DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Herbach et al (U.S. Patent No. US 9008890) in view of Cudak et al (US 20140012494) and Mudalige (US 20140207325).
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “validating the second trajectory” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Validating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 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 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mudalige (US 20140207325) in view of Cudak et al (US 20140012494).
Regarding claim 1, Mudalige discloses a method comprising:
detecting, by a control system of an autonomous vehicle, a condition in which the autonomous vehicle is impeded from traveling according to a first trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022), wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises one or more sensors (fig. 1&2; sec 0021, 0022);
transmitting, by a communication system 30 of the autonomous vehicle, an assistance signal to an assistance center 32, that is remote from the autonomous vehicle sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022);
receiving, by the communication system of the autonomous vehicle a response to the assistance signal, wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory, wherein the second trajectory is different than the first trajectory (sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022),;
validating, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle (sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022); and
after validating the second trajectory, causing, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle to travel according to the second trajectory (sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022).
Mudalige disclose an autonomous vehicle communicating to another automomous vehicle by wireless i.e. vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications protocol, wherein the another autonomous vehicle is remote from autonomous vehicle. In addition Mudalige discloses transmitting an assistance signal to an assistance center, but does not particularly indicate that the transmitting was by way of a wireless network and further that the assistance center is remote from the autonomous vehicle.
However, Cudak (fig. 1) teaches of a first vehicle 12 communicating by way of a wireless network (52, fig. 1) to another vehicle. Cudak teaches that the vehicles could be any type of vehicles (sec 0010) implying that the vehicles could include autonomous vehicles, etc. Furthermore, in Cudak, the first vehicle wirelessly transmits an assistance signal (route requestor 23, fig. 1; sec 0010) through the second vehicle to an assistance center (50, 52; fig. 1; sec 0010, 0031) that is remote from the first vehicle (it is noted that all operations of the Cudak devise can be executed partially or totally onboard the vehicle or at a remotely located server; sec 0031), and wherein the assistance signal indicates that the first vehicle seeks assistance travelling according to the first trajectory (planned route A, fig. 1; abstract; sec 0009, 0016, 0018, 0019).
Cudak further teaches, receiving, by a communication unit of the first vehicle, a response to the assistance signal, wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory (trajectory 44, fig. 1; sec 0016, 0018, 0019; it is noted that all operations of the Cudak devise can be executed partially or totally onboard the vehicle or at a remotely located server; sec 0031).
Mudalige has several setbacks. Mudalige (sec 0020) admits that the computations executed on his device require greater computing power and memory to calculate an ideal route with less cost. As such it would be obvious to modify Mudilage to distribute some of Mudalige’s computations to an offboard device e.g. distribute some of Mudalige’s computations to a remote server that has greater computing resources and memory as known with client-server systems as taught by Cudak, wherein a computer remotely obtains services from a remote server using a wireless transmission. Such a modification will free up the vehicle computing resources of Mudalige such that well needed additional or more computing and advantageous functions such as ETA (Estimated Time of Arrival), etc could be incorporated into Mudilage. In addition, in Mudalige vehicle 20 is blocking vehicle 18 and vehicle 18 needs a different route to avoid been impeded by vehicle 20. Vehicle 18 now calculates a new route 28 which may avoid vehicle 20. But after vehicle 18 has moved to route 28 there is still a possibility that vehicle 20 can also move into route 28 at same time and continue to block vehicle 18 and slow down vehicle 18 or even cause a collision. Now when Mudilage is modified with a remote server and a wireless transmission as taught by Cudak M both vehicle 18 and 20 can communicate their intentions with each sharing each other’s trajectory computed at a remote server and wirelessly transmitted to each vehicle to mitigate collisions, ease flow of traffic, etc.
Another disadvantage of Mudalige is that Mudilage is obsolete and cannot update databases, maps, roads, etc and as such would not be able to provide proper navigation to the autonomous vehicle especially when the autonomous vehicle encounters a hindrance in an area with newly created roads or an area where old roads have been deleted. Offboard servers as taught by Cudak are well known for providing a client-server computing advantage, wherein updated roads, maps, etc in an area are wirelessly transmitted from the server to a client e.g. the autonomous vehicle for navigation using wireless technology, cellphones with GPS software applications (see cellphones and remote servers in Cudak sec 0010, 0031), etc. In addition, the Cudak device as known in the art provides the advantage of a greater storage database e.g., at a remote server 50 that could be modified with new maps, roads, road accuracies, ETA features, etc to provide less costly planned routes with optimized criteria (Cudak sec 0011). With such great advantages provided by Cudak one of ordinary skill in the art will surely turn toward the teachings of Cudak to modify and improve the Mudalige device.
When Mudalige is modified above as taught by Cudak the drawbacks of the Mudalige will be resolved. That is, when Mudalige is modified by Cudak, Mudilage will now enjoy the benefits or the advantage of system with less computer-intensive computations, computing a less costly route, updated maps and roads with greater navigation accuracy, improved route metrics including the ability to choose a wirelessly transmitted route with best ETA for navigation to a destination as taught by Cudak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mudalige to include the wireless network and a remote assistance center that wirelessly transmits a second trajectory to the autonomous vehicle as taught by Cudak for the purpose overcoming the setbacks of Mudalige and for additionally providing the advantages listed above in Cudak.
Regarding claim 2, Mudalige discloses method of claim 1, wherein validating, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle comprises:
using the data from the one or more sensors to test the second trajectory for safety (sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022).
Regarding claim 3, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, wherein validating, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle comprises: using the data from the one or more sensors to determine whether the second trajectory is blocked by one or more objects (sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022).
.
Regarding claim 4, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, wherein validating, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle comprises: determining that the autonomous vehicle can travel according to the second trajectory without violating traffic laws (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, wherein validating, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle comprises: determining that the autonomous vehicle can travel according to the second trajectory without violating the navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 6, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle relate to avoiding collisions, obeying traffic laws, and/or avoiding inertial discomfort to passengers of the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 7, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after validating the second trajectory, transmitting, by the communication system of the autonomous vehicle and by way of the wireless network, a request to the assistance center to confirm the second trajectory; and receiving, by the communication system of the autonomous vehicle and by way of the wireless network, a confirmation of the second trajectory from the assistance center (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 8, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the communication system of the autonomous vehicle and by way of the wireless network, additional data to the assistance center (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the additional data comprises low-level sensor data, high-level representations of one or more objects, video data, still images, location data, and/or audio data (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: prior to transmitting the additional data, determining, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the additional data to be transmitted based on one or more heuristics (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 11, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the additional data comprises data selected from stored data (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 12, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the stored data comprises data about a plurality of obstacles, wherein a particular obstacle of the plurality of obstacles partially or wholly obstructs the first trajectory, and wherein the data selected from the stored data is a portion of the stored data that relates to the particular obstacle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second trajectory extends from a current position of the autonomous vehicle to a point where the second trajectory joins the first trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 14, Mudalige discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second trajectory is drawn by a human expert at the assistance center (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 15, Mudalige discloses a autonomous vehicle (figs. 1, 2; see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023) comprising:
one or more sensors (sec 0021, 0022, 0023);
a communication system; and a control system configured to perform operations (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023) comprising:
detecting a condition in which the autonomous vehicle is impeded from traveling according to a first trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023);
causing the communication system to transmit an assistance signal to an assistance center that is remote from the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023);
receiving, from the communication system of the autonomous vehicle a response to the assistance signal, wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory, wherein the second trajectory is different than the first trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023);
validating the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle; and after validating the second trajectory, causing the autonomous vehicle to travel according to the second trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Mudalige disclose an autonomous vehicle communicating to another automomous vehicle by wireless i.e. vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications protocol, wherein the another autonomous vehicle is remote from autonomous vehicle. In addition Mudalige discloses transmitting an assistance signal to an assistance center, but does not particularly indicate that the transmitting was by way of a wireless network and further that the assistance center is remote from the autonomous vehicle.
However, Cudak (fig. 1) teaches of a first vehicle 12 communicating by way of a wireless network (52, fig. 1) to another vehicle. Cudak teaches that the vehicles could be any type of vehicles (sec 0010) implying that the vehicles could include autonomous vehicles, etc. Furthermore, in Cudak, the first vehicle wirelessly transmits an assistance signal (route requestor 23, fig. 1; sec 0010) through the second vehicle to an assistance center (50, 52; fig. 1; sec 0010, 0031) that is remote from the first vehicle (it is noted that all operations of the Cudak devise can be executed partially or totally onboard the vehicle or at a remotely located server; sec 0031), and wherein the assistance signal indicates that the first vehicle seeks assistance travelling according to the first trajectory (planned route A, fig. 1; abstract; sec 0009, 0016, 0018, 0019).
Cudak further teaches, receiving, by a communication unit of the first vehicle, a response to the assistance signal, wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory (trajectory 44, fig. 1; sec 0016, 0018, 0019; it is noted that all operations of the Cudak devise can be executed partially or totally onboard the vehicle or at a remotely located server; sec 0031).
Mudalige has several setbacks. Mudalige (sec 0020) admits that the computations executed on his device require greater computing power and memory to calculate an ideal route with less cost. As such it would be obvious to modify Mudilage to distribute some of Mudalige’s computations to an offboard device e.g. distribute some of Mudalige’s computations to a remote server that has greater computing resources and memory as known with client-server systems as taught by Cudak, wherein a computer remotely obtains services from a remote server using a wireless transmission. Such a modification will free up the vehicle computing resources of Mudalige such that well needed additional or more computing and advantageous functions such as ETA (Estimated Time of Arrival), etc could be incorporated into Mudilage. In addition, in Mudalige vehicle 20 is blocking vehicle 18 and vehicle 18 needs a different route to avoid been impeded by vehicle 20. Vehicle 18 now calculates a new route 28 which may avoid vehicle 20. But after vehicle 18 has moved to route 28 there is still a possibility that vehicle 20 can also move into route 28 at same time and continue to block vehicle 18 and slow down vehicle 18 or even cause a collision. Now when Mudilage is modified with a remote server and a wireless transmission as taught by Cudak M both vehicle 18 and 20 can communicate their intentions with each sharing each other’s trajectory computed at a remote server and wirelessly transmitted to each vehicle to mitigate collisions, ease flow of traffic, etc.
Another disadvantage of Mudalige is that Mudilage is obsolete and cannot update databases, maps, roads, etc and as such would not be able to provide proper navigation to the autonomous vehicle especially when the autonomous vehicle encounters a hindrance in an area with newly created roads or an area where old roads have been deleted. Offboard servers as taught by Cudak are well known for providing a client-server computing advantage, wherein updated roads, maps, etc in an area are wirelessly transmitted from the server to a client e.g. the autonomous vehicle for navigation using wireless technology, cellphones with GPS software applications (see cellphones and remote servers in Cudak sec 0010, 0031), etc. In addition, the Cudak device as known in the art provides the advantage of a greater storage database e.g., at a remote server 50 that could be modified with new maps, roads, road accuracies, ETA features, etc to provide less costly planned routes with optimized criteria (Cudak sec 0011). With such great advantages provided by Cudak one of ordinary skill in the art will surely turn toward the teachings of Cudak to modify and improve the Mudalige device.
When Mudalige is modified above as taught by Cudak the drawbacks of the Mudalige will be resolved. That is, when Mudalige is modified by Cudak, Mudilage will now enjoy the benefits or the advantage of system with less computer-intensive computations, computing a less costly route, updated maps and roads with greater navigation accuracy, improved route metrics including the ability to choose a wirelessly transmitted route with best ETA for navigation to a destination as taught by Cudak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mudalige to include the wireless network and a remote assistance center that wirelessly transmits a second trajectory to the autonomous vehicle as taught by Cudak for the purpose overcoming the setbacks of Mudalige and for additionally providing the advantages listed above in Cudak.
Regarding claim 16, Mudalige discloses the autonomous vehicle of claim 15, wherein validating the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle comprises: using the data from the one or more sensors to test the second trajectory for safety (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 17, Mudalige discloses the autonomous vehicle of claim 15, wherein validating the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023) comprises:
using the data from the one or more sensors to determine whether the second trajectory is blocked by one or more objects (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 18, Mudalige discloses the autonomous vehicle of claim 15, wherein validating the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023) comprises:
determining that the autonomous vehicle can travel according to the second trajectory without violating traffic laws (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Regarding claim 19, Mudalige discloses the autonomous vehicle of claim 15, wherein validating, by the control system of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023) comprises:
determining that the autonomous vehicle can travel according to the second trajectory without violating the navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle, wherein the navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle relate to avoiding collisions, obeying traffic laws, and/or avoiding inertial discomfort to passengers of the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023);
Regarding claim 20, Mudalige discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a control system of an autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023), cause the control system to perform operations comprising:
detecting a condition in which the autonomous vehicle is impeded from traveling according to a first trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023), wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises one or more sensors ( 0021, 0022, 0023);
causing a communication system of the autonomous vehicle to transmit an assistance signal to an assistance center that is remote from the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023);
receiving, from the communication system of the autonomous vehicle, a response to the assistance signal, wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory, wherein the second trajectory is different than the first trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023);
validating the second trajectory based on data from the one or more sensors and navigational constraints on the autonomous vehicle (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023); and
after validating the second trajectory, causing the autonomous vehicle to travel according to the second trajectory (see title; sec 0005, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0023).
Conclusion
The prior art, US 8532678 B2, made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights