DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 8 July 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. No claims were amended, added or cancelled. The submitted arguments have been entered and are considered below.
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 asserts that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is improper. Examiner does not agree. An “agricultural vehicle” is an obvious variant of the “vehicle” currently claimed. Both inventions define two vehicles where the following vehicle modifies a navigation path (and is obvious in light of “operating boundary”) based on an obstacle and also stays within the spatial relationship of the leading vehicle (“relative position” obvious in light of “spatial relationship”) where “navigating a…vehicle” is an obvious variation of “controlling steering”. The elements of the cited application present a system that is not patentably distinct from the claimed invention. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that the prior art of record did not disclose “generate an operating boundary of the follower vehicle based on the position of the obstacle, a relative position of the follower vehicle to a leader vehicle, and characteristics of the follower vehicle and the leader vehicle”. Examiner does not agree.
First, it is noted that the prior art of record detects and processes the data to determine that curbs and similar markings are valid boundaries with which the vehicle may operate (see para. 0066). Additionally, the prior art of record teaches that “the desired path” may require vehicles “remain on the rightmost half of the roadway” (see para. 0064) and that a boundary “exists in certain situations such as when oncoming vehicle traffic is encountered” (see para. 0069) implicitly teaching that processing the data to analyze the environment to generate the proper path/boundary. The paths, and the boundaries that define them, are determined by the vehicles in Amla; thus, detecting these boundaries is equivalent to “generat[ing]” the claimed boundary.
Based on the above teaching, Amla discloses that the boundary/path is based on “the position of the obstacle”. Specifically, Amla teaches that the boundary/path changes based on the detection of an obstacle (see paras. 0069). Amla discloses that the vehicle may operate according to boundary 693, but may also use boundary 691 based on obstacle detection (see Fig. 6D).
Second, Amla further teaches that relative position is taken into account when detecting/determining/generating the boundary. Amla teaches that a vehicle may be positionally offset to the leading vehicle (see para. 0053). However, Amla also takes into account that it is necessary to avoid an offset that is large enough so that “centering vehicle 221 on vehicle 201 would result in vehicle 221 failing to maintain a position within lane markings or with respect to nearby obstacles”. Accordingly, when the teachings noted above are integrated into Amla’s disclosure regarding relative positioning, Alma teaches that the path/boundaries are detected/generated based on relative position of the follower vehicle to a leader vehicle when an offset is active when an obstacle is detected.
Thirdly, Amla discloses that “depending on the rate of travel of…vehicle 221, it may not be possible for follow vehicle to follow path 612 to avoid the obstacle while maintaining an appropriate following distance behind vehicle 201” (see para. 0069). Such a teaching discloses that “characteristics of the follower vehicle and the leader vehicle” may change the path/boundary. Amla teaches that the path/boundary is based on the speeds of the vehicles.
The rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/749197 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims include controlling two vehicles to maintain relative position via spatial relationship/operating boundary to each other, detect an obstacle, determine a path around the obstacle and control both vehicles to navigate around the obstacle. Specifically, n “agricultural vehicle” is an obvious variant of the “vehicle” currently claimed. Both inventions define two vehicles where the following vehicle modifies a navigation path (and is obvious in light of “operating boundary”) based on an obstacle and also stays within the spatial relationship of the leading vehicle (“relative position” obvious in light of “spatial relationship”) where “navigating a…vehicle” is an obvious variation of “controlling steering”. It is obvious both inventions would include steering actuators having steering angles for the vehicles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amla, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0168503).
For claim 1, Amla discloses a follower vehicle, comprising: a steering actuator (see para. 0037); and processing circuitry configured to cause the follower vehicle to determine a position of an obstacle to the follower vehicle (see paras. 0058, detect obstacle, 0069), generate an operating boundary of the follower vehicle based on the position of the obstacle (see Fig. 6D, para. 0068-0069, operate according to boundary 693, but may also use boundary 691 based on obstacle detection), a relative position of the follower vehicle to a leader vehicle (see paras. 0068-0069, 0053, width of vehicles offset while maintaining boundary correctness during obstacle), and characteristics of the follower vehicle and the leader vehicle (see paras. 0044, 0053, width of vehicles, 0046, 0069, rate of travel), and control a steering angle of the steering actuator based on the operating boundary (see paras. 0061-0070).
With reference to claim 2, Amla further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the position of the obstacle using a LiDAR system or a camera system (see para. 0041).
Regarding claim 3, Amla further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured generate the operating boundary to exclude one or more of: a region occupied by the obstacle; a region occupied by a structure of the leader vehicle; or a region used by the leader vehicle to perform an operation (see paras. 0069, 0066, 0053).
Pertaining to claim 5, Amla further teaches wherein the obstacle is a boulder, a fence, a tree or a waterway (see para. 0066, wall equivalent to fence).
With regards to claim 6, Amla discloses wherein the obstacle is another follower vehicle (see Fig. 6A, para. 0069, multiple follow vehicles treat other follow vehicles as obstacle to avoid in multiple vehicle collision).
Referring to claim 7, Amla further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the steering angle of the steering actuator to steer the follower vehicle to remain within the operating boundary (see para. 0016).
Claims 8 and 15 define elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
Claim 9 and 16 define elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claim 2. Accordingly, claims 9 and 16 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 2.
Claims 10 and 17 define elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claim 3. Accordingly, claims 10 and 17 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 3.
Claims 12 and 19 define elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claims 5 and 6. Accordingly, claims 12 and 19 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claims 5 and 6.
Claim 13 defines elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 6.
Claims 14 and 20 define elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claim 7. Accordingly, claims 14 and 20 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 7.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amla, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0168503).
For claim 4, Alma does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, Amla teaches multiple vehicles following the operating boundary (see para. 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the boundary would be continuous and surround a follower vehicle that is in the convoy of follower vehicles based on Amlas teaching and the motivation to improve systems and methods that allow for drivers to place their vehicles into a “train” or “convoy” of vehicles that is not connected physically, but wirelessly (see para. 0011).
Claims 11 and 18 define elements and subject matter that mirrors the subject matter and elements of claim 4. Accordingly, claims 11 and 18 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 4.
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights