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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/27/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims regarding operating the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode is a practical application. The specification recites controlling movement, speed, etc. in the autonomous driving mode.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Please see allowable subject matter section below for more details.
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).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 14, and 20 of Patent Application No. US 12179798 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the current application and claims 6, 14, and 20 of the patent application recites determining driving solutions for an autonomous vehicle based on predicted trajectories for an agent vehicle, determining alternate scenarios, determining alternate driving solutions, revising the driving solution, and operating the autonomous vehicle based on the revised driving solution.
Applicant’s amendments of a risk factor are obvious over claims 6, 14, and 20 of the reference. Claim 6 of the reference teaches the risk factor is a location where the level of risk posed by the alternate scenario (second trajectory for the agent vehicle) exceeds a threshold. It is further obvious that this risk needs to be mitigated in combination with Kobilarov (US 10671076 B1, cited in a previous office action) (Col. 26 Line 26 – Col. 26 Line 54) “(e.g., to avoid an accident)”.
Applicant’s amendments of an autonomous driving mode is obvious over the independent claims and the specification of the reference. Operating the vehicle is described in the reference specification as controlling the brakes, acceleration, steering, and signaling systems (Col. 7 Line 3 – Col. 7 Line 25), which is an autonomous driving mode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 §§ 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 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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “one or more processor, an alternate scenario”. It is unclear if “one or more processors” in claim 1 refers to “one or more processor of an autonomous vehicle” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “one or more processors”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “one or more processors” in claim 1 to mean the one or more processors.
Regarding claims 2-8, these claims depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 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, as well as double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“A method comprising: determining, by one or more processors of an autonomous vehicle, a driving solution for the autonomous vehicle based on a first predicted trajectory for an agent vehicle in an environment of the autonomous vehicle; determining, by one or more processors, an alternate scenario based on a second predicted trajectory for the agent vehicle; determining, by the one or more processors, an alternate driving solution for the autonomous vehicle based on the alternate scenario and a risk factor on the driving solution for the alternate scenario, wherein the risk factor is a point in time or location for mitigation of risk to the autonomous vehicle associated with the second predicted trajectory for the agent vehicle; revising, by the one or more processors, the driving solution up to where the alternate driving solution diverges from the driving solution; and operating, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode based on the revised driving solution”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Imai (US 20190278280 A1, cited in a previous office action) teaches the ego vehicle moving the branching point earlier in order to not cut off a vehicle in the right turn lane (Paragraphs 0057-0063) “the vehicle control device 1 changes the branching point DP11 defined by the map to a branching point DP12 directed to the start position of the travelable area RA1”.
However, Imai does not teach the alternate scenario and second predicted trajectory for the agent vehicle, in the alternate driving solution.
Tannenbaum (US 20180304886 A1) teaches slowing down a vehicle in order to give the autonomous vehicle more time to react (Abstract, Paragraph 0035) “autonomous vehicle control system has more time to anticipate and react to such actions. The system may warn and direct the driver or autonomous vehicle control system to decelerate”.
However, Tannenbaum does not teach the alternate driving solution diverging from the driving solution.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 9 and 17 recite allowable subject matter because these claims recite similar allowable subject found in claim 1.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 1, 9, and 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights