DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/742,133, filed June 13, 2024, now U.S. Patent No. 12,327,471, issued June 10, 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/840,237, filed June 14, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 12,020,563, issued June 25, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/741,903, filed May 11, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,881,101, issued January 23, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/776,846, filed January 30, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,430,328, issued August 30, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/135,916, filed September 19, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,692,365, issued June 23, 2020, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/627,005, filed February 6, 2018; and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/628,331, filed June 20, 2017, now U.S. Patent No. 10,380,886, issued August 13, 2019, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/507,453, filed May 17, 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025, 02/10/2026, and 06/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
communication module receives in claims 1, 11, 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The following interpreted corresponding structures were not able to be found within the specifications:
communication module
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Ran et al., U.S. Patent 12,243,423. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claim 1 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claim 1 of US Patent 12,243,423, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 16 of Ran et al., U.S. co-pending application 19/065,311. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claim, 1, 11, and 16 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claim, 1, 11, and 16 of US co-pending application 19/065,311, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claim 16.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“predicts transportation network conditions for the AV at a microscopic level comprising longitudinal movements and lateral movements": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically predict conditions. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “communicates with the cloud platform and receives weather information”, “collects weather information from one or more of:(a) autonomous vehicles (AVs), (b) a roadside unit (RSU), or (c) a traffic control center/traffic control unit (TCC/TCU)”, “send vehicle-specific information to the OBU”, and “fuses weather information collected from vehicle sensors and the weather information from the cloud platform to provide fused weather information”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “cloud platform”, “communication module”, and “vehicle sensors” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the communication step is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the communication module is conventional transmitter/receiver mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that this is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims: Dependent claims(s) 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 16. Therefore, claim(s) 16-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 11, and 16, claim element “communication module…" is a limitation that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. However the specification does not show how these units are implemented in terms of hardware and detailed algorithm. The specification does not clearly associate circuits and corresponding detailed algorithm with corresponding hardware for claim element reciting element “communication module…" in claim 1, 11, and 16.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Konrardy et al. (USPGPub 2018/0075538). As per claim 1, Konrardy discloses an Intelligent Driving System for Adverse Weather Conditions (IDS-AWC), comprising: an onboard unit (OBU) (see at least Figure 1; item 114); wherein: an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprises said IDS-AWC (see at least Figure 1; item 108); the OBU comprises a communication module, wherein the communication module receives weather information from one or more of: (a) other autonomous vehicles (AVs), (b) a roadside unit (RSU), (c) a cloud platform, or (d) a traffic control center/traffic control unit (TCC/TCU) (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the controller 204 may receive autonomous communication data from the communication component 122 or the communication module 220 at block 408. The communication data may include information from other external sources (e.g., map databases, weather databases, or traffic and accident databases)); and the OBU fuses the weather information collected from vehicle sensors (see at least paragraph 0093; wherein the sensor data may further include information regarding weather conditions) and the weather information from the communication module to provide fused weather information (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the communication data may be combined with the sensor data received at block 406 to obtain a more robust understanding of the vehicle environment); and controls the lateral and longitudinal movement of the vehicle based on the fused weather information (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the controller 204 may process the sensor data, the communication data, and the settings or configuration information to determine whether an incident has occurred. As used herein, an “incident” is an occurrence during operation of an autonomous vehicle outside of normal safe operating conditions, such that one or more of the following occurs: (iv) the conditions require action to be taken by an autonomous operation feature. Incidents may include collisions, hard braking, hard acceleration, evasive maneuvering, loss of traction, detection of objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle 108). As per claims 3, 14, and 19, Konrardy discloses wherein said OBU is configured to provide a weather forecast notification for target vehicles and entities (see at least paragraph 0081; wherein he communication unit 220 may communicate with other autonomous vehicles, infrastructure, or other external sources of information to transmit and receive information relating to autonomous vehicle operation). As per claims 4 and 14, Konrardy discloses wherein said weather forecast notification is processed to produce planning outputs for decision making (see at least paragraph 0081; wherein he communication unit 220 may communicate with other autonomous vehicles, infrastructure, or other external sources of information to transmit and receive information relating to autonomous vehicle operation). As per claim 5, Konrardy discloses wherein said fused weather information comprises weather conditions and/or pavement conditions (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein weather data indicating recent snowfall in the vicinity of the vehicle 108 may be combined with sensor data indicating frequent slipping or low traction to determine that the vehicle 108 is traveling on a snow-covered or icy road). As per claims 6, 15, and 20, Konrardy discloses wherein said OBU provides additional safety and efficiency measures for vehicle operations and control under adverse weather conditions (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the controller 204 may process the sensor data, the communication data, and the settings or configuration information to determine whether an incident has occurred. As used herein, an “incident” is an occurrence during operation of an autonomous vehicle outside of normal safe operating conditions, such that one or more of the following occurs: (iv) the conditions require action to be taken by an autonomous operation feature. Incidents may include collisions, hard braking, hard acceleration, evasive maneuvering, loss of traction, detection of objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle 108). As per claim 7, Konrardy discloses wherein said adverse weather conditions include one or more of rain, snow, fog, storm, and sandstorm (see at least paragraph 0040; wherein weather, such as rain or snow). As per claim 9, Konrardy discloses wherein said OBU has a whole vision of all vehicles on the road when the distance detection degrades under adverse weather, thereby minimizing and/or eliminating the chances of crash with other vehicles (see at least paragraph 0067; wherein among the sensors 120 may be included one or more of a GPS unit, a radar unit, a LIDAR unit, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, a camera, an accelerometer, a tachometer, or a speedometer. Some of the sensors 120 (e.g., radar, LIDAR, or camera units) may actively or passively scan the vehicle environment for obstacles (e.g., other vehicles, buildings, pedestrians, etc.), lane markings, or signs or signals). As per claim 10, Konrardy discloses wherein said OBU controls the vehicle by using vehicle control algorithms designed for adverse weather conditions, supported by site-specific road weather information (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the controller 204 may process the sensor data, the communication data, and the settings or configuration information to determine whether an incident has occurred. As used herein, an “incident” is an occurrence during operation of an autonomous vehicle outside of normal safe operating conditions, such that one or more of the following occurs: (iv) the conditions require action to be taken by an autonomous operation feature. Incidents may include collisions, hard braking, hard acceleration, evasive maneuvering, loss of traction, detection of objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle 108). As per claim 11, Konrardy discloses an Intelligent Driving System for Adverse Weather Conditions (IDS-AWC),comprising: an onboard unit (OBU) (see at least Figure 1; item 114); and a cloud platform (see at least paragraph 0071; wherein plurality of servers 140 in an arrangement known as “cloud computing), wherein: an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprises said IDS-AWC (see at least Figure 1; item 108); the OBU comprises a communication module, wherein the communication module communicates with the cloud platform (see at least Figure 2) and receives weather information (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the controller 204 may receive autonomous communication data from the communication component 122 or the communication module 220 at block 408. The communication data may include information from other external sources (e.g., map databases, weather databases, or traffic and accident databases)); and the cloud platform comprises a communication module, wherein the communication module collects weather information from one or more of: (a) autonomous vehicles (AVs), (b) a roadside unit (RSU), or (c) a traffic control center/traffic control unit (TCC/TCU) (see at least paragraph 0079; wherein some external sources of information may be connected to the controller 204 via the network 130, such as the server 140 or internet-connected third-party databases (not shown)); and send vehicle-specific information to the OBU (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the controller 204 may receive autonomous communication data from the communication component 122 or the communication module 220 at block 408. The communication data may include information from other external sources (e.g., map databases, weather databases, or traffic and accident databases)); and the OBU fuses weather information collected from vehicle sensors (see at least paragraph 0093; wherein the sensor data may further include information regarding weather conditions) and the weather information from the cloud platform to provide fused weather information (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the communication data may be combined with the sensor data received at block 406 to obtain a more robust understanding of the vehicle environment) and makes vehicle movement decisions comprising the desired longitudinal and lateral acceleration rate and the desired vehicle orientation (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the controller 204 may process the sensor data, the communication data, and the settings or configuration information to determine whether an incident has occurred. As used herein, an “incident” is an occurrence during operation of an autonomous vehicle outside of normal safe operating conditions, such that one or more of the following occurs: (iv) the conditions require action to be taken by an autonomous operation feature. Incidents may include collisions, hard braking, hard acceleration, evasive maneuvering, loss of traction, detection of objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle 108). As per claim 16, Konrardy discloses an Intelligent Driving System for Adverse Weather Conditions (IDS-AWC), comprising: an onboard unit (OBU) (see at least Figure 1; item 114); and a cloud platform (see at least paragraph 0071; wherein plurality of servers 140 in an arrangement known as “cloud computing), wherein: an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprises said IDS-AWC (see at least Figure 1; item 108); the OBU comprises a communication module, wherein the communication module communicates with the cloud platform (see at least Figure 2) and receives weather information (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the controller 204 may receive autonomous communication data from the communication component 122 or the communication module 220 at block 408. The communication data may include information from other external sources (e.g., map databases, weather databases, or traffic and accident databases)); the cloud platform comprises a communication module, wherein the communication module collects weather information from one or more of:(a) autonomous vehicles (AVs), (b) a roadside unit (RSU), or (c) a traffic control center/traffic control unit (TCC/TCU) (see at least paragraph 0079; wherein some external sources of information may be connected to the controller 204 via the network 130, such as the server 140 or internet-connected third-party databases (not shown)); and send vehicle-specific information to the OBU (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the controller 204 may receive autonomous communication data from the communication component 122 or the communication module 220 at block 408. The communication data may include information from other external sources (e.g., map databases, weather databases, or traffic and accident databases)); and the OBU fuses weather information collected from vehicle sensors (see at least paragraph 0093; wherein the sensor data may further include information regarding weather conditions) and the weather information from the cloud platform to provide fused weather information (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein the communication data may be combined with the sensor data received at block 406 to obtain a more robust understanding of the vehicle environment); and predicts transportation network conditions for the AV at a microscopic level comprising longitudinal movements and lateral movements (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the controller 204 may process the sensor data, the communication data, and the settings or configuration information to determine whether an incident has occurred. As used herein, an “incident” is an occurrence during operation of an autonomous vehicle outside of normal safe operating conditions, such that one or more of the following occurs: (iv) the conditions require action to be taken by an autonomous operation feature. Incidents may include collisions, hard braking, hard acceleration, evasive maneuvering, loss of traction, detection of objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle 108).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. (USPGPub 2018/0075538) in view of Okude et al. (USPGPub 2006/0287818). As per claims 2, 12, and 17, Konrardy does not explicitly mention wherein said fused weather information is processed through models comprising learning based models, statistical models, or empirical models. However Okude does disclose: wherein said fused weather information is processed through models comprising learning based models, statistical models, or empirical models (see at least paragraph 0043; wherein a time interval for performing statistical processing assumed to be five minutes, it may not be five minutes and be changed as needed. In addition to the cases of a fine weather, rain, and snow, values such as a rainfall amount, a snowfall amount, a temperature, a wind speed may be combined as a statistical unit of weather). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Okude with the teachings as in Konrardy. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve convenience for a user of the car-navi device, see Okude paragraph 0084.
Claims 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. (USPGPub 2018/0075538) in view of Wheeler (USPGPub 2018/0188742). As per claims 8, 13, and 18, Konrardy does not explicitly mention wherein a high-definition map provides lane, line, sign, and geometry information to enhance the OBU vision function during adverse weather. However Wheeler does disclose: wherein a high-definition map provides lane, line, sign, and geometry information to enhance the OBU vision function during adverse weather (see at least paragraph 0071; wherein the HD map system 100 stores objects or data structures representing lane elements that comprise information representing geometric boundaries of the lanes; driving direction along the lane; vehicle restriction for driving in the lane, for example, speed limit, relationships with connecting lanes including incoming and outgoing lanes; a termination restriction, for example, whether the lane ends at a stop line, a yield sign, or a speed bump; and relationships with road features that are relevant for autonomous driving, for example, traffic light locations, road sign locations and so on). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Wheeler with the teachings as in Konrardy. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve safety for the vehicle to safely navigate without damage, see Wheeler paragraph 0075.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2020/0351205 – Provide methods and apparatuses are provided for optimizing a wireless network. A description of a traffic incident is received. An impact area is generated from the description. A geographic polygon is generated based on the impact area. The network usage of the geographic polygon is determined. A message including the network usage for the geographic polygon may be transmitted to a mobile network operator. USPGPub 2018/0053415 – Provide determining the control, monitoring, guidance, and condition for a vehicle as well as components and subsystems associated with the vehicle. In addition, aspects of the disclosure are directed to providing navigation information to an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle operator. Particular aspects of the disclosure are directed to controlling operation of a vehicle, its subsystems, and its components in response to glare detected by an optical system of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights