DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on June 04, 2026. Claims 30 - 49 are presented for examination. Claims 30, 31, 33, 34, 38 - 43, and 49 are rejected and this Office Action is being made Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 04, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on March 04, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment on June 04, 2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. Based on the amendments to overcome the objections to the drawings and the amendment to overcome the previous objection to the claims, the objections to the drawings and the previous objections to the claim have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 30 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues the combination of Nassar and Colwell does not recite the amended limitation of “receive data of a driving scene and extract a scene representation therefrom, the data comprising an ego trace, at least one agent trace, and environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated, wherein a trace is a history of an agent's behaviour within a simulation having both spatial and motion components and wherein the scene representation is an ontological representation of both static and dynamic elements of the driving scene extracted from the traces and the environmental data, and expressed in the same formal ontology language as the ODD”, because the Office Action does not assert that the prior art of Nassar or Colwell discloses this feature.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the newly amended language in the limitation, the combination of Nassar and Colwell have found to disclose the feature, as shown below in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regards to claim 49 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues the combination of Nassar and Colwell does not recite the amended limitation of “receiving data of a driving scene and extracting a scene representation therefrom, the data comprising an ego trace, at least one agent trace, and environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated, wherein a trace is a history of an agent's behaviour within a simulation having both spatial and motion components”, for the same reasons the combination of Nassar and Colwell does not disclose the feature above with regards to claim 30.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed above with regards to claim 30, based on the newly amended language in the limitation, the combination of Nassar and Colwell have found to disclose the feature, as shown below in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30, line 13 recites “expressed in the same formal ontology language”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “expressed in a same formal ontology language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 30, 31, 33, 34, 38 - 43, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassar et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0294944 A1), hereinafter “Nassar”, and further in view of Colwell (“Runtime Restriction of the Operational Design Domain: A Safety Concept for Automated Vehicles”), hereinafter “Colwell”.
As per claim 30, Nassar discloses:
a computer system for analysing driving scenes in relation to an autonomous vehicle (AV) operational design domain (ODD), the computer system comprising (Nassar, par [0025] discloses scenarios in a virtual environment for an autonomous vehicle, and par [0026] adds the behavior in an operational design domain of the simulated environment.)
computer memory configured to store computer-readable instructions (Nassar, par [0024] discloses memory storing instructions.)
one or more hardware processors coupled to the computer memory, and configured to execute the computer-readable instructions, which upon execution cause the computer system to (Nassar, par [0024] discloses a processor executing instructions stored in memory.)
receive a definition of the ODD in a formal ontology language (Nassar, par [0026] discloses a domain ontology associated with an operational design domain.)
Nassar does not expressly disclose:
receive data of a driving scene and extract a scene representation therefrom, the data comprising an ego trace, at least one agent trace, environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated, wherein a trace is a history of an agent’s behavior within a simulation having both spatial and motion components, wherein the scene representation is an ontological representation of both static and dynamic elements of the driving scene extracted from the traces and the environmental data expressed in the same formal ontology language as the ODD; and
implement a scene analyzer to match the static and dynamic elements of the scene representation with corresponding elements of the ODD, and thereby determine whether or not the driving scene is within the defined ODD.
Colwell however discloses:
receive data of a driving scene and extract a scene representation therefrom (Colwell, page 4, lines 13 - 16 discloses the ODD as an ontology of a part of reality associated with driving, and used to determine the domain that the automated driving system (ADS, pg 1, ln 1-2) can safely perform the dynamic driving task (DDT, pg 1, ln 17), with page 17, lines 12 - 17 adds environmental elements for the ODD, including intersections and traffic control devices, interpreted to include red lights and stop signs, along with additional elements including types of roads and features of roads.)
the data comprising an ego trace (Colwell, page 6, lines 1 - 4 discloses the behavior of a subject vehicle, including its maneuvers and speed and reverse ability,
at least one agent trace (Colwell, page 29, lines 20 - 22 discloses behavior regarding dynamic objects in an environment in relation to the maneuvers for the vehicle, interpreted as the lead vehicle or subject vehicle, shown in FIG. 3.4, including the subject vehicle and other vehicles (dynamic objects)
environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated (Colwell, page 16, lines 1 - 7 discloses the scenario environment for the subject vehicle to behave in the form of an intersection with different intersection approaches created in the ODD, shown in FIG. 3.4, with ODD definition of the road structures and intersections in Listing 3.1.)
wherein a trace is a history of an agent’s behavior within a simulation having both spatial and motion components (Colwell, page 16, lines 4 - 7 discloses maneuvers for a vehicle based on the ODD, shown in Listing 3.1 which the ODD used has defined the behavior of the subject vehicle, including its movement in an environment shown in FIG. 3.4 showing a scenario involving the defined ODD.)
wherein the scene representation is an ontological representation of both static and dynamic elements of the driving scene extracted from the traces and the environmental data expressed in the same formal ontology language as the ODD (Colwell, page 5, lines 15 - 32 discloses a scene portion of an ODD ontology, while including the behavior of the subject vehicle, also includes road structures with static road environments and its related structures and geometry, behavior of different users on the road, including vehicles, cycles and trains, behavior of animals, as well as other obstacles including natural objects and material from infrastructure decay, as well as environmental conditions including road surface conditions and lighting.)
implement a scene analyzer to match the static and dynamic elements of the scene representation with corresponding elements of the ODD (Colwell, page 5, lines 10 - 13 discloses ODD ontology, including a scene defined with stationary objects and dynamic elements in the form of vehicles and pedestrians, with page 5, lines 18 - 20 discloses static road environment, which include the shape of the road, traffic lights and signs, and roadside structures, and page 11, lines 1 - 10 adds linking ODD elements with requirements or specifications, to determine a safe ODD.)
thereby determine whether or not the driving scene is within the defined ODD (Colwell, page 12, lines 3 - 10 introduces an ODD that does not change during operation of the automated driving system (ADS), and a restricted domain equivalent to ODD and its restraints when fully functional, and page 13, lines 1 - 9 adds a failure occurring if the system cannot detect small obstacles while the vehicle is on the road at high speeds, but is still within the domain when the speed is below the constraints.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle of Nassar with the ODD, ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected teaching of Colwell. The motivation to do so would have been because Colwell discloses the benefit of a concept that represents a version of ODD that provides the ability of an ADS to operate safely, by allowing the runtime monitoring and evaluating domain of safe operation during changing system capabilities or faults (Colwell, page 2, lines 3 - 7).
As per claim 49, Nassar discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing program instructions configured (Nassar, par [0049] discloses instructions stored on a computer storage media.)
upon execution by one or more hardware processors, to cause the one or more hardware processors to implement operations comprising (Nassar, par [0049] discloses a processor executing instructions stored on memory.)
receiving a definition of an autonomous vehicle operational design domain (ODD) (Nassar, par [0039] discloses a defined operational design domain (ODD).)
the ODD comprising multiple ontology elements and hierarchical relationships between the multiple ontology elements (Nassar, par [0040] discloses a domain ontology providing actor behaviors and relationships, along with terminology and taxonomy of concepts in an ODD of a simulated environment.)
Nassar does not expressly disclose:
receiving data of a driving scene and extracting a scene representation therefrom, the data comprising an ego trace, at least one agent trace, and environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated, wherein a trace is a history of an agent’s behavior within a simulation having both spatial and motion components and wherein the scene representation is an ontological representation comprising both static and dynamic elements of the driving scene extracted from the traces and the environmental data for matching with the ontology elements; and
matching the static and dynamic elements of the scene representation with the ontology elements, and thereby determining whether or not the driving scene is within the defined ODD.
Colwell however discloses:
receiving data of a driving scene and extracting a scene representation therefrom (Colwell, page 4, lines 13 - 16 discloses the ODD as an ontology of a part of reality associated with driving, and used to determine the domain that the automated driving system (ADS, pg 1, ln 1-2) can safely perform the dynamic driving task (DDT, pg 1, ln 17), with page 17, lines 12 - 17 adds environmental elements for the ODD, including intersections and traffic control devices, interpreted to include red lights and stop signs, along with additional elements including types of roads and features of roads.)
wherein a trace is a history of an agent’s behavior within a simulation having both spatial and motion components (Colwell, page 16, lines 4 - 7 discloses maneuvers for a vehicle based on the ODD, shown in Listing 3.1 which the ODD used has defined the behavior of the subject vehicle, including its movement in an environment shown in FIG. 3.4 showing a scenario involving the defined ODD.)
the data comprising an ego trace (Colwell, page 6, lines 1 - 4 discloses the behavior of a subject vehicle, including its maneuvers and speed and reverse ability.)
at least one agent trace (Colwell, page 29, lines 20 - 22 discloses behavior regarding dynamic objects in an environment in relation to the maneuvers for the vehicle, interpreted as the lead vehicle or subject vehicle, shown in FIG. 3.4, including the subject vehicle and other vehicles (dynamic objects).)
environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or (Colwell, page 16, lines 1 - 7 discloses the scenario environment for the subject vehicle to behave in the form of an intersection with different intersection approaches created in the ODD, shown in FIG. 3.4, with ODD definition of the road structures and intersections in Listing 3.1.)
wherein the scene representation is an ontological representation comprising both static and dynamic elements of the driving scene extracted from the traces and the environmental data for matching with the ontology elements (Colwell, page 5, lines 15 - 32 discloses a scene portion of an ODD ontology, while including the behavior of the subject vehicle, also includes road structures with static road environments and its related structures and geometry, behavior of different users on the road, including vehicles, cycles and trains, behavior of animals, as well as other obstacles including natural objects and material from infrastructure decay, as well as environmental conditions including road surface conditions and lighting.)
matching the static and dynamic elements of the scene representation with the ontology elements (Colwell, page 5, lines 10 - 13 discloses ODD ontology, including a scene defined with stationary objects and dynamic elements in the form of vehicles and pedestrians, with page 5, lines 18 - 20 discloses static road environment, which include the shape of the road, traffic lights and signs, and roadside structures, and page 11, lines 1 - 10 adds linking ODD elements with requirements or specifications, to determine a safe ODD.)
thereby determining whether or not the driving scene is within the defined ODD (Colwell, page 12, lines 3 - 10 introduces an ODD that does not change during operation of the automated driving system (ADS), and a restricted domain equivalent to ODD and its restraints when fully functional, and page 13, lines 1 - 9 adds a failure occurring if the system cannot detect small obstacles while the vehicle is on the road at high speeds, but is still within the domain when the speed is below the constraints.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle of Nassar with the ODD, ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected teaching of Colwell. The motivation to do so would have been because Colwell discloses the benefit of a concept that represents a version of ODD that provides the ability of an ADS to operate safely, by allowing the runtime monitoring and evaluating domain of safe operation during changing system capabilities or faults (Colwell, page 2, lines 3 - 7).
For claim 31: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 31: The computer system of claim 30, comprising
a simulator configured to simulate the driving scene (Nassar, par [0029] discloses a scenario generator providing scenario data for autonomous vehicles using different paths in different environments, and par [0030] adds implementing a simulation using the scenarios from the scenario generator.)
the traces being simulated traces of the simulated driving scene (Nassar, par [0006] discloses using simulated environments to test and verify automated machines, and par [0048] discloses a path or route the autonomous vehicle takes during a scenario.)
For claim 33: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 33: The computer system of claim 31, wherein
the simulator is configured to provide simulated perception inputs to a full or partial AV stack (Nassar, par [0080] using sensor data in autonomous driving software stack to perform real-world scenarios and situations.)
simulate the ego trace to reflect decisions taken by the AV stack in response to the simulated perception inputs (Nassar, par [0080] discloses path planning as one of the operations executed by the autonomous driving software stack to perform and test vehicle in a simulated environment.)
For claim 34: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 34: The computer system of claim 33, wherein
the AV stack includes an online scene analyzer configured to make a separate online determination as to whether or the driving scene is within the ODD, based on the simulated perception inputs (Colwell, page 5, lines 3 - 5 discloses using online monitoring to determine validation during operation, with page 13, lines 1 - 9 previously disclosing a failure occurring if the system cannot detect small obstacles while the vehicle is on the road at high speeds, but is still within the domain when the speed is below the constraints.)
wherein the computer system is configured to determine whether or not the determination by the scene analyzer matches the online determination within the full or partial AV stack (Colwell, page 5, lines 10 - 13 discloses ODD ontology, including a scene defined with stationary objects and dynamic elements in the form of vehicles and pedestrians, with page 5, lines 18 - 20 discloses static road environment, which include the shape of the road, traffic lights and signs, and roadside structures, and page 11, lines 1 - 10 adds linking ODD elements with requirements or specifications, to determine a safe ODD, and page 56, lines 11 - 12 discloses evaluation and verification of mapping for the ODD restrictions are correctly applied for a safe ROD, with less than optimal functionality.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle of Nassar with the ODD, ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected teaching of Colwell, and the additional teaching of validation and verification regarding ODD and online monitoring, also found in Colwell. The motivation to do so would have been because Colwell discloses the benefit of a concept that represents a version of ODD that provides the ability of an ADS to operate safely, by allowing the runtime monitoring and evaluating domain of safe operation during changing system capabilities or faults (Colwell, page 2, lines 3 - 7).
For claim 38: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 38: The computer system of claim 30, wherein
the one or more processors are configured to extract the data of the driving scene from real-world sensor data using one or more perception models applied to the sensor data and/or based on manual annotation inputs (Nassar, par [0080] discloses sensors obtaining data and using real-world environments for using autonomous driving software in a simulated environment.)
For claim 39: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 39: The computer system of claim 38, comprising
an input configured to receive sensor data in one or more data streams (Nassar, par [0075] discloses obtaining real-world data using sensors.)
the computer system configured to operate in real-time (Nassar, par [0033] discloses evaluating variations in scenarios in real-time, when the system is executed under test or offline.)
wherein, optionally, the computer system is embodied in a physical autonomous vehicle for making an online determination as to whether or not the physical autonomous vehicle is within the ODD (Nassar, par [0060] discloses a domain ontology associated with testing autonomous vehicles, using concepts regarding operational design domain, and par [0080] discloses using physical vehicles in a simulated environment to perform real-world situations, scenarios and environments.)
For claim 40: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 40: The computer system of claim 30, wherein
the one or more processors are configured to identify an individual element or a combination of elements of the scene representation as outside of the ODD (Colwell, par 13, lines 1 - 6 discloses a violation occurs when an obstacle cannot be detected on the road, in which the operation domain (ROD) is suspended, with page 12, lines 6 - 9 clarifying the ROD includes portions of ODD constraints and functionality the ODD would allow, shown in FIG. 3.3.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle of Nassar with the ODD, ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected teaching of Colwell, and the additional teaching of the road obstacle outside the ROD with similar functionality as the ODD, also found in Colwell. The motivation to do so would have been because Colwell discloses the benefit of a concept that represents a version of ODD that provides the ability of an ADS to operate safely, by allowing the runtime monitoring and evaluating domain of safe operation during changing system capabilities or faults (Colwell, page 2, lines 3 - 7).
For claim 41: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 41: The computer system of claim 40, comprising
a user interface configured to display the scene representation with a visual indication of any individual element or combination of elements identified to be outside of the ODD (Colwell, page 40, lines 9 - 11 discloses a tool displaying ROS information, shown as diagrams in FIG. 7.1, providing a user interface to display ROS information, with page 12, lines 6 - 9 clarifying the ROD includes portions of ODD constraints and functionality the ODD would allow.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle of Nassar with the ODD, ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected teaching of Colwell, and the additional teaching of a user display to provide ROD data, which has similar functionality as the ODD, also found in Colwell. The motivation to do so would have been because Colwell discloses the benefit of a concept that represents a version of ODD that provides the ability of an ADS to operate safely, by allowing the runtime monitoring and evaluating domain of safe operation during changing system capabilities or faults (Colwell, page 2, lines 3 - 7).
For claim 42: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 42: The computer system of claim 30, wherein
the ODD defines permitted combinations of ontology elements (Nassar, par [0039] discloses ontologies associated with defined operational design domain, with par [0042] adds each ontology includes different classes or sets of objects.)
the scene analyzer is configured to determine whether or not the static and dynamic ontology elements of the scene representation constitute a permitted combination of ontology elements (Colwell, page 36, lines 13 - 124 discloses an analysis performed to determine the relevancy of areas of ODD ontology, which can classify moving objects, and remove static objects, including roads permitting higher speeds, along with dynamic objects that cannot be detected.)
thereby determine whether or not the driving scene is within the defined ODD (Colwell, page 12, lines 3 - 10 introduces an ODD that does not change during operation of the automated driving system (ADS), and a restricted domain equivalent to ODD and its restraints when fully functional, and page 13, lines 1 - 9 adds a failure occurring if the system cannot detect small obstacles while the vehicle is on the road at high speeds, but is still within the domain when the speed is below the constraints.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle of Nassar with the ODD, ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected teaching of Colwell, and the additional teaching of dynamic and static objects permitted and excluded in the ODD ontology, also found in Colwell. The motivation to do so would have been because Colwell discloses the benefit of a concept that represents a version of ODD that provides the ability of an ADS to operate safely, by allowing the runtime monitoring and evaluating domain of safe operation during changing system capabilities or faults (Colwell, page 2, lines 3 - 7).
For claim 43: The combination of Nassar and Colwell discloses claim 43: The computer system of claim 30, wherein
the ODD is defined by an ODD specification in combination with an ontology specification (Nassar, par [0026] discloses a domain ontology with specifications associated with actor relationships and behavior in an operational design domain.)
wherein the scene processor is configured to extract the static and dynamic elements from the data of the scene based on the ontology specification (Nassar, par [0045] discloses static actors, including stationary objects, and dynamic actors, including moving objects, as part of domain ontologies.)
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of Nassar et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0294944 A1) discloses automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle, and Colwell (“Runtime Restriction of the Operational Design Domain: A Safety Concept for Automated Vehicles”) discloses ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected, along with dynamic and static objects permitted and excluded in the ODD ontology.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Nassar and Colwell, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
Claim 32, comprising a test oracle configured to apply a set of numerical performance metrics to score the performance of the AV stack on the simulated driving scene; wherein the test oracle is configured to select at least one of the set of numerical performance metrics, and a set of thresholds applied to the numerical performance metrics, based on one or more of the static and/or dynamic elements of the scene representation, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claim 35, The computer system of claim 34, wherein the AV stack is a partial AV stack, wherein the simulator provides ground truth perception inputs, but the perception inputs inputted to the partial AV stack contain perception errors sampled from one or more perception error models, and wherein, in the event that the online determination as to whether the scene is within the ODD does not match the determination by the scene analyzer, the computer system is configured repeat the simulation based on the ground truth perception inputs directly, without any sampled perception errors, to ascertain whether or not the mismatch was caused by the perception errors, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
While Nassar discloses ground truth used to compare functionality in evaluation of scenarios, including determining issues or shortfalls (par [0033), Nassar does not expressly disclose the ground truth includes an error, and thus the prior art of Nassar, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record, including Colwell, does not disclose:
Claim 36, wherein the AV stack is a partial AV stack, wherein the simulator provides ground truth perception inputs, but the perception inputs inputted to the partial AV stack contain perception errors sampled from one or more perception error models, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claim 37 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 36, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 44, wherein the static and dynamic elements are determined by classifying the data of the scene in terms of ontology elements of the ontology specification at different time intervals of the driving scene, the ODD specification defining which of the ontology elements or which combinations of the ontology elements are within or outside of the ODD, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 45 - 47 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 44, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 48: The prior art of Nassar et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0294944 A1) discloses automated vehicle, ontology, operational design domain (ODD), path and environment of the vehicle, and Colwell (“Runtime Restriction of the Operational Design Domain: A Safety Concept for Automated Vehicles”) discloses ontology and a constraint to determine if a failure occurs when an object from the static ODD is not detected, along with dynamic and static objects permitted and excluded in the ODD ontology.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Nassar and Colwell, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a computer-implemented method of analyzing driving scenes in relation to an autonomous vehicle (AV) operational design domain (ODD), which includes evaluating if a driving scene is within the ODD defined with ontology elements from a received ontology specification during a comparison of an ontological scene and specification of the ODD, also received, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights