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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/35/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. 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 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11345342 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Application Claim 21, Patent claim 1 of 342B2 recites storing the first and second trajectories of a pedestrian with the same plurality of timesteps, generating a predicted trajectory for the pedestrian with the first and second probabilities based on the first and second plurality of timesteps respectively. Application Claim 21 is broader in that it doesn’t recite the warning of the vehicle.
Regarding Application claim 22, Patent claim 1 of 342B2 recites warning of the vehicle with the trajectory information.
Regarding Application claim 23, Patent claim 3 of 342B2 recites that “the information” includes trajectory information; from claim 1 of 342B2 “the trajectory” is the pedestrian’s.
Regarding Application claim 24, it is rendered obvious by patent claim 1; while patent claim 1 does not recite that the information associated with the predicted trajectory includes at least one of the first, second, or both the first and second probabilities when the claim is read as a whole this becomes obvious in that when one looks back into the earlier limitations of claim 1 to determine the BRI of “information associated with” the trajectory the explicitly recited limitations which would fall into “information associated with” the trajectory are (1) the predicted trajectory and (2) their probabilities. As such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the probabilities of the predicted trajectory (collision) in order to improve the operation of the device by allowing the driver/occupant to better understand or gauge the danger of collision.
Regarding Application Claim 25, Patent claim 1 recites that the warning (providing information) is to warn of a potential collision with the pedestrian, thus logic naturally flows that this occurs when the predicted trajectory of the pedestrian is “in conflict” with the vehicle’s such that there is a collision chance between the two.
Regarding Application Claim 28, Patent claim 14 recites a method which recites the same first and second observed trajectories with corresponding first and second timesteps (differs in patent claim 14 refers to “storing” and application claim 28 refers to “accessing”, but as patent claim 14 then uses the stored trajectories this implicitly requires “accessing” them for calculations of the predicted trajectories/probabilities. Claim 14 then recites generating the predicted trajectory of the pedestrian, and subsequently determining the first and second probabilities based on the respective timesteps/ranges as is recited in application claim 28.
Regarding Application Claim 29, Patent claim 14 recites a method which includes providing of information to the vehicle warning of a potential collision with the pedestrian.
Regarding Application Claim 30, Patent claim 3 recites an apparatus which performs the method which includes that the information (warning the vehicle) includes the predicted trajectory (of the pedestrian), the predicted trajectory ‘indicates” itself implicitly. While claim 3 is directed to an apparatus, this renders obvious claiming the same functions in method form.
Regarding Application Claim 31, it is rendered obvious by patent claim 14; while patent claim 14 does not recite that the information associated with the predicted trajectory includes at least one of the first, second, or both the first and second probabilities when the claim is read as a whole this becomes obvious in that when one looks back into the earlier limitations of claim 14 to determine the BRI of “information associated with” the trajectory the explicitly recited limitations which would fall into “information associated with” the trajectory are (1) the predicted trajectory and (2) the probabilities. As such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the probabilities of the predicted trajectory (collision) in order to improve the operation of the device by allowing the driver/occupant to better understand or gauge the danger of collision.
Regarding Application Claim 32, Patent Claim 14 recites that the providing the information associated with the trajectory is to warn of a potential collision, this implicitly renders obvious the predicted trajectory of the pedestrian is “in conflict” with the vehicle’s as if they were not there would not be a collision to warn about.
Regarding Application Claim 35, Patent claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which includes the first and second observed trajectories and their associated timesteps/ranges, generating a predicted trajectory, determining a first and second likelihood of those trajectories using the respective timesteps.
Regarding Application Claim 36, Patent claim 18 recites the providing of information associated with the predicted trajectory to the vehicle to warn of a potential collision with the pedestrian.
Regarding Application Claim 37, Patent claim 3 recites an apparatus (processor and memory) which performs the method which includes that the information (warning the vehicle) includes the predicted trajectory (of the pedestrian), the predicted trajectory ‘indicates” itself implicitly. While claim 3 is directed to an apparatus, this renders obvious claiming the same functions in a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions.
Regarding Application Claim 38, while patent claim 18 does not recite that the information associated with the predicted trajectory includes at least one of the first, second, or both the first and second probabilities when the claim is read as a whole this becomes obvious in that when one looks back into the earlier limitations of claim 18 to determine the BRI of “information associated with” the trajectory the explicitly recited limitations which would fall into “information associated with” the trajectory are (1) the predicted trajectory and (2) the probabilities. As such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the probabilities of the predicted trajectory (collision) in order to improve the operation of the device by allowing the driver/occupant to better understand or gauge the danger of collision.
Regarding Application Claim 39, patent claim 18 recites that the providing the information associated with the predicted trajectory is to warn the vehicle of a collision with the pedestrian, this renders obvious the determining that the vehicle and predicted pedestrian trajectory are “in conflict” in that for a potential collision to exist logically this conflict must exist/be determined to exist.
Claim 26, 33 and 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11345342 B2 in view of US 20190152490 A1, “Object Interaction Prediction Systems And Methods For Autonomous Vehicles”, Lan et al
Regarding Application claims 26, 33, and 40 the patent’s independent claims 1, 14, and 18 all recite warning the vehicle of a potential collision with a pedestrian, which the logic naturally flows that in order to warn of a potential collision one must first recognize that such a potential exists (i.e. that the pedestrian’s predicted trajectory and the vehicle’s are “in conflict”). However the claims do not render obvious how/recite to specifically determine if a collision between the vehicle and predicted pedestrian trajectory will occur.
Lan et al teaches a vehicle-pedestrian collision determination, warning, and avoidance system which includes teachings for determining if a vehicle’s and pedestrian’s predicted trajectories are in conflict with each other (i.e. have the potential to collide) (Lan [0063]-[0064])
Thus it would have been obvious to claim determining if a pedestrian and vehicle are in conflict (have potential to collide) based in part on the vehicle’s predicted trajectory and the pedestrian’s predicted trajectory in conflict based in part on the determining a pedestrian’s and vehicle’s trajectory intersect as taught by Lan.
Such a combination of Lan’s prediction techniques onto the claims of 342B2 is obvious under the KSR rational of “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;” (1) the separate art (342B2’s independent claims) implicitly render obvious the determining if a pedestrian predicted trajectory and a vehicle are in conflict with each other, and Lan teaches determining if a pedestrian’s trajectory and a vehicle are in conflict with each other is based on the pedestrian’s predicted trajectory and the vehicle’s predicted trajectory. (2) the combination could be implemented via software calculations/coding, no new sensors/devices are required further the teachings of Lan are still performing the same function (determining if a vehicle and pedestrian may collide) in the combination as they are in the original teachings. (3) the results of the combination would be predictable/function as expected the combination is merely implementing a specific way of determining if a collision will occur (i.e. that a pedestrian and vehicle are in conflict).
Claim 27, 34 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11345342 B2 in view of US 20170072852 A1, Matsuoka et al.
Regarding the claims 27, and 34 US patent 342 Claims recite a device and method however they do not particularly claim that the apparatus and method are in an RSU (roadside unit).
Matsuoka et al teaches a smart intersection system which detect, and warns vehicles and pedestrians of potential collisions, in which the pedestrian and vehicle information is collected by the RSU and the RSU performs the determinations of if a collision may occur (i.e. pedestrian and vehicle are “in conflict”)
As such it would have been obvious to claim implementing the apparatus and method of 342B2’s claims 1/14 in the form of a roadside unit, such as the unit taught in Matsuoka et al. Such an implementation would be KSR rational of “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;” (1) the separate art (342B2’s independent claims) claim/teach a processor and memory implementation, however it does not explicitly claim that the method is performed on/by a Roadside unit. Matsuoka et al teaches using an RSU unit to detect potential collisions between a pedestrian and a vehicle approaching an intersection and providing warns to the vehicle/its driver in such a case (2) the combination could be implemented via software calculations/coding, no new sensors/devices are required further the teachings of Matsuoka are still performing the same function (determining if a vehicle and pedestrian may collide via an RSU) in the combination as they are in the original teachings. (3) the results of the combination would be predictable, implementing claim 1/14’s operations onto an RSU is not changing the underlying function or principles of operation, it is merely changing the location where the processor and memory are located.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While rejected under double patenting grounds the independent claims are allowable in regards to the prior art.
No prior art was found to teach or render obvious at least the first and second probability calculations with their respective timesteps as recited in the independent claims. i.e. the independent claims are potentially allowable, minus the double patenting rejections, for the same reasons as indicated in the notice of allowance for the parent application (application 16/586665).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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 at (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 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669