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 .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on June 17, 2025. This application is a continuation (CON) of application 17/567,484, which is a CON of application 17/010,090, which is a CON of application 16/151,862. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant claims is presumably October 4, 2018, coinciding with the filing date of that earliest application. If during prosecution one or more references are applied in a rejection that are “intervening” (filed before the instant application’s filing date but not before that earliest filing date for the provisional), it would be done because the examiner did not find sufficient written description support within the earlier application(s) to warrant an earlier effective filing date (for at least that/those particular claim(s) under that prior art rejection(s). In that situation, applicant can traverse the examiner’s assertion of insufficient written description support if they can provide specific examples of sufficient support within one or more applications in the continuity chain that were filed before the reference(s) applied within that/those rejection(s)."
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 17, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims. This action is made non-final.
35 USC § 101 Evaluation
5. The pending claims were evaluated for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although claims recite limitations that can be interpreted as abstract ideas (specifically, mental processes) (i.e., determining steps in independent claims), but the claims also recite additional elements (i.e., applying … the first braking level to control the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode) which integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. It follows that the instant claims are eligible under § 101.
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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 5-16, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,351,152 (hereinafter ‘152).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-19 of ‘152 disclose each limitation recited in instant Claims 1, 2, 5-16, 19, and 20, respectively. For example, instant independent Claim 1, as illustrated below, corresponds to independent Claim 1 of ‘152 (note that Claim 1 of ‘152 recites additional limitations (underlined), but otherwise recites each step of instant Claim 1); instant Claims 2 corresponds to Claim 3 of ‘152, instant Claim 5 corresponds to Claim 2 of ‘152, and instant Claims 5-15 correspond to Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16; instant Claims 16, 19, and 20 correspond to Claims 17, 19, and 18 of ‘152, respectively).
Instant Claim 1:
1. A method comprising:
* determining, by one or more processors, a priority level for an object in an environment of a vehicle based on (a) a confidence value for the object being a real object and (b) a type of the object, the vehicle having an autonomous driving mode;
* determining, by the one or more processors, whether the vehicle should apply a first braking level greater than a second braking level based on the confidence value and the priority level; and
* responsive to determining that the vehicle should apply the first braking level, applying, by the one or more processors, the first braking level to control the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode.
Claim 1 of ‘152:
1. A method comprising:
* receiving, by one or more processors, from a perception system of a vehicle having an autonomous driving mode, information identifying a plurality of objects in an environment of the vehicle and a confidence value for each object of the plurality of objects being a real object;
* determining, by the one or more processors, a priority level for at least one object of the plurality of objects based on the confidence value for the at least one object and a type of the at least one object;
* determining, by the one or more processors, that the vehicle should apply a braking level greater than a braking limit based on the confidence value for the at least one object and the priority level for the at least one object; and
* based on the determination that the vehicle should apply the braking level, applying, by the one or more processors, the braking level to control the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode and in order to slow the vehicle down.
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (hereinafter Gordon), US 2018/0186366 A1, published on July 5, 2018, in view of Dagan, US 2015/0336547 A1, published on November 26, 2015, and further in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (hereinafter Shalev), US 2019/0291728 A1), published on September 26, 2019.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Gordon teaches a method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors … an object in an environment of a vehicle based on (a) a confidence value for the object being a real object and (b) a type of the object, the vehicle having an autonomous driving mode (see ¶¶ 0056-57, 0091-92, showing a self-driving vehicle which includes means for determining aspects of the object to be collided with, with confidence C3, wherein the determination is made based on analytics of captured sensor data, such as LIDAR information (further discussing that C3 can be based both on confidence detection and the type of the object; see also ¶ 0060, showing that the object can be any type of object).
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the vehicle should apply a first braking level greater than a second braking level based on the confidence value … (see Fig. 6 (element 610), ¶¶ 0089, 0093, showing that based on various confidence levels, the system determines what ameliorative steps, such as hard braking, to take).
responsive to determining that the vehicle should apply the first braking level, applying, by the one or more processors, the first braking level to control the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode (see Fig. 6 (element 610), ¶¶ 0089, 0093, showing that based on various confidence levels, the system determines what ameliorative steps, such as hard braking, to take).
Gordon does not appear to explicitly recite “a priority level,” but teaches that captured sensor data corresponds to a plurality of objects and corresponding confidence values (i.e., how confident the system is that an object is properly identified) (see ¶ 0092). However, the teachings of Dagan and/or Shalev can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of this limitation, where the sensor data is analyzed in order to determine potential objects in the vicinity and their corresponding properties, in order to perform an appropriate navigational response.
Dagan is directed towards autonomous vehicle navigation and applying brakes based on a detected object (see Dagan, ¶ 0003). Dagan discloses processing sensor data in order to detect a set of features (i.e., objects) within the sensor data and to determine a set of candidate objects of interest (see Dagan, ¶¶ 0112, 0115, 0136). Dagan discloses filtering candidate objects to exclude irrelevant or less relevant objects based on classification criteria (see Dagan, ¶ 0116) and further suggests determining a confidence level for the remaining candidate objects (see Dagan, ¶ 0136), and performing a navigational response based on the sensor data analysis (see Dagan, ¶¶ 0114, 0118, 0137). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to explicitly incorporate the detection features of Dagan with the vehicle collision management system of Gordon, in order to increase accuracy of imminent collision detection and thus improve the safety of autonomous vehicles (see Dagan, ¶ 0005).
Shalev is directed towards navigating according to potential accident liability constraints (see Shalev, ¶ 0002). Shalev suggests processing sensor information in order to determine different objects depicted in the sensor information (see Shalev, 0168), and further suggests classification criteria where certain objects are deemed irrelevant or less relevant than others (see Shalev, ¶ 0172). Shalev suggests constructing a set of measurements for the detected objects based on modeling data for different object types (see Shalev, § 0174). Shalev further suggests that additional analysis can yield a higher confidence level for correct classification of a particular object (see Shalev, ¶ 0178). Shalev suggests that some navigational constraints may have priority over other constraints (i.e., avoiding a collision with a pedestrian has a higher priority than avoiding a collision with another vehicle) (see Shalev, ¶¶ 0292, 0295). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to explicitly incorporate the “priority levels” of Shalev with the vehicle collision management system of Gordon in view of Dagan, in order to maximize safety for a given scene/situation, particularly when not all constraints can be satisfied (see Shalev, ¶ 0296).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the first braking level is a maximum braking level for brakes of the vehicle (see Shalev, ¶¶ 0006, 0450, 0613, 0649).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the first braking level is associated with emergency operation of the vehicle (see Shalev, ¶ 0450).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev does not appear to explicitly state wherein the second braking level is a maximum braking level associated with non-emergency operation of the vehicle, a skilled artisan would understand that different braking levels/intensities would be available and that emergency braking would be the most severe level/intensity (see Shalev, ¶¶ 0680, 0822; it is noted that Claims 1 and 4 merely require that the first braking level be greater than the second braking level).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the confidence value corresponds to a number of iterations of a LIDAR sensor of a perception system of the vehicle in which the object has been observed (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0041, 0057, 0095).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a current speed of the vehicle (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0039, 0042, 0089; see also Dagan, ¶¶ 0090, 0094).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein determining that the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a detected speed of the object (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0046, 0089; see also Dagan, ¶¶ 0111, 0118).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a type of road on which the vehicle is currently driving (see Gordon, ¶ 0089; see also Fairfield, discussed below, ¶ 0044).
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a speed limit of a road on which the vehicle is traveling (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0030, 0076, 0089; see also Fairfield, discussed below, ¶ 0031).
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a speed of another vehicle in the environment of the vehicle (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0046, 0089; see also Dagan, ¶¶ 0111, 0118).
With respect to dependent Claim 13, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein applying the first braking level is further based on whether another vehicle is behind the vehicle (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0061, 0070, 0076, 0079).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 13, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein applying the first braking level is further based on whether the other vehicle meets a predetermined threshold with respect to a current location of the vehicle (see Gordon, ¶¶ 0075, 0079).
With respect to dependent Claim 15, Gordon in view of Dagan and Shalev discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a current driving situation for the vehicle (see Gordon, ¶ 0089).
With respect to Claims 16-19, these claims are directed to a system comprising similar steps and/or features as recited in Claims 1-4, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
8. Dependent Claim 5 (and similarly, dependent Claim 20) and 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office Action. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose or suggest “comparing the priority level to a threshold value; and based on the comparison, determining that the object allows for the first braking level” (Claim 5) or “wherein determining whether the vehicle should apply the first braking level is further based on a comparison between the priority level and a threshold value” (Claim 7), in combination with the limitations recited in the corresponding independent claims.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights