 7 of Simon et al.
Claims 3 and 11 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 1 and 7 of Simon et al.
Claims 4 and 12 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 1 and 7 of Simon et al.
Claims 5 and 13 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 2 and 8 of Simon et al.
Claims 6 and 14 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 3 and 9 of Simon et al.
Claims 7 and 15 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 4 and 10 of Simon et al.
Claims 8 and 16 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 6 and 11 of Simon et al.
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 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 1-2, 7-10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRIAN (EP 2 886 507 A1) in view of Buss (US-20180113465-A1) and CHOI (US-20180157036-A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Brian discloses: a method for operating a materials handling vehicle comprising monitoring and storing first data regarding a vehicle drive parameter, by a controller, a vehicle drive parameter during a previous manual operation of the vehicle by the operator ([0060]: “the vehicle controller 12 can store data regarding the operation of the material handling vehicle. That data can include number of hours in operation, battery state of charge (BSOC), and fault codes encountered, for example”; [0061]);
second data regarding the monitored vehicle drive parameter monitored and stored during a most recent manual operation of the vehicle ([0060]: “In addition, operation of the lift can be monitored using the time that the lift motor 51 is active. Various speed parameters such as speed and acceleration of the vehicle and of the mast 33 can also be monitored”, the time that the lift motor 51 is active is broadly interpreted to be equivalent to the most recent manual operation (i.e. current operation); [0061]; [0068]);
receiving, by the controller, a request to implement a semi-automated driving operation of the vehicle; and based on the second data regarding the monitored vehicle drive parameter corresponding to the most recent manual operation, controlling by the controller, implementation of the semi- automated driving operation of the vehicle ([0069]-[0072]).
However, Brian does not explicitly state replacing, by the controller, the stored first data regarding the monitored vehicle drive parameter associated with the previous manual operation of the vehicle by the operator with second data regarding the monitored vehicle drive parameter during the most recent manual operation of the vehicle, operating the vehicle in a semi-automated driving operation after the previous manual operation and before the most recent manual operation of the vehicle.
On the other hand, Buss teaches replacing, by the controller, any stored first data regarding the monitored vehicle drive parameter associated with a previous manual operation of the vehicle by the operator with second data regarding the monitored vehicle drive parameter during the most recent manual operation of the vehicle (Claim 8: “a value of the control parameter from a previous time interval is stored if the vehicle speed is below a predefined threshold vehicle speed, and wherein a value of the control parameter from the previous time interval is replaced with a value of the current control parameter if the vehicle speed is above the predefined threshold vehicle speed).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, to modify the teachings of the BRIAN reference and include steps from the Buss reference with a reasonable expectation of success and replace the stored first data with second data regarding the monitored drive parameter. Doing so provides an up-to-date storage of data stored regarding the drive parameter.
Furthermore, CHOI teaches the vehicle is operated in another semi-automated driving operation after the previous manual operation and before the most recent manual operation of the vehicle ([0096]-[0101]: alternating from one driving mode to the other based on the driving conditions).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the BRIAN reference and include features from the CHOI reference with a reasonable expectation of success, to alternate between driving modes depending on the driving conditions. Doing so provides an efficient transitioning between driving modes, that considers driving conditions for switching between manual and autonomous driving modes.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, BRIAN discloses the second data comprises sequential individual values associated with the vehicle drive parameter ([0060]; [0061]; [0068]: Serial numbers, ID’s, numbers, times, and values are all considered sequential individual numbers; Fig. 18).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, BRIAN discloses the second data is not calculated using or based on the first data ([0042]: “new such current-trip data sets are read from the vehicle in question at consecutive observation time points separated by at the most a predetermined observation time period”, the most recent data is read from the vehicle, which means they are not based on the stored data (i.e. first data); [0070];[0071]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, BRIAN discloses the semi-automated driving operation comprises a remote control operation ([0047]: “remotely controlled (AGV) material handling vehicles”).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRIAN, Buss, and CHOI in further view of DU (CN 107063239 A; examiner relied on English translation attached with this OA).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, BRIAN discloses grouping the sequential individual values into a plurality of subsets of values ([0060]: “Various speed parameters such as speed and acceleration of the vehicle and of the mast 33 can also be monitored.”; [0061]: “The vehicle operational data can also include an operator identifier, such as a name or employee number, which can be entered through the integrated display 55 connected to the vehicle controller 12. Additionally, operator daily checklists can be presented to the operator on the integrated display 55. Data acquired from these checklists can be associated with the operator along with data related to that person's driving performance. For example, average vehicle acceleration rate and speed may be monitored, as well as collision data, number of pallets moved, or other data useful in monitoring operator performance, productivity, and efficiency”) and for each of the plurality of subsets, a respective arithmetic or weighted average associated with that subset based at least in part on the individual values in that subset ([0061]: “For example, average vehicle acceleration rate and speed may be monitored”, the averages recited in this paragraph are referring to the arithmetic average).
However, BRIAN does not explicitly state each subset comprising a same predetermined number of adjacent individual values; and for each of the plurality of subsets, calculating a respective arithmetic or weighted average associated with that subset based at least in part on the individual values in that subset.
On the other hand DU teaches each subset comprising a same predetermined number of adjacent individual values; and for each of the plurality of subsets, calculating a respective arithmetic or weighted average associated with that subset based at least in part on the individual values in that subset (Page 2, Lines 81-82: (2c); Claim 1: “orderly reading elements in the acceleration matrix according to the row, (2b) calculating each array element number of packets read acceleration matrix, (2c) reading the elements in each group of packet data. calculating the average value of each group of grouped data element and the average value calculated by the stored acceleration average value matrix according to the row, (3)”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, to modify the teachings of the BRIAN reference and include steps from the DU reference, wherein the plurality of subsets are grouped and the averages are calculated for each subset. Calculating and relying on averages would provide a safer autonomous control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterson (US-20200319643-A1) teaches an automation arbitration controller system is provided. The automation arbitration controller is configured to arbitrate a multiple of automation requests on a material handling vehicle, which includes a material handling vehicle controller. The automation arbitration controller can be connected to at least one automation controller via an automation communication bus. The automation controller can be configured to send one or more automation requests. The automation arbitration controller can also be connected to a material handling vehicle controller via a vehicle communication bus. The material handling vehicle controller can be configured to send one or more automation requests.
Natroshvili (US-20190102911-A1) teaches an extrinsic camera calibration system (ECCS) comprising a surround view system (SVS) interface connecting the ECCS to the SVS. The SVS comprises four cameras mounted to front, back, left, and right sides of a vehicle respectively that are front, back, left, and right cameras, as well as an imaging interface at which images from the four cameras are output. A calibration pattern that comprises a set of features is used by an extrinsic calibration processor. A network interface is connected to the four cameras via the imaging interface. The processor receives, from each camera, an image comprising captured features from the calibration pattern. It determines and stores extrinsic calibration parameters (ECPs) for each camera that map coordinates of the features to camera coordinates and that are usable for subsequent normal operation of the cameras, the ECPs being determined from the image features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (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 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights