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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Introduction
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-20, and 22-25 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 6, 14, and 16 have been canceled and claims 23-25 have been added since the last Office Action.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 20, “on” is missing between “based at least” and “the second data”. 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0025841 to Haynes et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11,565,709 to Caldwell et al.
As per claim 9, Haynes discloses a system (Haynes; At least the abstract) comprising:
one or more processors to (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 81):
receive, for performing a plurality of simulations to test one or more autonomous systems associated with a simulated object, input data representative of one or more maps indicating at least a first location of the simulated object within an environment a simulated environment at a first time and one or more representations of one or more second locations of the fust-simulated object within the simulated environment prior to the first time (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 19, 22, and 27);
generate, based at least on one or more first neural networks from an ensemble of neural networks processing at least a first portion of the input data, first data representative of navigational goals for the simulated object within the simulated environment over one or more second times that are after the first time (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 29-31, 34, 35, 49, and 50);
generate, based at least on one or more second neural networks from the ensemble of neural networks processing at least a second portion of the input data and the first data representative of the navigational goals for the simulated object, second data representative of possible trajectories to perform the navigational goals for the simulated object within the simulated environment over the one or more second times (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 52-54, 56, and 57);
generate, based at least the second data, simulation data representative of the plurality of simulations that include the simulated object performing at least a portion of the possible trajectories (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 62)
Haynes discloses receiving data object locations, and modeling and evaluating goals and trajectories of objects based on the object locations, but does not explicitly disclose to test the one or more autonomous systems associated with the simulated object; and causing, based at least on the simulation data, a performance of the plurality of simulation that include at least the simulated object performing the at least the portion of the possible trajectories within the simulated environment to test the one or more autonomous systems.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Caldwell (Caldwell; At least the abstract and column 1, line(s) 62-67 and column 2, line(s) 13-18). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Caldwell into the invention of Haynes with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Simulation testing is safer, quicker, more controllable, etc. as discussed in the background of Caldwell and, therefore, would be obvious to use to test autonomous systems and their reactions, for example, to predicted goals and trajectories of surrounding vehicles.
As per claim 10, Haynes discloses wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine, based at least on one or more third neural networks processing at least a third portion of the input data, one or more predicted trajectories for one or more second simulated objects within the simulated environment, wherein the plurality of simulations further include the one or more second simulated objects one or more predicted trajectories within the simulated environment (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 74; “based at least in part on the predicted future location of the objects” meaning that the trajectories of at least one second object is used).
As per claim 12, Haynes discloses plurality of simulations include at least: a first simulation that includes the simulated object performing a first possible trajectory associated with a first navigational goal of the navigational goals; and a second simulation that includes the simulated object performing a second possible trajectory associated with a second navigational goal of the navigational goals (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 62; multiple goals and trajectories are determined, therefore, each one would be simulated).
As per claim 13, Haynes discloses wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine one or more metrics associated with the plurality of simulations as performed; and evaluate the plurality of simulations based at least on the one or more metrics (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 62).
As per claim 15, Haynes discloses wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine, based at least on predicted trajectories associated with one or more second simulated objects within the simulated environment, scores associated with the possible trajectories; and determine, based at least on the scores, the at least the portion of the possible trajectories for performing the plurality of simulations (Haynes; At least paragraph(s) 62).
As per claim 17, Haynes discloses wherein the system is comprised in at least one a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Haynes; At least the abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 18-20, and 22-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach a simulation of an object preforming a trajectory based on action data associated with navigational goals and a predicted trajectory of another object, along with the other limitations of the independent claim(s). The Examiner could find no motivation to combine references to read on all the limitations without improper hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-28, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection of claims 1-8, 18-20, and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of claims 1-8, 18-20, and 22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 28-29, filed 06/01/2028, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Caldwell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights