DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 12/5/2024 and IDS filed 12/5/2024 and 1/26/2026.
In the application Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 10-12 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Priority
5. This application is a continuation of 17/123826 now U.S. 12,187,315, filed 12/16/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/5/2024 and 1/26/2026 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
7. The Drawings filed on 12/5/2024 have been approved.
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.
8. Claims 1, 9 and 17, including the dependent claims 5-8, 13-16 and 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 16 respectively of U.S. 12,187,315 herein ‘315 in view of RAO (WO2020/142548, published July 2020). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications teach an autonomous vehicle (AV) adaptation based on sets of behavior models.
Regarding Independent Claim 1 (see claims 1 of ‘315);
Regarding Independent Claim 9 (see claim 9 of ‘315);
Regarding Independent Claim 17 (see claim 16 of ‘315);
Regarding Dependent claims 5, 13 and 21 (see claim 2 of ‘315);
Regarding Dependent claims 6, 14 and 22 (see claim 3 of ‘315);
Regarding Dependent claims 7, 15 and 23 (see claims 5 & 7 of ‘315); It would have been obvious to combine the already disclosed elements of claims 5 and 7 to achieve the functionality recited in claim 7 resulting in safe operation of an AV.
Regarding Dependent claims 8, 16 and 24 (see claim 8 of ‘315);
Current Application
1. A computing device, comprising: a communication interface configured to receive first data associated with stationary landmarks and second data associated with road actors, the first and the second data each being associated with an environment to be navigated by autonomous vehicles (AVs); and processing circuitry configured to generate a set of behavioral models using the first and the second data, each one of the set of behavioral models being associated with a maneuver to be performed by an AV at a geolocation of the first and the second data used to generate each respective one of the set of behavioral models, wherein the communication interface is further configured to: receive, from the AV, a query associated with one of the set of behavioral models having a corresponding geolocation that matches a geolocation of the query; and transmit third data in response to the query to cause the AV to perform, at a geolocation corresponding to the first and the second data used to generate the one of the set of behavioral models, a maneuver in accordance with the third data.
(note: Independent claim 9 and 17 recites similar language has in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale).
‘315 Application
1. A computing device, comprising: a communication interface configured to receive static semantic data associated with stationary landmarks and dynamic semantic data from road actors, the static semantic data and the dynamic semantic data each being associated with an environment to be navigated by autonomous vehicles (AVs); and processing circuitry configured to generate a set of behavioral models using the static semantic data and the dynamic semantic data, each one of the set of behavioral models being associated with a maneuver to be performed by an AV at a corresponding geolocation of the static semantic data and the dynamic semantic data used to generate each respective one of the set of behavioral models, wherein the communication interface is further configured to receive, from the AV, a query associated with at least one of the behavioral models from among the set of behavioral models having a corresponding geolocation that matches a geolocation specified by the query that is received from the AV, and to transmit data associated with the at least one of the behavioral models in response to the query to cause the AV to perform, at a geolocation corresponding to the static semantic data and the dynamic semantic data used to generate the at least one of the set of behavioral models, a maneuver in accordance with the transmitted data associated with the at least one of the set of behavioral models.
The ‘315 application discloses all the underlined elements except that its data inputs are labeled with semantic specificity via static and dynamic semantic data rather than generic first, second and third data of the present application. RAO teaches using generically labeled data inputs (fixed/moveable object data) from an environment to generate behavioral models for AV navigation without requiring the inputs to be semantic in character. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used generically labeled datasets to generate geolocation-tied behavioral models on a server and respond to AV queries with maneuver guidance. As doing so represents an obvious broadening of an existing functional claim element by substituting “static/dynamic semantic data” with “first/second/third data”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
3/21/2026