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 claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,002 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
Regarding claims 1-10:
The reference claim 1 and the examined application claim 1 share the following common features: both claims recite an autonomous vehicle control system that includes the following: a sensing module, which is located inside the vehicle/AV, provided for collecting driving environment information; an onboard unit (OBU), which is located inside the vehicle/AV, which houses the core sub-module; a vehicle control module; a TCC/TCU communication module that communicates with a Traffic Control Center/Traffic Control Unit (TCC/TCU).
The following are difference between two claims: In the reference claim, the vehicle-specific targeted instructions and driving environment information come from the RSU while traffic operation instructions come from the TCC/TCU. In claim 1, the RSU module is eliminated, and the TCC/TCU provides that exact same data. Claim 1 further includes the phrase “for an Information Exchange task at a control level” to describe the data receive from the TCC/TCU. However, this appears to be a functional limitation or an intended use clause because this does not patentably distinguish the physical control system from the reference claim.
It would have been obvious to merge two communication streams (RSU and TCC/TCU) into a single communication stream (TCC/TCU).
These make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the reference claim 1 because the currently examined claim 1 would have been obvious over the reference claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claims 11-20:
Claim 11 is almost identical to the reference claim 1 except for the following: the reference claim requires three distinct inputs for vehicle control: sensing module, RSU, and TCC/TCU, while claim 11 only requires two inputs: sensing module and RSU. Claim 11 is considered obvious over the reference claim because it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to construct a simper version of the system with the functions of three specific modules working together using just two of those modules. Claim 11 further includes the phrase of “…for an Information Exchange task at a control level.” In the reference claim, the RSU communication module receives instructions and environment data. Therefore, it is capable of performing an “information exchange task at a control level”. Thus, the phrase “…for an Information Exchange task at a control level” is an intended use to the existing structural communication module (RSU module).
For at least the reasons set forth above, the examined application claims 1-20 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1-18 of the cited patent No. ‘002 B2.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US-8181037-B2, and US-6952156-B2.
None of the prior art has been found discloses or even suggests all the features recited in the claims.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights