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 . 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.
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 1-4, 9-13, and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,153. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would not be possible to put the claimed invention into practice without infringing on the issued patent.
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) 1-3, 8-11, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (2020/0156630).
Regarding claim 1: Schmidt discloses a vehicle comprising:
a sensor (Paragraph 0047);
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions (Paragraph 0046), when executed, cause the vehicle to perform operations comprising:
determining, based at least in part on sensor data received from the sensor, that an object intersects a planned path of the vehicle (Fig. 2 and 3, Paragraph 0047-0058);
determining a distance of the object from a plane in an environment (Fig. 2 and 3, Paragraph 0047-0058);
determining, based at least in part on the distance of the object from the plane, a location at which a component on the vehicle is likely to contact the object (Fig. 2 and 3, Paragraph 0047-0058); and
controlling operations of the vehicle based at least in part on the location (Fig. 2 and 3, Paragraph 0047-0058).
Regarding claims 2 and 10: Schmidt discloses wherein the object comprises a dynamic object or a static object (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18: Schmidt discloses wherein the plane is a ground surface, and the distance of the object comprises a minimum distance of the object from the ground surface or a maximum distance of the object from the ground surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 16: Schmidt discloses wherein the object comprises a pothole, a tree, a rock, a parked vehicle, or a pedestrian (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 9: Schmidt discloses a method comprising: determining, based at least in part on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a vehicle, that an object intersects a planned path of the vehicle; determining a distance of the object from a plane (Paragraph 0047-0058);
determining, based at least in part on the distance of the object from the plane, a location at which a component on the vehicle is likely to contact the object; and controlling operations of the vehicle based at least in part on the location (Paragraph 0047-0058, wherein the vehicle component is a load of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17: Schmidt discloses one or more computer readable media storing executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising: determining, based at least in part on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a vehicle, that an object intersects a planned path of the vehicle (Fig. 2 and 3, Paragraph 0047-0058);
determining a distance of the object from a plane; determining, based at least in part on the distance of the object from the plane, a location at which a component on the vehicle is likely to contact the object; and controlling operations of the vehicle based at least in part on the location (Fig. 2 and 3, Paragraph 0047-0058).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 14, 15, and 20 are 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 Michael D Lang whose telephone number is (571)270-3213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-11am and 2pm-6pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/MICHAEL D LANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights