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 .
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 1-10, 14-16, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,308. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US Patent No. 12,187,308 anticipate the claims of the current application.
Claim 1 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 10 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claims 11 and 12 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 14 and 15 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 16 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim 20 of the current application corresponds to claim 21 of US Patent No. 12,187,308.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Seder et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0162595), Petit et al. (US pub No. 2023/0111436), and Post et al. (US Pat No. 11,180,159).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Seder teaches a computer-implemented method for enhanced emergency vehicle warnings via Augmented Reality (AR) (See abstract and [0015]), the method comprising: obtaining a wireless communication signal indicating a position of an emergency vehicle (See [0035]).
Seder does not teach determining a field of view of an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer; presenting an alert via the AR viewer based upon a comparison of the position of the emergency vehicle and the field of view, or one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle; and one or more non-transitory memories storing processor-executable instructions.
Petit teaches one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle; and one or more non-transitory memories storing processor-executable instructions (See [0013]); and determining a field of view of an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer (See [0093] teaches determining the operator’s direction of gaze and placing an alert in the field of view of the driver.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Seder’s method to include Petit’s teaching in order to best ensure operator’s attention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Post teaches based upon a comparison of the location of the emergency vehicle and the field of view, presenting, via the one or more processors, an alert via the AR viewer (See Col. 15, lines 26-67 and Fig. 10A-10D teach changing the location of the warning based on its relative location in comparison to the location of the vehicle.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Seder’s method to include Post’s teaching to “reduce or eliminate stresses that can lead a driver to make rash or unsafe decisions” (Col. 3 lines 54-57). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Seder teaches obtaining the indication comprises: receiving, from an electronic device on-board the emergency vehicle, the indication (See abstract and [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Seder teaches obtaining the indication comprises: receiving, from a smart infrastructure device, the indication (See abstract, [0035]-[0036], and [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, Seder teaches obtaining the indication comprises: receiving, from a smart infrastructure device, the indication (See Fig. 6 & 7 and [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Seder teaches presenting the alert comprises: presenting, via the one or more processors, an indication of a location of the emergency vehicle and/or an indication of a maneuver to perform to yield to the emergency vehicle (See Fig. 6 & 7).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Seder does not teach generating, via a sensor of the vehicle, sensor data indicating an external environment of the vehicle; and presenting, by the one or more processors, information indicating the external environment of the vehicle based upon the sensor data.
Petit teaches generating, via a sensor of the vehicle, sensor data indicating an external environment of the vehicle; and presenting, by the one or more processors, information indicating the external environment of the vehicle based upon the sensor data (See [0024] and [0047]).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Seder does not teach the sensor includes one or more of an image sensors or a ranging sensor.
Petit teaches the sensor includes one or more of an image sensors or a ranging sensor (See [0045]).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Seder does not the external environment of the vehicle includes one or more of a road condition or a presence of another vehicle.
Petit teaches the external environment of the vehicle includes one or more of a road condition or a presence of another vehicle (See [0045]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder, Post, and Petit as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koravadi (US Pub No. 2019/0102636).
Regarding claim 7, Seder does not explicitly teach the AR viewer is a wearable AR viewer.
Koravadi teaches the AR viewer is a wearable AR viewer (See Abstract and [0039]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Seder’s method to include Koravadi’s glasses “to provide a better view of the surrounding for the driver” (See [0039]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686