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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 20 January 2026 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “the one or more triggering conditions comprising: predicting a collision above a threshold magnitude” (emphases added). Applicant’s specification only provides support for the one or more triggering conditions to include/comprise a collision above a threshold magnitude; however, there is no support for “predicting” a collision above a threshold magnitude to be a triggering condition.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “detection that the AV is within a threshold proximity of an obstacle” (emphases added). Applicant’s specification only provides support for the one or more triggering conditions to include/comprise an obstacle at the site; however, there is no support for detection that the AV is “within a threshold proximity of an obstacle” to be a triggering condition.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “determining/determine ... a computed risk”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what the scope of the claim is in view of the word “computed risk”. For example, is there a difference between the sentences “determining a risk” and “determining a ‘computed’ risk”? Applicant’s specification does not use the language “computed risk” and the claims do not include any previous computation step.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “the one or more triggering conditions comprising: ... detection of an unsafe operating condition”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what the scope of the claim is in view of the limitation “an unsafe operating condition”. For example, Applicant’s specification does not use the language “unsafe operating condition” and it is unclear, to the Examiner, whether there is support for such limitation or not depending on what actually Applicant intends for the scope of the “unsafe operating condition” to be.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malegam (US20220269283A1) in view of Woon (US20200346643A1) in further view of Kennedy (US20200071912A1).
Regarding claim 1, Malegam discloses a method (see at least the abstract) comprising: autonomously performing, by an autonomous vehicle (AV), an operation within a site using a portion of the AV (see at least [0003], [0021], [0022] and [0041]); while performing the operation, determining, autonomously by the AV, a computed risk associated with a state of the AV which triggers one or more triggering conditions (see at least [0004], [0028], [0031], [0033], [0042], [0047]; state of the AV corresponds to the first and second operation zones around the machine, one or more triggering conditions corresponds to detection that the machine is within a threshold proximity of the restricted region, and determining a computed risk associated with such corresponds to determining whether (and which of) the first and/or second operation zones around the machine is within the restricted region which is not part of the permitted area for safety operation without a risk but rather it proposes a risk since not permitted), the one or more triggering conditions comprising: detection that the AV is within a threshold proximity of a geofence and detection of an unsafe operating condition (see at least [0004], [0042] and [0047]); and in response to determining that the computed risk is greater than a first threshold risk but less than a second threshold risk, notifying, autonomously by the AV, a remote operator that the one or more triggering conditions were triggered and changing, autonomously by the AV, a movement of the portion of the AV before continuing the autonomous performance of the operation (see at least [0003], [0004], [0022], [0047], [0048], [0050] and [0051]; determining that the computed risk is greater than a first threshold risk but less than a second threshold risk corresponds to the determination of whether (and which of) the first and/or second operation zones around the machine is within the restricted region [the computed risk] indicating that the second operation zone is within the restricted region but the first operation zone is not, and in response to such determination, a red color is displayed to a remote operator indicating that the one or more triggering conditions were triggered and speed is reduced).
Malegam fails to disclose wherein the one or more triggering conditions further comprise: predicting a collision above a threshold magnitude, detection that the AV is within a threshold proximity of an obstacle, and detection of one or more humans within a threshold proximity of the AV. However:
Woon teaches wherein the one or more triggering conditions further comprise: predicting a collision above a threshold magnitude, and detection that the AV is within a threshold proximity of an obstacle (see at least [0022] and [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Malegam to incorporate the teachings of Woon which teaches wherein the one or more triggering conditions further comprise: predicting a collision above a threshold magnitude, and detection that the AV is within a threshold proximity of an obstacle since they are both directed to vehicle system(s) handling dangerous situations and incorporation of the teachings of Woon would introduce further triggering conditions to be considered, thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Kennedy teaches the one or more triggering conditions further comprising: detection of one or more humans within a threshold proximity of the AV (see at least [0055]; “prevents work machine 102 from moving any closer than 5 feet from any person on worksite”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Malegam as modified by Woon to incorporate the teachings of Kennedy which teaches the one or more triggering conditions comprising: detection of one or more humans within a threshold proximity of the AV since they are all directed to vehicles performing operations within a site and incorporation of the teachings of Kennedy would increase accuracy and safety of the overall system by incorporating another necessary condition that should be known/considered as the proximity of one or more humans to the AV is an important safety input within the site.
Regarding claim 4, Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy discloses wherein the remote operator provides feedback to the AV through a graphical user interface (GUI) that presents information describing performance of the AV while performing operations (see at least Malegam [0003], [0037], [0039], [0041] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy discloses wherein the GUI presents alerts to the remote operator in response to the one or more triggering conditions being triggered, the alerts indicating a potential risk for the AV (see at least Malegam [0050] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy discloses wherein the GUI presents location data and movement data describing real-time performance of the AV (see at least Malegam [0037], [0039], [0050] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Malegam discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processor of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see at least Figure 3, Figure 4 and [0027]). The rest of claim 8 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Malegam discloses an autonomous vehicle, comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the autonomous vehicle (AV) to perform steps comprising (see at least Figure 3, Figure 4 and [0027]). The rest of claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 11/18, 12/19 and 13/20, claims 11/18, 12/19 and 13/20 are commensurate in scope with claims 4, 5 and 6, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 4, 5 and 6.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malegam (US20220269283A1) in view of Woon (US20200346643A1) in further view of Kennedy (US20200071912A1) in yet further view of Lockwood (US20190011910A1).
Regarding claim 2, Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy fails to disclose in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating that the computed risk is no longer greater than the first threshold risk, continuing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation. However, Lockwood teaches in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating that the computed risk is no longer greater than the first threshold risk, continuing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation (see at least abstract, [0027], [0040], [0099] and [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy to incorporate the teachings of Lockwood which teaches in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating that the computed risk is no longer greater than the first threshold risk, continuing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation since they are all directed to autonomous control of a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Lockwood would further increase the reliability and efficiency of the disclosure since an unnecessary pause of the autonomous performance would be prevented.
Regarding claim 7, Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy discloses in response to determining that the computed risk is greater than the second threshold risk, notifying, autonomously by the AV, the remote operator of the state of the AV and pausing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation (see at least Malegam [0004], [0042], [0045], [0050] and [0051]; determining that the computed risk is greater than the second threshold risk corresponds to the determination of whether (and which of) the first and/or second operation zones around the machine is within the restricted region [the computed risk] indicating that the first operation zone is within the restricted region, and in response to such determination, a yellow color is displayed to a remote operator indicating the state of the machine and machine is stopped).
Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy fails to disclose pausing until feedback is received from the remote operator; and in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating that the computed risk is no longer greater than the second threshold risk, continuing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation. However, Lockwood teaches disclose pausing until feedback is received from the remote operator; and in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating that the computed risk is no longer greater than the second threshold risk, continuing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation (see at least abstract, [0025], [0027], [0040], [0094], [0099], [0100], [0103]-[0110] and [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy to incorporate the teachings of Lockwood which teaches disclose pausing until feedback is received from the remote operator; and in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating that the computed risk is no longer greater than the second threshold risk, continuing, autonomously by the AV, the autonomous performance of the operation since they are all directed to autonomous control of a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Lockwood would further increase the reliability and efficiency of the disclosure since an unnecessary pause of the autonomous performance would be prevented.
Regarding claims 9/16 and 14, claims 9/16 and 14 are commensurate in scope with claims 2 and 7, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 2 and 7.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malegam (US20220269283A1) in view of Woon (US20200346643A1) in further view of Kennedy (US20200071912A1) in yet further view of Caldwell (US20200409352A1).
Regarding claim 3, Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy fails to disclose in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating a location within the site, navigating, autonomously by the AV, to the location to continue performing the operation. However, Caldwell teaches in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating a location within the site, navigating, autonomously by the AV, to the location to continue performing the operation (see at least abstract, [0013], [0016]-[0018] and [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Malegam as modified by Woon and Kennedy to incorporate the teachings of Caldwell which teaches in response to receiving, from the remote operator, feedback indicating a location within the site, navigating, autonomously by the AV, to the location to continue performing the operation since they are all directed to autonomous control of a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Caldwell would ensure increased time efficiency and safety of the disclosure.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, claims 10 and 17 are commensurate in scope with claim 3. See above for rejection of claim 3.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,680,384 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Claims of Present Application
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,680,384 B2
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
2, 9, 16
2, 9
3, 10, 17
4, 11
4, 11, 18
5, 12
5, 12, 19
6, 13
6, 13, 20
7, 14
7, 14
1, 3, 8, 10, 15
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,876 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Claims of Present Application
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,876 B2
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
2, 9, 16
2, 9, 16
3, 10, 17
4, 11, 18
4, 11, 18
5, 12, 19
5, 12, 19
6, 13, 20
6, 13, 20
7, 14
7, 14
1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,325,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Claims of Present Application
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,325,974 B2
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
2, 9, 16
2, 9, 16
3, 10, 17
3, 10, 17
4, 11, 18
4, 11, 18
5, 12, 19
5, 12, 19
6, 13, 20
6, 13, 20
7, 14
7, 14
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights