DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13, of U.S. Patent No. 12,351,212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All elements of claim 1 of the instant application are encompassed by claims 1, 6, and 7 of the patent.
All elements of claim 8 of the instant application are encompassed by claims 8, 12, and 13 of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
3a. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (US 2020/0223437), and further in view of Lui (US 2019/0369626).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Satou discloses a method, apparatus, and associated nontransitory medium (vehicle control method, system, and associated programmed computing elements; Satou at abstract, Figs. 2, 4) comprising:
A memory (storage unit 11; Satou at 0022)
A processor (processor found in control unit; Satou at 0023) configured to:
Detect a first vehicle on a shoulder of a road based on sensor data sensed by one or more sensors of an ego vehicle (target detection unit detects a target object such as a vehicle or pedestrian on road shoulder; Satou at 0025).
Reduce a speed of the ego vehicle when the ego vehicle is a first predetermined distance away from the first vehicle (when the distance between the host vehicle and target vehicle is within a predetermined range, decelerating the host vehicle; Satou at 0028).
Increase the speed of the ego vehicle when the ego vehicle is a second predetermined distance past the first vehicle (upon passing the target vehicle on shoulder, accelerating the host vehicle; Satou at 0040).
Satou is silent as to the speed changes being based on a piecewise linear function.
Lui, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the speed changes included in the driving strategy for passing side of the road objects can include piecewise linear functions (speed plan includes varying linear acceleration/deceleration rates; Lui at 0159, 0160, 0162, 0165).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the speed changes of Satou with that of Lui. Doing so would add a level of comfort to the driver
3b. Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou and Lui, as combined above, and further in view of Beller (US 2021/0094539).
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 20, the combination is silent as to wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a cost of a lane change to the ego vehicle; make a determination whether or not to perform the lane change based on the cost of the lane change to the ego vehicle; and control the ego vehicle based on the determination.
Beller, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches collision avoidance control of a host vehicle as a function of costs associated with a particular maneuver (Beller at 0019, 0020, 0034).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the combination with the cost functions of Beller. Doing so would provide for a lane change before encountering the target and greater safety for any pedestrian on the shoulder.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute an optimization algorithm on the identified cost to identify an action that minimizes overall cost, wherein the determination is further based on the identified action (lowest cost or cost below threshold action identified and selected; Beller at 0019, 0020).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Subsequently, claims 5 and 12 are objected due to dependency on their respective claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 03 June 2026
Prosecution Insights