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, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US12217514B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. US12217514B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. US12217514B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 7, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US12217514B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 5, 12, 19, 6, 13, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11810367B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 8 recites "one or more memories", which can be interpreted as carrier waves. Claims 9-14 do not cure this deficiency and are rejected based on their dependencies on claim 8.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20230104843A1 ("Yang").
Claims 1, 8, 15:
A method controlling an ego vehicle in an environment, comprising: detecting one or more changes in a position of an agent vehicle over time in accordance with capturing at least a first representation of the environment and a second representation of the environment via one or more sensors associated with the ego vehicle; determining a velocity of the agent vehicle based on detecting the one or more changes; classifying the agent vehicle as parked based on the velocity and contextual data associated with the agent vehicle and/or the environment; planning a trajectory for the ego vehicle based on classifying the agent vehicle as parked; and controlling the ego vehicle to navigate along the trajectory. (Yang at least the abstract, [0032]: “sensor subsystem 104 continually (i.e., at each of multiple time points) captures raw sensor data 106 which can indicate the directions, intensities, and distances travelled by reflected radiation.”, [0042-0043]: “the predicted classification generated for each of one or more agents in the environment can include scores for each of a set of stationary agent states, i.e., in addition to a score for an active agent state, with each score representing an estimated likelihood that the agent is currently in the state. For example, the set of stationary agent states can include one or more of: parked, double parked, pulled over, or stalled….predicted classifications can be provided to a planning subsystem 116 which generates planning decisions that plan a future trajectory of the vehicle.”, [0050]: “the agent’s location, heading, speed, trajectory, and so on.”, [0034]: “ for vehicle agents, the context data 110 can additionally include agent attribute information that includes the state of headlights/taillights of vehicle, door opening status of the vehicle, agent interaction with humans such as passengers, and so on.”)
Claims 2, 9, 16:
wherein the contextual data includes one or more of an object type of the agent vehicle, a first distance from a center point of the agent vehicle to a road boundary, an estimated absolute speed of the agent vehicle, a second distance to a nearest intersection from the agent vehicle, a map location type, a free lane ratio, or an edge distance between an edge of the agent vehicle and the road boundary. (Yang at least [0050], [0021]: “described system can thus preserve sensitive features such as distance features (e.g., passing gap or distance to the curb) which are imperative to making stationary state classification predictions. ”)
Claims 3, 10, 17:
obtaining the first representation via a first LiDAR sweep performed at a first time period via the one or more sensors; and obtaining the second representation via a second LiDAR sweep performed at a second time period via the one or more sensors. (Yang at least [0032])
Claims 4, 11, 18:
the first representation is a first birds eye view (BEV) representation of the environment and the second representation is a second BEV representation of the environment. (Yang at least [0037], [0048])
Claims 5, 12, 19:
wherein the contextual data is based on information associated with one or more taillights of the agent vehicle. (Yang at least [0034])
Claims 6, 13, 20:
wherein the one or more taillights include one or more brake lights and/or one or more turn signal lights. (Yang at least [0034])
Claims 7, 14:
wherein the ego vehicle is an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle. (Yang at least [0014])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669