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 21-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12325453 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-44 are being anticipated by claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12325453 B2.
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.
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.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangal et al. (US 2019/0351916 A1) in view of Stubing et al. (US 2019/0299996 A1).
As to claims 21/32/43, Mangal discloses a vehicle handover system/vehicle/computer readable medium comprising: a processor (Fig. 1, controller circuit 40) configured to: monitor an environment of a vehicle (Fig. 1, perception sensor 28, para. 0014); detect a key event (para. 0025, 0030-0031) relevant to a transition request (para. 0013, system 10 requests) to change control of the vehicle from an automated driving mode to a user of the vehicle, wherein the key event is based on the monitored environment; provide information associated with the key event to the user (para. 0034-0035). Mangal does not explicitly disclose monitor attributes of the user; and determine whether to change the control of the vehicle from the automated driving mode to the user based on the monitored attributes. However, Stubing teaches monitor attributes of the user; and determine whether to change the control of the vehicle from the automated driving mode to the user based on the monitored attributes (para. 0055). Therefore, given the teaching of Stubing, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mangal by incorporating the features of whether to change the control mode based on the monitored attributes of the user, to ensure the user can handle manual driving.
As to claims 22/33/44, Mangal further discloses wherein the key event comprises at least one of a movement event that has caused a change in a trajectory of the vehicle, an unexpected behavior event of an observed vehicle in the monitored environment of the vehicle, and/or an outside operational domain event (para. 0022, 0031).
As to claims 23/34, Mangal further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to monitor the environment using sensor data from at least one of a camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, vehicle position sensor, vehicle speed sensor, accelerometer, or a gyroscope (para. 0014-0015).
As to claims 24/35, Stubing further teaches wherein monitoring attributes of the user is performed using a camera (para. 0010, 0036).
As to claims 25/36, Stubing further teaches wherein the determination of whether to change the control of the vehicle is based on a comparison of an expected action of the user to an observed action of the user (para. 0055).
As to claims 26/37, Stubing further teaches wherein the observed action comprises a non-driving activity of the user (para. 0047-0055).
As to claims 27/38, Stubing further teaches wherein the determination of whether to change the control of the vehicle is based on whether a response time of the user is slower than a set response time (para. 0047-0055).
As to claims 31/42, Mangal further discloses wherein the processor is configured to display the information before the control of the vehicle is changed from the automatic driving mode to the user (para. 0035).
Claims 28 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangal and Stubing, as applied to claims 21 and 32 above, further in view of Mao (US 2020/0317218 A1).
As to claims 28 and 39, Mangal and Stubing do not explicitly teach wherein if the response time is slower than the set response time, the processor is further configured to bring the vehicle to a stop. However, Mao teaches wherein if the response time is slower than the set response time, the processor is further configured to bring the vehicle to a stop (para. 0138). Therefore, given the teaching of Mao, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mangal by incorporating the features of stop the vehicle when the user response time is slower, to ensure the safety of the driving.
Claims 29-30 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangal and Stubing, as applied to claims 21 and 32 above, further in view of Lenke et al. (US 2020/0216086 A1).
As to claims 29-30 and 40-41, Mangal and Stubing do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to warn the user with a visual warning, an audible warning, or a haptic warning, if the user is distracted. However, Lenke teaches when the user is distracted, the processor is further configured to warn the user with a visual warning, an audible warning, or a haptic warning (para. 0061). Therefore, given the teaching of Lenke, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mangal by incorporating the features of warn the user when the user is distracted, to ensure the user paying attention to driving safely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights