DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
Double Patenting
3. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
4. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of US Patent No. 12,214,721. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “information indicating a level of traffic congestion in the autonomous vehicle's environment; determining a first threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information”, “determining a second threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information; and displaying, by the one or more processors on the display, a second notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching the second threshold distance”, “adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of at least one of the first notification or the second notification based on current ambient lighting conditions”, “adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of the first notification or the second notification based on current weather conditions.”, “adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of the first notification or the second notification based on current traffic conditions”, “wherein the first notification is displayed brighter than the second notification, or the second notification is displayed brighter than the first notification.”, “wherein at least one of the first notification or the second notification are displayed on the display such that a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle has a line of sight to the at least one of the first notification or the second notification”, “wherein a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle can use a client computing device to change the display; wherein the client computing device changes the display in response to selection of an on-screen button, a voice command, or the client computing device is shaken” are conventional prior art feature and the use of such feature in claims 1 and 14 of US Patent No. 12,214,721 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
5. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7, 12-13 and 14 and 17-18 of US Patent No. 11,840,173. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “information indicating a level of traffic congestion in the autonomous vehicle's environment; determining a first threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information”, “determining a second threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information; and displaying, by the one or more processors on the display, a second notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching the second threshold distance”, “wherein the first notification is displayed brighter than the second notification, or the second notification is displayed brighter than the first notification.”, “wherein at least one of the first notification or the second notification are displayed on the display such that a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle has a line of sight to the at least one of the first notification or the second notification”, “wherein a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle can use a client computing device to change the display; wherein the client computing device changes the display in response to selection of an on-screen button, a voice command, or the client computing device is shaken” are conventional prior art feature and the use of such feature in claims 1, 5-7, 12-13 and 14 and 17-18 of US Patent No. 11,840,173 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
6. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8 and 10-11 of US Patent No. 11,491,909. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “information indicating a level of traffic congestion in the autonomous vehicle's environment; determining a first threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information”, “determining a second threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information; and displaying, by the one or more processors on the display, a second notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching the second threshold distance”, “adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of at least one of the first notification or the second notification based on current ambient lighting conditions”, “wherein at least one of the first notification or the second notification are displayed on the display such that a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle has a line of sight to the at least one of the first notification or the second notification”, “wherein a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle can use a client computing device to change the display; wherein the client computing device changes the display in response to selection of an on-screen button, a voice command, or the client computing device is shaken” are conventional prior art feature and the use of such feature in claims 1, 7-8 and 10-11 of US Patent No. 11,491,909 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2, 8, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer et al. (Dyer; US 2019/0064808) in view of Morimura (US 2020/0114816).
For claim 1, Dyer discloses a method comprising:
maneuvering, by one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle towards a destination [E.g. 0003: a method of stopping a vehicle without a driver, the method comprising, after a passenger has entered the vehicle, maneuvering, by one or more processors, the vehicle in an autonomous driving mode towards a destination location along a route, the route being divided into two or more stages; receiving, by the one or more processors, a signal indicating that the passenger is requesting that the vehicle stop or pull over; in response to receiving the signal, determining, by the one or more processors, a current stage of the route based on (1) a current distance of the vehicle from a pickup location where the passenger entered the vehicle or (2) a current distance of the vehicle from the destination location; and stopping, by the one or more processors, the vehicle in accordance with the determined current stage, 0025, and Fig. 17];
receiving, by the one or more processors, information indicating a level of traffic congestion in the autonomous vehicle's environment [E.g. 0043: detailed map information may also include information identifying speed limits and other legal traffic requirements as well as historical information identifying typical and historical traffic conditions at various dates and time, 0026-0032, 0044-0045];
determining, by the one or more processors, a first threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information [E.g. 0081: FIG. 13 is an example abstract representation 1300 of these stages which provide for context aware stopping of vehicles, such as vehicle 100 (or vehicle 100A). In this regard, FIG. 13 includes markers 1310 and 1320 representing pickup and destination locations for a trip along a route represented by line 1330. The route is divided into a beginning stage between the pickup location and a first threshold distance from the pickup location represented by marker 1340, a middle stage between the first threshold distance and a second threshold distance from the destination location represented by marker 1350, and a late stage between the second threshold distance and the destination location. The late stage can be further subdivided by a marker 1360 representing the point at which the computing devices 110 begin to maneuver the vehicle into a pull over spot in order to allow the passenger to exit the vehicle, 0091: If the vehicle is less than or within the second threshold distance from the destination location, the vehicle may be in late stage of the route. For example, as shown in FIG. 16, vehicle 100 is approaching the destination location and is within the second threshold distance represented by line 1690 from the destination location represented by marker 1680. In this stage, the response of the computing devices 110 to the signal from button 614, button 810 or the passenger's client computing device may depend on whether the computing devices have already identified a pull over spot and are attempting to maneuver the vehicle into that pull over spot. If so, the computing devices may “ignore” the signal and continue to pull the vehicle into the pull over spot. If not, the computing device may change the destination to the vehicle's current location as discussed above and stop the vehicle in the closest available location to do so under the circumstances. In some cases, this may allow the computing devices to stop the vehicle immediately, of course, depending on the current circumstances of traffic, current position and orientation of the vehicle as well as safety considerations such as the speed limit of the roadway where the vehicle is currently traveling; 0028-0031, 0082-0083, Figs. 13].
Dyer fails to expressly disclose displaying, by the one or more processors on a display mounted on the autonomous vehicle, a first notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching the first threshold distance from the destination.
However, as shown by Morimura, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include displaying, by one or more processors on a display mounted on autonomous vehicle, a first notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching first threshold distance from the destination [E.g. 0006-0011, 0049-0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Dyer with the teaching of Morimura in order to enable displaying information to pedestrian outside of the vehicle so that they are aware that the vehicle is approaching and thereby increase user awareness, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
For claim 2, Dyer discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a second threshold distance based on the level of traffic congestion indicated by the received information [E.g. 0028-0031, 0081, Figs. 13 and 16].
Dyer fails to expressly disclose displaying, by the one or more processors on the display, a second notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching the second threshold distance.
However, as shown by Morimura, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include displaying, by the one or more processors on the display, a second notification in response to the autonomous vehicle reaching second threshold distance [E.g. 0006-0011, 0049-0055, Figs. 4-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Dyer with the teaching of Morimura in order to enable displaying information to pedestrian outside of the vehicle so that they are aware that the vehicle is approaching and thereby increase user awareness, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
For claim 8, although Dyer in view of Morimura fails to expressly disclose wherein the first notification is displayed brighter than the second notification, or the second notification is displayed brighter than the first notification, Morimura teaches wherein the first notification and the second notification can have different luminance level or color [0054]. However, having the first notification is displayed brighter than the second notification, or the second notification is displayed brighter than the first notification fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dyer in view of Morimura to have the first notification is displayed brighter than the second notification, or the second notification is displayed brighter than the first notification in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Dyer in view of Morimura.
For claim 12, is interested and rejected discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 13, is interested and rejected discussed with respect to claim 2.
For claim 19, is interested and rejected discussed with respect to claim 8.
For claim 20, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
10. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Morimura and further in view of Official Notice.
For claim 5, Dyer in view of Morimura adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of at least one of the first notification or the second notification based on current ambient lighting conditions.
However, examiner takes official notice that adjusting brightness of at least one of first notification or second notification based on current ambient lighting conditions is well-known in the art of vehicles notification and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to enable users outside of the vehicle to clearly see the notification in different light conditions.
For claim 16, is interested and rejected discussed with respect to claim 5.
11. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Morimura and further in view of Song et al. (Song; US 2019/0266859).
For claim 6, Dyer in view of Morimura fails to expressly disclose adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of the first notification or the second notification based on current weather conditions.
However, as shown by Song, it was well known in the art of vehicle notification to include adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of the first notification or the second notification based on current weather conditions [E.g. 0006, 0050, 0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle displays before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Dyer in view of Morimura with the teaching of Song in order to provide a notification that takes into consideration the weather condition so that it is easy for a user to observe and thereby increase the overall user convenience.
For claim 17, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 6.
12. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Morimura and further in view of Zhou et al. (Zhou; US 2020/0117193).
For claim 7, Dyer in view of Morimura adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of the first notification or the second notification based on current traffic conditions.
However, as shown by Zhou, it was well known in the art of vehicle notification to include adjusting, by the one or more processors, brightness of the first notification or the second notification based on current traffic conditions [E.g. 0067-0069, 0046, 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle displays before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Dyer in view of Morimura with the teaching of Zhou in order to provide a notification that is easy for to be observable for a user depending on traffic environment and thereby increase the overall user convenience.
For claim 18, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 7.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Morimura and further in view of Matthiesen et al. (Matthiesen; US 2020/0219397).
For claim 9, Dyer in view of Morimura fails to expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first notification or the second notification are displayed on the display such that a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle has a line of sight to the at least one of the first notification or the second notification.
However, as shown by Matthiesen, it was well known in the art of vehicle notification to include wherein at least one of notification is displayed on a display such that a passenger waiting to be picked up by the vehicle has a line of sight to the notification [E.g. 0017-0018, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle displays before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Dyer in view of Morimura with the teaching of Matthiesen in order to provide a notification that is easy to be observable for by the passenger and thereby increase the overall passenger convenience.
14. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Morimura and further in view of Kalanick et al. (Kalanick; US 2017/0072844).
For claim 10, Dyer in view of Morimura fails to expressly disclose wherein a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle can use a client computing device to change the display.
However, as shown by Kalanick, it was well known in the art of vehicle notification to include wherein a passenger waiting to be picked up by the autonomous vehicle can use a client computing device to change the display [E.g. 0037, 0076, Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle displays before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Dyer in view of Morimura with the teaching of Kalanick in order to provide a passenger to customize a notification according to the passenger preference and thereby enhance the overall passenger experience.
For claim 11, Kalanick further teaches wherein the client computing device changes the display in response to selection of an on-screen button [E.g. 0037, 0076, Fig. 4], a voice command, or the client computing device is shaken.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 3-4 and 14-15 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.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689