DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 30 - 49 are presented for examination. Claims 30 - 34, 38 - 43, and 47 - 49 are rejected.
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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Page 20, line 10 recites a reference that was not found in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 02, 2022. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Element 142 on page 47, line 5 Is not shown in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 258 in FIG. 2, element 414 in FIGS. 4 and 9, element 120 in FIG. 12 and element 146 in FIG. 13 is not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 6 does not end with a semicolon (“;”), which is typically used to denote the end of a limitation. It is recommended the limitation ends with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: The computer system in claim 30, comprising a simulator configured to simulate in claim 31, The computer system of claim 31, wherein the simulator is configured to provide in claim 33, the computer system of claim 31, comprising a test oracle in lines 1 and 4 of claim 32, The computer system of claim 38, comprising an input configured to receive in claim 39, The computer system of claim 40, comprising a user interface configured to display in claim 41, and The computer system of claim 30…the scene analyzer is configured to determine in claim 42. The recitation of the computer system, indicated as having sufficient hardware in independent claim 30, provides the sufficient hardware for the simulator and test oracle in claims 31 - 33, the input in claim 39, the user interface in claim 41, and the scene analyzer in claim 42.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 32 and 47 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.
Clam 32 lacks antecedent basis for “the AV stack” (line 2).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “an AV stack”.
Claim 47 does not end with a period. Without the punctuation, the claim appears to be incomplete and deficient. It is unclear if the claim ends at “within the ODD” or if there is more to the claim that is omitted. Without the period to end the claim, the claim is unclear and value to due to being incomplete and deficient.
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, 48 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 receive data of a driving scene and extract a scene representation therefrom (Nassar, par [0026] discloses a domain ontology associated with an operation design domain.)
the data comprising an ego trace (Nassar, par [0101] discloses a route computed and driven after analyzing map data, and using rules based traffic in the form of a script to operate AI traffic.)
at least one agent trace (Nassar, par [0048] discloses a path or route the autonomous vehicle takes during a scenario.)
environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated (Nassar, par [0047] discloses environment that includes visibility and weather conditions.)
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 (Nassar, par [0045] discloses static actors, including traffic signs, buildings, and the infrastructure, and dynamic actors, including objects that move or change, including vehicles, people, bicycles.)
expressed in the same formal ontology language as the ODD (Nassar, par [0039] discloses ontologies used to describe operational design domain.)
Nassar does not expressly disclose:
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:
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 48, Nassar discloses:
a computer-implemented method of analysing driving scenes in relation to an autonomous vehicle (AV) operational design domain (ODD), the method 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, and par [0039] adds interactions regarding actors and a vehicle to be defined in the operational design domain (ODD).)
receiving an ODD specification (Nassar, par [0039] discloses a defined operational design domain (ODD).)
and an ontology specification (Nassar, par [0026] discloses ontology provided that represents complex knowledge related to a simulated environment.)
receiving data of a driving scene and extracting an ontological scene representation therefrom based on the received ontology specification (Nassar, par [0041] discloses a domain ontology including information pertaining to the autonomous vehicle domain, including the maps, control, and actors, and the spatial regions, including persistent entities, with par [0043] adds the domain ontology regarding a description of a scenario and provide layer where behaviors can be specified, and, par [0061] discloses values from a domain ontology obtained based on a language description of a scene, with the ontology determining parameters and values associated with the description of the scene.)
the ontological representation representing the scene in terms of ontology elements of the ODD specification (Nassar, par [0040] discloses an operational design domain of a simulation environment with its concepts defined by domain ontology.)
comparing the ontological scene representation with the received ODD specification (Nassar, par [0039] discloses an operational design domain that does not provide a complete specification of behaviors and relationships between the actors, while par [0040] discloses the domain ontology provides behaviors and relationship specifications for actors in the simulated environment.)
While Nassar discloses the difference between the ODD and domain ontology, Nassar does not expressly disclose:
in order to determine whether or not the driving scene is within the ODD, the ODD also defined in terms of the ontology elements of the ontology specification.
Colwell however discloses:
in order to determine whether or not the driving scene is within the 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.)
the ODD also defined in terms of the ontology elements of the ontology specification (Colwell, page 5, lines 15 - 17 discloses using an ODD ontology based on a scene portion of an ontology, while also including the subject vehicle’s behavior, and page 36, lines 13 - 15 discloses using areas associated with ODD ontology instead of using ODD in full to provide a definition.)
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.)
receiving data of a driving scene and extracting a scene representation therefrom (Nassar, par [0041] discloses a domain ontology including information pertaining to the autonomous vehicle domain, including the maps, control, and actors, and the spatial regions, including persistent entities, with par [0043] adds the domain ontology regarding a description of a scenario and provide layer where behaviors can be specified, and, par [0061] discloses values from a domain ontology obtained based on a language description of a scene, with the ontology determining parameters and values associated with the description of the scene.)
the data comprising an ego trace (Nassar, par [0101] discloses a route computed and driven after analyzing map data, and using rules based traffic in the form of a script to operate AI traffic.)
at least one agent trace (Nassar, par [0048] discloses a path or route the autonomous vehicle takes during a scenario.)
environmental data about an environment in which the traces were captured or generated (Nassar, par [0047] discloses environment that includes visibility and weather conditions.)
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 (Nassar, par [0045] discloses static actors, including traffic signs, buildings, and the infrastructure, and dynamic actors, including objects that move or change, including vehicles, people, bicycles.)
Nassar does not expressly disclose:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
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
February 21, 2026