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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. For example, figure 2 includes boxes 200,210, and 220, with no descriptive text; figure 3, as well, shows boxes with no descriptive text Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/404,811(‘811) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
-- Claims 1 and 8 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 1 and 12, respectively, of ‘811, including:
1) input means for receiving a terrain signal indicative of a terrain in a vicinity of a vehicle; is equivalent to the input means for receiving an environment signal, since a terrain signal would have constituted a signal indicative of an environment;
2) the output means for outputting a manoeuvre signal to cause the vehicle to perform a defined manoeuvre is equivalent to the output means for performing a manoeuver to a completed position of ‘811;
3) the control means arranged to control the output means in dependence on the terrain signal is equivalent to the control means in dependence on the environments signal of ‘811.
Claim 1 does not teach a user behavior signal indicative of a repeated user behavior for the location of the one or more features, and the control means further arranged to control the output means in dependence on the user behavior signal to override the environment signal when the repeated user behavior includes preventing the vehicle wheel from being angularly offset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a user behavior signal, and control means to control an output means in dependence on the user behavior signal, since this would have been enhanced the input means to cause the system to operate in a manner as desired by the user, based on the input of the user.
-- Claim 14 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 16 of ‘811.
-- Claim 15 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 17 of ‘811.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticiapted by Trajkovic et al(USPat. 6,683,539 B2).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Trajkovic et al(Trajkovic) includes:
1) input means for receiving a terrain signal indicative of a terrain in a vicinity of a vehicle is met by the sensing system(130), which receives signal from sensors(120), which provide information pertaining to an environment that a vehicle is in(see: Trajkovic, column 3, lines 58 et seq; column 4, lines 1-56);
2) output means for outputting a manoeuvre signal to cause the vehicle to perform a defined manoeuvre is met by the control system(110), to define the finer, real time motions of maneuver instructions received from path planning system(140)(see: Trajkovic, column 5, lines 20-26)
3) the control means arranged to control the output means in dependence on the terrain signal is met by the control means(110), which controls the path planning system(140).
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the control means is arranged to cause the vehicle to perform at least a portion of the defined manoeuvre in accordance with a vehicle movement control profile determined in dependence on the terrain signal is met by the control means(110) which controls the path planning system(140), to plan a path for the vehicle based on the terrain(see: column 5, lines 20-26).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the vehicle movement control profile comprises a speed parameter, and the control means is arranged to select the vehicle movement control profile corresponding to a categorisation of the terrain is met by the planned path being determined based on the position and additional objects in a predetermined area adjacent the vehicle(see: column 2, lines 68 et seq; column 3, lines 1-11).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the movement control profile is dependent upon at least one ambient condition in a vicinity of the vehicle is met by the planning system determining movement based on objects in a predetermined area adjacent the vehicle(see: column 3, lines 1-11).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the controller comprises a second input means for receiving a request signal indicative of a received signal indicative of a user request is met by the user request by pressing a button or speaking(see: column 7, lines 32-33).
-- Claims 8-13 recite subject matter essentially the same as the claims above, and therefore, are met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of the claims above.
-- With regards to claim 14,
1) A vehicle comprising the controller according to claim 1 is met by the vehicle(200) and the control system(110).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trajkovic et al(Trajkovic) in view of Beach et al(2018/0129220 A1).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the speed parameter being one of acceleration of the vehicle or jerk of the vehicle.
Although not specifically taught by Trajkovic, use of acceleration as a speed parameter in a vehicle control system is well known. In related art, Beach et al(Beach) teaches a control method for vehicles driving in zones. Wherein a drive planning determines acceleration as a parameter for determining vehicle control(see: Trajkovic, sec[0038]). Since the use of acceleration as a speed parameter is well known, as taught by Beach, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the acceleration information as taught by Beach, into the system of Trajkovic, since this would have provided a comprehensive system of determining vehicle control and planning, by including acceleration as part of the speed parameter data provided to the path planning(140) of Trajkovic.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trajkovic et al(Trajkovic) in view of Klein et al(USPat. 7,676,310 B2).
-- With regards to claim 15,
1) A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer software that, when executed by a processing means, is arranged to perform the method according to claim 12 is not taught by Trajkovic.
Use of systems for controlling vehicles which include computer readable storage with code that are executed by a computer is well known. In related art, Klein et al(Klein) teaches a system for controlling a vehicle steering system, wherein computer readable storage medium is utilized to store code for causing execution of a vehicle system(see: Klein, column 8, lines 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the computer readable medium of Klein into the system of Trajkovic, since this would have provided an efficient means for inputting instructions to operate the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights