DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application, and are being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of parent application 17/222291, now U.S. Patent No. US 11,636,765. (herein patent ‘765) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of claims 1-20 are encompassed by the limitations of claim 1-20, as follows:
Claims 1-3 are unpatentable over patent ‘765, claims 1-3, respectively.
Claim 4 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 7.
Claim 5 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 1.
Claim 6 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 4.
Claim 7 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 5.
Claim 8 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 6.
Claim 9 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 8.
Claim 10 is unpatentable over patent ‘765, claim 1.
Claims 11-20 are the systems performing the methods of claims 1-10, respectively. Patent ‘765 also claims associated systems. (see patent ‘765, claims 13-20.) Therefore claims 11-20 are unpatentable the same or similar to claims 1-10, above.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of parent application 16/225651, now U.S. Patent No. US 11,011,061. (herein patent ‘061) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of claims 1-20 are encompassed by the limitations of claim 1-23, as follows:
Claim 1 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claims 1, 17 and 20.
Claim 2 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claims 2-3, 16 and 19.
Claim 3 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claims 15 and 21-23.
Claim 4 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claim 11.
Claim 5 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claim 12.
Claim 6 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claim 12.
Claim 7 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claim 13.
Claim 8 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claim 14.
Claim 9 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claim 12.
Claim 10 is unpatentable over patent ‘061, claims 15-16.
Claims 11-20 are the systems performing the methods of claims 1-10, respectively. Patent ‘061 also claims associated systems. (see patent ‘061, claims 17-23.) Therefore claims 11-20 are unpatentable the same or similar to claims 1-10, above.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of parent application 18/122434, now U.S. Patent No. US 11,908,328. (herein patent ‘328) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of claims 1-20 are encompassed by the limitations of claim 1-23, as follows:
Claim 1 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claims 1 and 15.
Claim 2 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claim 10.
Claim 3 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claim 11.
Claim 4 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claims 3-6.
Claim 5 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claims 1 and 12.
Claim 6 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claim 12.
Claim 7 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claim 13.
Claim 8 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claim 14.
Claim 9 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claim 1-2, 7-9 and 12.
Claim 10 is unpatentable over patent ‘328, claims 1 and 10-11.
Claims 11-20 are the systems performing the methods of claims 1-10, respectively. Patent ‘328 also claims associated systems. (see patent ‘328, claims 15-20.) Therefore claims 11-20 are unpatentable the same or similar to claims 1-10, above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. A method comprising:
observing, by one or more processors of a first vehicle, a trajectory based on sensor information of a driving environment, (The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this limitation includes data collection by a generic sensor, and is therefore considered pre-solution data gathering.)
the trajectory corresponding to an actual path taken by a second vehicle for a predetermined period of time; (The BRI of this limitation includes data analysis and/or data processing of observed sensor data that includes determining an actual path taken by a vehicle in an environment. This is considered an abstract mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand.)
determining, by the one or more processors, an expected trajectory for the second vehicle based on map information about the driving environment; (The BRI of this limitation includes generic data recall of map information, a well-known generic computer process. Further, this map information is processed to determine an expected trajectory for an observed vehicle based on said map information. This is considered an abstract mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand.)
comparing, by the one or more processors, the determined expected trajectory with the observed trajectory; (The BRI of this limitation includes performing data comparison steps between observed sensor data and map information. This is an abstract mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand.)
and performing, by the one or more processors, one or more actions based on the comparison. (The claimed action includes a plurality of BRIs that do not include a practical application, such as, for example data logging in a generic memory and/or generic data display. Therefore, this is not considered a practical application.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a processor that receives sensor data and map information, and performs abstract data analysis and comparison in order to produce a result. Claim 1 does not claim any steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but is merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the receiving and data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, the only additional element recited in claim 1 is performing, by the one or more processors, one or more actions based on the comparison. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 11 is the system performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1 and 11, above.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Iwasaki et al. (US 20120078498 A1) – Iwasaki has a publication date of 3/29/2012, prior to the priority date of 09/27/2012. Iwasaki discloses a vehicular peripheral surveillance device which monitors an obstacle around a host vehicle 100, a lane recognition sensor 11 and a vehicle state quantity sensor 13 which detect the traveling state of the host vehicle 100, and a risk computing unit 20 which predicts the movement of the obstacle using information acquired by the obstacle recognition sensor 12, and computes a risk of the obstacle to the host vehicle 100 on the basis of the predicted movement of the obstacle. (Abstract) Iwasaki discloses the road information acquisition unit acquires information regarding a road shape around the host vehicle, and the risk computing unit predicts the movement of the obstacle as another vehicle on the basis of information acquired by the monitoring sensor and the information regarding the road shape around the host vehicle acquired by the road information acquisition unit. (see [0025]) Risk computing unit predicts the movement of the obstacle as another vehicle on the basis of information acquired by the monitoring sensor and the information regarding the road shape around the host vehicle acquired by the road information acquisition unit. Therefore, it becomes possible to estimate the potential action of another vehicle on the basis of information regarding lane ends, curves, or the like. (see [0026]) Iwasaki discloses an alarm unit 31 that notifies an alarm to the driver of the host vehicle in accordance with the risk of the obstacle computed by the risk computing unit 20. Specifically, for the alarm unit 31, a buzzer, a lamp, a speaker, a display, or the like may be used. (see [0053])
Furmston et al. (US 20120101711 A1) – Furmston includes a publication date of 04/26/2012, prior to the priority date of 09/27/2012. Furmston discloses a collision warning apparatus for a host vehicle which has stopped along a lane of a highway, comprises at least one sensor associated with the host vehicle which generates a data stream in response to radiation received from a scene rearwards of the host vehicle. (Abstract) Furmston discloses storing information about the movement of previous passing vehicles in a reference data set allows comparisons to be made between the movement of a target vehicle and other vehicles which have previously safely passed the host vehicle. Thus, it can be determined with more certainty if a target vehicle is moving in a safe way towards the host vehicle. The reference data set may comprise data indicative of the position, velocity and yaw rate of the first vehicle within the scene at a time within the first period of time. (see [0015])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 16, 2025
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights