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 .
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 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11, 796,998 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the current invention is a broader form of what has been covered in the patented claims. The patented claims call for multiple sets of sensor data that are compared and fused together to get an accuracy of the data for the trajectory prediction for the autonomous driving, which is also broadly claimed in the current application, thus the invention isn’t patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et a (US 2012/0290169), in view of Ferguson et al (US 9,719,801).
Claim 2, “An autonomous vehicle comprising: a motion controller configured to control a motion of the autonomous vehicle;” Zeng teaches a vehicle including sensors and a controller but does not explicitly teach a motion controller actuating vehicle propulsion; see para [0024] describing “a controller 32… receives data… communicates with a memory module 36.” Zeng does not explicitly teach motor actuation; However Ferguson teaches motion control at Col. 7, lines 40–48 stating: “The control system 106 may include steering unit 132, throttle 134, brake unit 136… configured to control operation(s) of the vehicle 100.” It would have been obvious to incorporate Ferguson’s actuator-based control to enable Zeng’s calibrated sensing to drive the vehicle;
“a plurality of sensors including at least a first sensor and a second sensor” is taught by Zeng para [0019]: “The sensors include… SRR left 12… SRR right 14… LRR 16… camera 18.”
“receiving first sensor data… receiving second sensor data… different sensor modality” is taught by Zeng para [0024]: “controller 32… receives data from the SRR left 12 and the SRR right 14.”
“generating fused sensor data representing at least a portion of the first sensor data and the second sensor data” Zeng does not explicitly teach fused sensor data; rather it compares readings for alignment (para [0027]: “residuals… computed… by comparing sensor data from different sensors”). However Ferguson teaches sensor fusion at Col. 8, lines 24–32: “The sensor fusion algorithm 138… accept data from the sensor system 104…” thus, it would have been within the knowledge ordinary skilled artisan;
“determining an action to perform based in part on the fused sensor data… controlling the autonomous vehicle… actuating… motors” is not taught by Zeng. Ferguson teaches trajectory-based action at Col. 9, lines 1–9 stating: “determine a driving path… series of speeds and directional headings to effect movement…,” which would have been obvious to apply to Zeng’s calibrated sensor outputs to produce more accurate outcome for the safer autonomous driving experience.
Claim 3, “first sensor and second sensor are pre-calibrated prior to installation.” Zeng teaches calibration but not pre-installation calibration (paras [0030]–[0033]). Ferguson teaches adjusting intrinsic/extrinsic parameters at Col. 4, lines 30–45. It would have been obvious to perform calibration earlier in the manufacturing pipeline because Ferguson recognizes sensor parameter tuning, and pre-calibration is merely a design choice that achieves the same known goal of alignment accuracy.
Claim 4, “determining the action comprises generating a trajectory.” Zeng does not explicitly teach trajectory generation. Ferguson teaches path planning at Col. 9, lines 1–9. Combining trajectory planning with Zeng’s calibrated sensing would have been obvious because trajectory planning requires reliable perception, and Zeng provides improved sensor reliability.
Claims 5 and 18, “generating fused sensor data… generating a trajectory… controlling the vehicle based in part on the trajectory.” Zeng lacks fusion and trajectory control but teaches multi-sensor calibration (para [0027]). Ferguson teaches fusion (Col. 8, lines 24–32) and navigation/pathing (Col. 9, lines 1–9). It would have been obvious to integrate Zeng’s alignment techniques into Ferguson’s autonomous driving stack to improve robustness of trajectory decisions based on calibrated data, a predictable improvement in AV systems.
Claim 6, “pre-calibrated prior to installation.” Zeng does not explicitly teach; Ferguson teaches sensor parameter adjustment (Col. 4, lines 30–45). The modification represents a known variation of calibration timing and would have been obvious to implement.
Claim 7, “transmitting the trajectory to a motion controller… actuating motors.” Zeng lacks actuation. Ferguson teaches propulsion and actuator control at Col. 6, lines 20–28 and Col. 7, lines 40–48. It would have been obvious to connect Ferguson’s actuator system to Zeng’s controller to enable automated driving, since actuator-based control is fundamental in autonomous vehicles.
Claim 10, “aligning… sensor data with map data relative to a global coordinate system.” Zeng aligns sensors relative to ground truth fixtures (para [0033]) but not global maps. Ferguson teaches GPS-based global positioning at Col. 15, lines 33–40. It would have been obvious to use Ferguson’s global localization with Zeng’s calibrated sensors to improve environmental understanding.
Claim 12, “determining that the first sensor is miscalibrated… generating a calibration parameter… modifying a parameter.” Taught directly by Zeng paras [0027], [0036]; Ferguson merely reinforces the concept via Col. 4, lines 30–45.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, , 11, 13-16, 17, 19-21 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657