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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on March 07, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 7, 15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-12, 14 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,213 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter substantially overlaps as shown below.
Current Application
US 12197213 B2
1. A method comprising:
14. A method of controlling a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode, the method comprising:
controlling, by one or more processors of a secondary computing system, a vehicle to maneuver to a destination in an autonomous driving mode based on a first trajectory received from a primary computing system;
a first computing system configured to generate trajectories for the vehicle:
a second computing system including one or more processors configured to:
determine how to generate trajectories to control the vehicle based on the type of road; and
when there is a failure of the primary computing system, receiving, by the one or more processors, a second trajectory from a backup computing system based on a type of road on which the vehicle is currently traveling;
a second computing system including one or more processors configured to: determine that an error in the first computing system has occurred; and
in response to determining that the error has occurred:
generate one or more trajectories based on the determination of how to generate trajectories to control the vehicle;
and controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to maneuver to the destination in the autonomous driving mode based on the second trajectory received from the backup computing system
control the vehicle to maneuver based on the one or more trajectories
Dependent Claim 7 is rejected in view of claims 14, 19 and 20.
Independent claim 15 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as above.
Dependent Claim 18 is rejected in view of claims 1, 11 and 12.
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 1-20 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, the claim recites the phrase “secondary computing system”. The specification does not recite “secondary” at all. The examiner believes that the phrase refers to the “second computing system” and, for purposes of compact prosecution, will examine the claims as such. However, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase “backup computing system”. The specification does not recite “backup” at all. The examiner believes that the phrase refers to the “third computing system” and, for purposes of compact prosecution, will examine the claims as such. However, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the phrase “secondary computing system”. The specification does not recite “secondary” at all. The examiner believes that the phrase refers to the “second computing system” and, for purposes of compact prosecution, will examine the claims as such. However, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the phrase “backup computing system”. The specification does not recite “backup” at all. The examiner believes that the phrase refers to the “third computing system” and, for purposes of compact prosecution, will examine the claims as such. However, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Wu, EP 3739414 A1, teaches an autonomous driving system includes: at least one sensor (1) configured to collect environment information around a vehicle; a primary decision unit (21) configured to calculate decision information based on the environment information collected by the at least one sensor (1), and transmit the decision information to a controller (3); an alternative decision unit (22) configured to calculate decision information based on the environment information collected by the at least one sensor (1) in response to detecting that the primary decision unit (21) is abnormal, and transmit the decision information to the controller (3); and the controller (3) configured to calculate vehicle control information based on the received decision information, and transmit the vehicle control information to a bottom vehicle controller. In this way, the stability and reliability of the autonomous driving system can be improved and safety of autonomous driving of the vehicle can be guaranteed.
Joyce et al., US 2018/0046182 A1 teaches a first computer including a processor is programmed to receive an indication of a failure mode in a vehicle and wirelessly transmit the indication of the failure mode to a remote server. The computer is further programmed to receive a revised route to a destination based at least in part on the failure mode and operate the vehicle along the revised route.
Linscott et al., US 2018/0251126 A1, teaches techniques for generating and executing trajectories to guide autonomous vehicles are described. In an example, a first computer system associated with an autonomous vehicle can generate, at a first operational frequency, a route to guide the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a target location. The first computer system can further determine, at a second operational frequency, an instruction for guiding the autonomous vehicle along the route and can generate, at a third operational frequency, a trajectory based at least partly on the instruction and real-time processed sensor data. A second computer system that is associated with the autonomous vehicle and is in communication with the first computer system can execute, at a fourth operational frequency, the trajectory to cause the autonomous vehicle to travel along the route. The separation of the first computer system and the second computer system can provide enhanced safety, redundancy, and optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-20 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668