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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) of U.S. Patent No. US 12352079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent inventive scope is narrow than the inventive scope of the instant application. Thus, the broader inventive scope of the instant application is encompassed within the inventive scope of the 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer functional elements and conditions that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer/processor. Claim 1, 8 and 15 abstract idea(s): 1) The claims recite a system/method/medium: for detecting a potential situation for a dooring incident to occur between a cyclist riding a bicycle and a door of a vehicle, and performing an action to mitigate the potential situation for the dooring incident from occurring. Theses limitation can be performed mentally by a driver operating the vehicle. Claim 1, 8 and 15 additional limitations: 1) memory that stores computer executable components; processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components; and wherein the dooring incident comprises a collision between the door and the cyclist, to do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in M PEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a nonlimiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim(s) limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation are functional steps and conditions that a generic computer/processor could be programmed to perform. Furthermore: 1) claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 dependent on their respective base claim further respective limitations are each directed to the abstract idea with either additional generic computer functional elements and/or stored conditions and/or well-known components. Therefore, the further limitations do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not resolve the deficiency of their respective base claim.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they claim a medium that has not be clearly defined to exclude signals per se.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 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. In particular, claim 3 recites “wherein the detecting the potential situation for the dooring incident comprises: determining, based on at least one parameter of an occupant of the vehicle, whether the time period is sufficient for the occupant to open the door, exit the vehicle, and close the door”, however it is unclear how the system is able to perform such a determination. Claim 4 has the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore: claims 10 and 17 have similar issues has addressed in claim 3, therefore their respective dependent claims 11 and 18 have the same issues due to dependent.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowell (US 20190232863 A1). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Rowell discloses a system (Fig. 1: vehicle system 100), comprising: a memory (Fig. 1: memory 106) that stores computer executable components (¶¶18-20); and a processor (Fig. 1: one or more processor 102) that executes at least one of the computer executable components (¶¶16-20) that: detects, using at least one sensor (Fig. 1: environmental sensors 110), a potential situation for a dooring incident to occur between a cyclist riding a bicycle and a door of a vehicle, wherein the dooring incident comprises a collision between the door and the cyclist (¶¶22-23, 40-44; Figs. 2A-5); and performs an action to mitigate the potential situation for the dooring incident from occurring (¶¶40-44; Fig. 5). 2) Regarding claim 15, Rowell discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium (Fig. 1: memory 106) having program instructions embodied therewith (¶¶18-20), the program instructions executable by a processor (Fig. 1: one or more processor 102) to cause the processor to: detect, using at least one sensor, a potential situation for a dooring incident to occur between a cyclist riding a bicycle and a door of a vehicle, wherein the dooring incident comprises a collision between the door and the cyclist (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8); and perform an action to mitigate the potential situation for the dooring incident from occurring (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8). 3) Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, wherein the detecting the potential situation for the dooring incident comprises: determining a time period (¶41) for which the door can be open without the dooring incident occurring (Rowell discloses, in ¶¶43-44 with reference to Figs. 3 & 5, that a determination of the door opening condition happening within a predetermined time and determining distance of a detected approaching cyclist is within a predetermined distance, and if the distance is within the time a preventive step is performed, hence if the distance is not within the predetermined distance it can be assumed that the door can be opened, which reads on the limitation). 4) Regarding claims 5 and 12, wherein the determining the time period comprises: determining the time period based on at least one parameter of the cyclist (¶44; Fig. 5: step 540, with regard to the distance of the object (e.g. cyclist 220 of Fig. 2A-B). 5) Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, wherein the determining the time period comprises: determining the time period based on at least one parameter of the cyclist, wherein the at least one parameter of the cyclist comprises at least one of age, height, gaze, distractedness, eyeglasses, distance, bicycle balance, or steering stability (¶44; Fig. 5: step 540, with regard to the distance of the object (e.g. cyclist 220 of Fig. 2A-B). 6) Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, wherein the performing the action to mitigate the potential situation for the dooring incident from occurring comprises at least one of: preventing opening of the door of the vehicle while the potential situation for the dooring incident to occur is ongoing, or presenting a notification to an occupant of the vehicle comprising a warning of the potential situation for the dooring incident (Fig. 5: step 540 with regard to the generation of the alert).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10086833 B1; US 20190135215 A1; US 20200283012 A1, system providing alarm or alert condition based on detected cyclist.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights