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 .
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 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,780. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they correspond to each other as follows:
Claim 8.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions
(Claim 19) “the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, the program code comprising program code instructions, configured, upon execution, to:”
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device
(Claim 19) “the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, the program code comprising program code instructions, configured, upon execution, to:”
define an object model that represents an object
(Claim 19) “for a respective object, define an object influence model having a shape and a volume that encompasses the respective object, wherein the object influence model is defined by causing the shape and the volume of the object influence model to extend beyond the respective object and to vary in response to changes in one or more physical properties unrelated to movement of the object and in response to movement of the object”
wherein the object model is defined by causing one or more characteristics of the object model to vary in response to changes in one or more properties associated with the object
(Claim 19) “for a respective object, define an object influence model having a shape and a volume that encompasses the respective object, wherein the object influence model is defined by causing the shape and the volume of the object influence model to extend beyond the respective object and to vary in response to changes in one or more physical properties unrelated to movement of the object and in response to movement of the object”
predict an anticipated path of the object based on information from one or more sensors that indicate the one or more properties
(Claim 19) “predict an anticipated path of travel with the respective object based upon the information from the one or more sensors indicative of movement of the respective object”
identify a potential collision between the object and another object based on the anticipated path
(Claim 19) “identify a potential collision between the respective object and another object in an instance in which the object influence model of the respective object intersects with an object influence model of the another object”
Claim 10.
wherein the one or more properties include at least one of: a property of an environment surrounding the object, a speed of the object, radiation emitted related to the object, a quantity or a speed of air moved in the environment surrounding the object, or a property related to movement of the object
(Claim 19) “for a respective object, define an object influence model having a shape and a volume that encompasses the respective object, wherein the object influence model is defined by causing the shape and the volume of the object influence model to extend beyond the respective object and to vary in response to changes in one or more physical properties unrelated to movement of the object and in response to movement of the object”
Claim 11.
vary spatio-temporal variations in the object model in response to the changes in the one or more properties associated with the object
(Claim 19) “for a respective object, define an object influence model having a shape and a volume that encompasses the respective object, wherein the object influence model is defined by causing the shape and the volume of the object influence model to extend beyond the respective object and to vary in response to changes in one or more physical properties unrelated to movement of the object and in response to movement of the object”
Claim 12.
wherein the object model encompasses a representation of the object
(Claim 19) “for a respective object, define an object influence model having a shape and a volume that encompasses the respective object, wherein the object influence model is defined by causing the shape and the volume of the object influence model to extend beyond the respective object and to vary in response to changes in one or more physical properties unrelated to movement of the object and in response to movement of the object”
Claim 14.
wherein the anticipated path is predicted based on historical information associated with the object
(Claim 19) “wherein the anticipated path of travel of the respective object is predicted by predicting the anticipated path of travel of the respective object based on historical information regarding a path of travel that was previously traveled by the respective object”
Claim 15.
Claim 15 of the present application corresponds to claim 1 of the reference patent in the same way that claim 8 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 16.
wherein the other object comprises an autonomous device configured to operate in an autonomous manner
(Claim 10) “wherein the another object comprises an autonomous machine configured to operate in an autonomous manner”
Claim 17.
Claim 17 of the present application corresponds to claim 1 of the reference patent in the same way that claim 10 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 18.
Claim 18 of the present application corresponds to claim 1 of the reference patent in the same way that claim 11 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 19.
Claim 19 of the present application corresponds to claim 1 of the reference patent in the same way that claim 12 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 20.
Claim 20 of the present application corresponds to claim 1 of the reference patent in the same way that claim 14 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,780 in view of Nister et al. (US 20190243371, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 1.
Claim 1 of the present application corresponds to claim 15 of the reference patent in the same fashion as discussed above with respect to claim 8 of the present application and claim 19 of the reference patent in all limitations except for the one or more memories and one or more processors. While the reference patent claims processing circuitry, the reference patent does not explicitly claim that such processing circuitry is a memory and a processor. However, Nister et al. teaches:
one or more memories
(Nister – [0057]) “various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory.”
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories
(Nister – [0057]) “various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, substituting the “processing circuitry” of the reference patent with the processor and memory of Nister et al. Both the reference patent and Nister et al. are directed towards the tracking of object movement; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this substitution could be made with predictable results.
Claim 2.
While method claim 10 of the reference patent teaches an other object comprising an autonomous device, device claim 15 does not explicitly claim this feature. However, Nister et al. teaches:
wherein the other object comprises an autonomous device configured to operate in an autonomous manner
(Nister – [0046]) “The present disclosure may be described with respect to an example autonomous vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, substituting the generically recited object of the reference patent with the autonomous vehicle of Nister et al. Both the reference patent and Nister et al. are directed towards tracking the movement of their respective “object” and autonomous vehicle; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results.
Claim 3.
Claim 3 of the present application corresponds to claim 15 of the reference patent in the same fashion that claim 10 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 4.
Claim 4 of the present application corresponds to claim 15 of the reference patent in the same fashion that claim 11 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 5.
Claim 5 of the present application corresponds to claim 15 of the reference patent in the same fashion that claim 12 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 6.
While claim 15 of the reference patent teaches sensors indicative of movement, the reference patent does not explicitly claim the specific sensors of the present application. However, Nister et al. teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of: a temperature sensor, a wind speed sensor, a radiation sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure sensor, a velocity sensor, a weight sensor, a direction sensor, a spin sensor, or a rotation sensor
(Nister – [0084]) “The state determiner 132 may determine the state of the vehicle 102 using any combination of sensors, such as the GNSS sensors 1158, the IMU sensor(s) 1166, the speed sensor(s) 1144, the steering sensor(s) 1140, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, substituting the generic sensors of the reference patent with the specifically disclosed sensors of Nister et al. Both the reference patent and Nister et al. are directed towards using their respective sensors to track the movement of an object; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this substitution could be made with predictable results.
Claim 7.
Claim 7 of the present application corresponds to claim 15 of the reference patent in the same fashion that claim 14 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claim 9.
While method claim 10 of the reference patent teaches an other object comprising an autonomous device, program claim 19 does not explicitly teach this feature. However, Nister et al. teaches:
wherein the other object comprises an autonomous device configured to operate in an autonomous manner
(Nister – [0046]) “The present disclosure may be described with respect to an example autonomous vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 2.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a device, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a method. (Step 1: Yes.) Device claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
define an object mode that represents an object;
wherein the object model is defined by causing one or more characteristics of the object model to vary in response to changes in one or more properties associated with the object;
predict an anticipated path of the object based on information from one or more sensors that indicate the one or more properties associated with the object;
identify a potential collision between the object and another object based on determining that the object model intersects with another object model of the other object along the anticipated path.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this device performs a process of modelling paths of a plurality of objects in an environment, and determining whether said paths place two objects on a collision course with each other. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this process can be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim further recites a processor, a memory, and one or more sensors. The processor and the memory are generic computer components which amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer. The sensors amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the recited elements amount to no more than either instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the elements are recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 8 and 15) are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for at least the same reasons. No additional elements are recited by the claims; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nister et al.
Claim 1.
Nister et al. teaches:
one or more memories
(Nister – [0057]) “various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory.”
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories
(Nister – [0057]) “various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory.”
define an object model that represents an object
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may occupy a three-dimensional space (e.g., a volume) in space-time within the environment 326.”
wherein the object model is defined by causing one or more characteristics of the object model to vary in response to changes in one or more properties associated with the object
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may be analyzed as solid volumes with lengths that increase with velocity (e.g., the faster the actor is moving, the longer the trajectory(ies) and the corresponding points in space-time included in the occupied sets)”
predict an anticipated path of the object based on information from one or more sensors that indicate the one or more properties associated with the object
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may include a longitudinal distance (e.g., a braking or stopping distance), a lateral change (e.g., a steering change), and/or a vertical space (e.g., from the ground plane to a top of a bounding polygon or other shape representative of the occupied set of the actor) occupied by the actors”
identify a potential collision between the object and another object based on determining that the object model intersects with another object model of the other object along the anticipated path
(Nister – [0115]) “were one of the trajectories 320, 322, or 324 to overlap or nearly overlap with another of the trajectories 320, 322, or 324, the actors involved in the overlap or near overlap would be expected to implement their safety procedures”
Claim 2.
Nister et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nister et al. further teaches:
wherein the other object comprises an autonomous device configured to operate in an autonomous manner
(Nister – [0046]) “The present disclosure may be described with respect to an example autonomous vehicle”
Claim 3.
Nister et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nister et al. further teaches:
wherein the one or more properties associated with the object include at least one of: a property of an environment surrounding the object, a speed of the object, radiation emitted related to the object, a quantity or a speed of air moved in the environment surrounding the object, or a property related to movement of the object
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may be analyzed as solid volumes with lengths that increase with velocity (e.g., the faster the actor is moving, the longer the trajectory(ies) and the corresponding points in space-time included in the occupied sets)”
Claim 4.
Nister et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nister et al. further teaches:
varying spatio-temporal variations in the object model in response to the changes in the one or more properties associated with the object
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may be analyzed as solid volumes with lengths that increase with velocity (e.g., the faster the actor is moving, the longer the trajectory(ies) and the corresponding points in space-time included in the occupied sets)”
Claim 5.
Nister et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nister et al. further teaches:
wherein the one or more characteristics of the object model include at least one of shape or volume
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may occupy a three-dimensional space (e.g., a volume) in space-time within the environment 326.”
wherein the object model encompasses a representation of the object
(Nister – [0114]) “the trajectories may occupy a three-dimensional space (e.g., a volume) in space-time within the environment 326.”
Claim 6.
Nister et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nister et al. further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of: a temperature sensor, a wind speed sensor, a radiation sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure sensor, a velocity sensor, a weight sensor, a direction sensor, a spin sensor, or a rotation sensor
(Nister – [0084]) “The state determiner 132 may determine the state of the vehicle 102 using any combination of sensors, such as the GNSS sensors 1158, the IMU sensor(s) 1166, the speed sensor(s) 1144, the steering sensor(s) 1140, etc.”
Claim 8.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 9.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 10.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nister et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of May (US 20230046309, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 7.
Nister et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nister et al. does not explicitly teach historical information; however, May teaches:
wherein the anticipated path is predicted based on historical information associated with the object
(May – Col. 10, lines 42-46) “The destination can be determined variously, for example, based on navigation system communication, user input/selection, or predicted based on historical data that can show a pattern of having certain destinations at the time and place of the trip, based past destinations for the route taken”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the collision prediction of Nister et al. with the predictive locating of May. One would have been motivated to do this in order to immediately notify users of objects in the vicinity (May – Col. 2, line 10).
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights