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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 October 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment/response of 20 October 2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as presented in the Office Action of June 20, 2025 is moot. However, new rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 20 October 2025.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as presented in the Office Action of June 20, 2025 is moot. However, new rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 20 October 2025.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0010] line 2 recites “i.e. an intermedia representation” appears to be a typographical error and should read as “i.e. an intermediate representation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “determine whether a mistake exists in the intermediate representation based on actions performed by the vehicle when implementing the driving policy; and update the self-supervised first machine learning model to generate an updated subsequent intermediate representation and driving policy according to the actions performed by the vehicle when implementing the driving policy” that is not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraph that appears to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claim has been found in paragraph [0068] “determining driving policies and/or controls based on the intermediate representation (i.e. as determined at step 404) and unconstrained vehicle controls and/or driving policies (i.e. as determined at step 406). The driving policies, waypoints, and/or controls can be utilized so that the vehicle can take one or more actions based on the driving policies, waypoints, and/or controls. In systems, a result from the vehicle actions can be utilized to train one or more machine learning models described herein. For example, machine learning models can be updated based on one or more results for the vehicle action. In embodiments, the perception and/or prediction circuit can be updated (i.e. by imposing a penalty) when the system has made a mistake in predicting the intermediate representations at steps 406 and/or 454 (e.g. predicted 3D structure, depth, ego-motion, etc.). At step 408, the intermediate state of policies and/or controls trained using behavioral cloning can be regularized by the self-supervised learning of inductive biases as performed at step 406.” The applicant’s specification paragraph [0068] appears to describe updating the machine learning models based on the results for the vehicle action and updating the perception/prediction circuit when the system made a mistake in predicting the intermediate representations, however, the specification does not provide support/description regarding “determine whether a mistake exists in the intermediate representation…” and “update the self-supervised first machine learning model to generate an updated subsequent intermediate representation…”. As such the specification does not describe the limitations as provided in the amended claim. Therefore, the limitations “determine whether a mistake exists in the intermediate representation based on actions performed by the vehicle when implementing the driving policy; and update the self-supervised first machine learning model to generate an updated subsequent intermediate representation and driving policy according to the actions performed by the vehicle when implementing the driving policy” are new matter and does not evidence that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 21, the claim recites “determining the accuracy comprises determining whether a correct prediction or mistake is made regarding predicting intermediate representations” that is not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraphs that appear to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claim have been found in paragraphs [0048] and [0068]. The applicant’s specification paragraph [0048] appears to describe fine tuning the intermediate representations based on expert demonstrations and/or by the use of labelled training data and paragraph [0068] appears to describe updating the machine learning models based on the results for the vehicle action, however, the specification does not provide support/description regarding “determining the accuracy comprises determining whether a correct prediction or mistake is made regarding predicting intermediate representations”. Therefore, the limitations “determining the accuracy comprises determining whether a correct prediction or mistake is made regarding predicting intermediate representations” is new matter and does not evidence that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claims from which they depend.
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 1-19 and 21 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “generate,…an intermediate representation about a structure of driving scenes for a vehicle according to inductive biases determined from data related to the driving scenes”. It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “generate…an intermediate representation about a structure of driving scenes… according to inductive biases determined from data related to the driving scenes”. According to paragraph [0011] of the applicant’s specification, the intermediate representation comprises/can include the inductive biases. It is unclear what is meant by generating the intermediate representation “according to inductive biases” since the specification indicates that the intermediate representation comprises/can include the inductive biases. Further, claim 1 recites “generate an updated subsequent intermediate representation and driving policy”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the “generate an updated subsequent” is for both the “intermediate representation” and the “driving policy” or only the “intermediate representation”. Furthermore, it is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “updated subsequent”. For example, it is unclear to the Examiner if updating an intermediate representation the second time after updating the intermediate representation the first time is the same as “updated subsequent intermediate representation” or if an “updated subsequent intermediate representation” is the same as an updated intermediate representation. In other words, it is unclear to the examiner if an "updated" intermediate representation is/would be a "subsequent" intermediate representation, since the specification uses neither term "updated" or "subsequent" to describe intermediate representations.
As to claim 21, the claim recites “wherein determining the accuracy comprises determining whether a correct prediction or mistake is made regarding predicting intermediate representations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear to the Examiner what “the accuracy” is referring to. For example, “determining the accuracy” of what?
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666