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 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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazemi et al. US 20190235499 Al (herein, Kazemi) in view of Yumer et al., US 20230365143 A1 (herein, Yumer).
Regarding Claim 2, Kazemi discloses, a method (Abstract) comprising:
determining, by a first component of a vehicle, that the vehicle is to pullover prior to an expiration of a time period (FIG. 3 illustrates pullover and [0184] “At 1002, the method 1000 can include determining (e.g., determining based at least in part on the state data of the method 900) a plurality of paths the vehicle (e.g., the vehicle 108) is capable of traversing from the current location of the vehicle within the aggregate duration of the one or more time intervals. … Based on an estimated deceleration of the vehicle and the availability of locations to stop the vehicle, the vehicle can determine the plurality of paths that the vehicle can traverse before stopping. “);
sending, by the first component of the vehicle to a second component of the vehicle, an instruction for the vehicle to perform the pullover prior to the expiration of the time period (FIG. 9 and [0162] The one or more diagnostics can include one or more tests to determine whether the vehicle's autonomy system is exchanging (e.g., sending and/or receiving) one or more signals or data, … In some embodiments, satisfying the one or more vehicle stoppage criteria can include determining that the operational state of the autonomy system is a non-malfunctioning operational state.”);
based on a determination that the second component of the vehicle is unable to identify location to pullover (¶[0061] – “…the vehicle computing system can determine that one of the two paths is in a tunnel with walls on both sides and no road shoulder, and the other path is on an open road with a road shoulder that has a stopping area six meters wide by ten meters long (which exceeds the predetermined size of four meters width and five meters long)…”), forwarding, by at least one of the first component of the vehicle or the second component of the vehicle to a teleoperator associated with and remote from the vehicle, the instruction for the vehicle to perform the pullover prior to the expiration of the time period (¶[0166] – “The one or more vehicle stoppage criteria can include one or more passengers of the vehicle requesting the vehicle to stop,… of the vehicle, and/or the vehicle receiving a request for remote operator assistance (e.g., a tele-operator at a remote location)…”).
determining, by the teleoperator, a pullover location (FIG. 3 and # 318 – “location”).
Kazemi discloses the vehicle and the pullover location but does not disclose,
causing, the vehicle to travel to the pullover location prior to the expiration of the time period.
However, Yumer teaches,
causing, the vehicle to travel to the pullover location prior to the expiration of the time period (¶[0095] – “…the remote operator 184, the remote operator 184 may issue a final high-level command 174 to pull over to a side of the road 102, change to a particular lane, or continue driving forward until reaching a particular safe area to pull over.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by Kazemi with the teleoperator determining pullover location prior to the expiration of the time as taught by Yumer. Doing so, enhances the system by providing the capability to prevent a vehicle from stopping when it would impede the flow of traffic.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kazemi further discloses, wherein a presence of a condition indicates that the vehicle is to pull over prior to the expiration of the time period, and further comprising:
determining a cost associated with the condition (¶[0032] – “…the vehicle computing system can use one or more cost functions…”); and
based at least in part on a magnitude of the cost, refraining from causing the vehicle to initiate the pullover at a current location of the vehicle, the current location of the vehicle being on a portion of a road surface such that the vehicle impedes a flow of traffic (¶[0048] – “…he vehicle computing system can introduce a new cost function into the motion planning process, where the cost function provides a greatly increased cost if the vehicle leaves the current lane or passes the threshold distance…”),
wherein a length of the time period is at least partially based on the cost (¶[0106] – “… an optimization algorithm that considers cost data associated with a vehicle action as well as other objective functions (e.g., cost functions based on speed limits, traffic lights, and/or other aspects of the environment),…” – speed limits has the length time component).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kazemi further discloses, wherein a type (¶[0029] - "...second severity level (L1)...") of the condition is associated with at least one of:
a fault of a component or system of the vehicle;
an occupant of the vehicle;
an environmental condition; or
an emergency condition (¶[0029] - "...when an emergency vehicle is in close proximity...").
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kazemi further discloses, further comprising: determining an additional time period for the teleoperator to determine the pullover location, wherein the additional time period extends beyond the expiration of the time period (¶[0078] – “…vehicle components (e.g., the punctured tire) of the vehicle, and/or the vehicle receiving a request for remote operator assistance.”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kazemi further discloses, wherein the fault of the component or the system of the vehicle renders the vehicle in a degraded but functional state (¶[0184] – “…the vehicle computing system 112 can determine that the rear visibility of the vehicle has been reduced due to a malfunction in a suite of cameras at the rear of the vehicle…”), and wherein a length of the time period is based (¶[0184] – “…then determine that the aggregate duration of the one or more time intervals for the vehicle to come to a stop…”), at least in part, on the cost associated with the condition, the cost determined based on at least one of the type of the condition, a significance of the condition (¶[0049] – “….in some embodiments, the motion plan can be generated by an iterative optimizer that iteratively generates, evaluates, and modifies candidate motion plans on the basis of total cost (e.g., as provided by the total cost function)….”)., or a remedy for the condition.
Claims 9-10, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazemi et al. US 20190235499 Al (herein, Kazemi) in view of Sucan, US 10782685 B1 (herein, Sucan).
Regarding Claim 9, Kazemi discloses, a method (Abstract) comprising:
determining, by a driving component of a vehicle, that the vehicle is to cease operating (¶[0172] – “…he vehicle computing system 112 can determine the total duration of one or more time intervals that the vehicle will pass before the vehicle stops based on the severity level….”);
determining, by the driving component, a constraint associated with the vehicle ceasing operating (¶[0205] – “…For example, the destination location at which the vehicle stops can be modified, by the vehicle computing system 112, to comply with a set of constraints associated with the one or more location of one or more objects that obstruct the vehicle. …”);
determining, by the driving component, an indication that the vehicle is to cease operating in accordance with the constraint (¶[0205] – “…The destination location can be modified so that the vehicle does not come within a threshold distance of the one or more objects. In some embodiments, generating the motion plan (e.g., the motion plan of the method 900) can include modifying the destination location to comply with the set of constraints…”).
Kazemi discloses the driving component, the vehicle, and operations but does not disclose,
based at least in part on the indication, refraining, by the driving component, from causing the vehicle to cease operating; and
based on a determination that the vehicle has continued operating in violation of the constraint, causing, by the driving component, the vehicle to cease operating.
However, Sucan teaches,
based at least in part on the indication, refraining, by the driving component, from causing the vehicle to cease operating (Col. 7 and lines 32 – 53 – “…The perception system 172 also includes one or more components for detecting objects external to the vehicle such as other vehicles, obstacles in the roadway, traffic signals, signs, trees, etc…”); and
based on a determination that the vehicle has continued operating in violation of the constraint, causing, by the driving component, the vehicle to cease operating (Col. 10, lines 63-65 and Col. 11, lines 63 – 19 – “…10 times per second or more or less, and may extend for some time and distance into the future in order to allow the vehicle follow the route to the destination. These trajectories may be generated as “desired paths” in order to avoid obstacles, obey laws and generally…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by Kazemi with the refrain from operations and also operate in violation of the constraint as taught by Sucan. Doing so, enhances the system by providing the capability to prevent a vehicle from refraining to operate and thus not operate, even in violation of the constraint and thus improves safety by not allowing the vehicle to cease operation, for example, in a busy freeway.
Regarding Claim 10, Kazemi further discloses, wherein a type (¶[0029] - "...second severity level (L1)...") of the condition is associated with at least one of:
a fault of a component or system of the vehicle (optional limitation);
an occupant of the vehicle (optional limitation);
an environmental condition; or an emergency condition (¶[0029] - "...when an emergency vehicle is in close proximity...").
Regarding Claim 16, Kazemi discloses, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶[0096] – “….one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media can store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors…”):
receiving data associated with monitoring a vehicle that is operating on a road surface (¶[0024] – “…computing devices that can be configured to monitor and/or control one or more vehicle systems) that can receive data associated with the state of the vehicle…”);
determining whether a condition associated with the vehicle operating on the road surface exists (¶[0025] – “…can be updated over time and as the vehicle travels through the environment (e.g., as the vehicle travels along a highway).”);
determining, based at least in part on detecting a presence of the condition associated with the vehicle operating on the road surface, that the vehicle is to cease operating on the road surface (¶[0028] – “… the highest level of severity of vehicle stoppage conditions including vehicle stoppage conditions in which the vehicle must come to an immediate stop (e.g., a hard stop using maximum braking force)…”);
determining a constraint associated with the vehicle ceasing operating on the road surface (¶[0029] – “… the vehicle must come to a near immediate stop (e.g., stopping the vehicle when an emergency vehicle is in close proximity to the vehicle) without changing the trajectory of the vehicle…”);
sending an indication that the vehicle is to cease operating on the road surface in accordance with the constraint (¶[0029] – “… the vehicle must come to a near immediate stop (e.g., stopping the vehicle when an emergency vehicle is in close proximity to the vehicle) without changing the trajectory of the vehicle…”);
determining whether the vehicle is currently operating on the road surface (¶[0031] – “…can include a modification to a current motion plan of the vehicle that takes the vehicle to a different destination location…”).
Kazemi teaches the vehicle, road surface and constraint but does not disclose,
based at least in part on a determination that the vehicle has ceased operating on the road surface in accordance with the constraint, performing an action.
However, Sucan teaches,
based at least in part on a determination that the vehicle has ceased operating on the road surface in accordance with the constraint, performing an action (Col. 6, lines 28-41 – “) Planner system 168 may be used by computing device 110 in order to determine and follow a route to a location…these pull over spots may be “hand” selected or identified areas where at which the vehicle is lawfully able to stop and park for some period of time such as shoulder areas, parking spots, parking lots, emergency pull over spots, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by Kazemi with ceasing an operation will performing an action as taught by Sucan. Doing so, enhances the operation by providing the capability to allow a determination of ceasing the operations on the road that performs an action and thus improves the safety of the vehicle and thus the driver and passenger.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kazemi further discloses, wherein the action comprises clearing a pending request for the vehicle to pull over (¶[0078] – “…satisfying one or more vehicle stoppage conditions including one or more passengers of the vehicle requesting the vehicle to stop (e.g., a passenger verbally requesting the vehicle to stop or interacting with an interface device in the vehicle to request the vehicle to stop)…”).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Kazemi further discloses, (Abstract – “…states of an autonomous vehicle and an environment external to the autonomous vehicle. Responsive to the state data satisfying vehicle stoppage criteria, vehicle stoppage conditions can be determined to have occurred….”)
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.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Application. 17/958,146 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application anticipate the instant claims, as each limitation of the present application can be mapped directly to a limitation of the reference application. As such, application 17/958,146 pertains to how a vehicle can decide to pull over safely when something abnormal happens, rather than stopping immediately in a traffic lane. A monitoring component in the vehicle detects a condition such as a fault, bad weather, an occupant issue, or an emergency. The system then decides whether the vehicle must stop right away or can keep driving for a limited time under constraints. Those constraints can include a deadline, speed limits, weather limits, or where the vehicle is allowed to stop. The monitoring component sends a request to the vehicle’s planner component and/or a remote teleoperator so they can choose a safe stopping place. If the planner or teleoperator responds in time, the vehicle keeps moving until it reaches a better pull-over location.
As for the current application, a vehicle that can decide to pull over safely when something unusual happens. The “something” could be a vehicle fault, a passenger emergency, bad weather, or another condition that makes continued driving unsafe or impractical. Instead of stopping immediately in the travel lane, the vehicle first checks whether it can keep going for a limited time or under certain limits. Those limits may include how long the vehicle may keep moving, how fast it may go, or where it may travel. A monitoring component detects the issue and sends a pull-over request to the vehicle’s planner or to a remote teleoperator. The planner may handle the stop on its own if it can find a safe place to pull over. If it cannot, the request may be forwarded to a teleoperator who helps choose a location and route. While this is happening, the monitoring component keeps watching the vehicle and the constraint deadline. If the vehicle acknowledges the request in time, the system may allow extra time so the vehicle can reach a better stopping spot. If the vehicle fails to comply, the monitoring component can force a stop. The goal is to keep the vehicle safe without blocking traffic unnecessarily.
Therefore, the claims of the present application are drawn to a method based at least in part on the indication, refraining, by the driving component, from causing the vehicle to cease operating; and based on a determination that the vehicle has continued operating in violation of the constraint, causing, by the driving component, the vehicle to cease operating. and the claims of the reference application are directed to a commensurate method of providing the aforementioned limitations
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11-15, and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights