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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/139,041 filed on 04/25/2023.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 25-26, 28-37, 39-41, 46-47, and 79-82 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 09/11/2026.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the RCE filed by the Applicant on 09/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 25-26, 28-35, 37, 41, 46-47, and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0299983 A1) in view of Bogdoll (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065637 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
A system for evaluating a navigation system of a host vehicle, the system comprising: at least one processor programmed to: acquire characteristics of one or more sensors included in the host vehicle;, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 5th-14th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 83rd, 119th, and 139th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
establish a testing domain, wherein the testing domain includes at least one mapped representation of a geographic region;, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 96th, 186th, 503rd, 542nd, and 590th-601st paragraphs))
determine whether one or more regions exist within the geographic region where outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
ensuring that each navigational action implemented by the navigation system of the host vehicle will not result in an accident for which the host vehicle is at fault., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 369th, 599th, 613th-616th, and 629th-635th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz does not teach but Bogdoll teaches:
simulate operation of the one or more sensors relative to the testing domain, wherein simulating operation of the one or more sensors includes generating, using a plurality of positions of the host vehicle along a target trajectory extending through the at least one mapped representation of the geographic region, a simulated output for the one or more sensors at that position, the simulated output including at least one of a simulated image, a simulated LIDAR output, or a simulated RADAR output; and based on the simulated output,, (See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz with these above aforementioned teachings from Bogdoll in order to create effective systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Bogdoll’s system for augmenting real sensor recordings with simulated sensor data in order to simulate operation of vehicle sensors includes generating a simulated output for the sensors. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Bogdoll would thus provide “an improved approach for generating scenarios from recorded sensor data by augmenting these with simulated sensor data.” (Bogdoll: Background of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the mapped representation of the geographic region includes, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 96th, 186th, 503rd, 542nd, and 590th-601st paragraphs))
[…] at least one of a two-dimensional representation of the geographic region or a three-dimensional representation of the geographic region., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 144th-145th, 159th, 182nd, and 543rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 4:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the host vehicle is an autonomous vehicle., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 5th-14th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 80th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 5:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
[…] evaluating at least one characteristic of the one or more sensors relative to the testing domain., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 5th-10th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 93rd-100th and 111th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz does not teach but Bogdoll teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the simulated operation of the one or more sensors includes, (See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz with these above aforementioned teachings from Bogdoll in order to create effective systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Bogdoll’s system for augmenting real sensor recordings with simulated sensor data in order to simulate operation of vehicle sensors includes generating a simulated output for the sensors. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Bogdoll would thus provide “an improved approach for generating scenarios from recorded sensor data by augmenting these with simulated sensor data.” (Bogdoll: Background of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the at least one characteristic includes at least one of a sensor type, a field of view, a depth of field, a dynamic range, or an angular resolution., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 5th-10th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 93rd-100th and 111th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 11:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the at least one characteristic includes an orientation relative to the host vehicle., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description –119th and 139th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 15:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include at least two of: a camera, a RADAR, or a LIDAR., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 148th-153rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 16:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one mapped representation of the geographical region includes, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 96th, 186th, 503rd, 542nd, and 590th-601st paragraphs))
[…] at least one of a road segment or an intersection., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 178th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 18:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the testing domain further includes one or more environmental conditions., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 294th-303rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 20:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 18. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the one or more environmental conditions includes an intensity level of a weather condition., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 294th-303rd and 538th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 22:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 18. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the one or more environmental conditions includes, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 294th-303rd paragraphs))
[…] an object and a location of the object., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 128th and 161st-170th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 25:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one mapped representation of the geographic region includes a road feature., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 96th, 186th, 503rd, 542nd, and 590th-601st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 26:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 25. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 25, wherein the road feature includes at least one of a road surface elevation change or a curve., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 167th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 28:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient based on an at least partially occluded field of view of the one or more sensors., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 538th-541st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 29:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient based on, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
[…] a range of the one or more sensors., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 111th, 120th, 128th, and 141st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 30:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient based on a light interference on the one or more sensors., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 31:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient based on an operational status of the one or more sensors., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 32:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for detecting an object., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 33:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 32, wherein the object includes a target vehicle., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 161st-170th and 352nd-367th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 34:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for identifying a road feature., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 35:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 34. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 34, wherein the road feature includes at least one of a curve or an elevation change., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 167th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 37:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 36. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 36, wherein the predetermined distance includes at least one of a lateral distance relative to the host vehicle or a longitudinal distance relative to the host vehicle., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 243rd, 261st, and 330th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 41:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 40. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
[…] at least one of: a change in a longitudinal distance between the host vehicle and the target vehicle, the simulated target speed of the target vehicle being less than the simulated host speed of the host vehicle; an acceleration of the host vehicle while the host vehicle travels behind the target vehicle; or a change in a travel lane of the host vehicle that results in the host vehicle traveling behind the target vehicle., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 235th, 243rd, 256th, 261st, 330th, and 354th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz does not teach but Bogdoll teaches:
The system of claim 40, wherein the simulated navigational action includes, (See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz with these above aforementioned teachings from Bogdoll in order to create effective systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Bogdoll’s system for augmenting real sensor recordings with simulated sensor data in order to simulate operation of vehicle sensors includes generating a simulated output for the sensors. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Bogdoll would thus provide “an improved approach for generating scenarios from recorded sensor data by augmenting these with simulated sensor data.” (Bogdoll: Background of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 46:
Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for evaluating a navigation system of a host vehicle, the method comprising: acquiring characteristics of one or more sensors included in the host vehicle;, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 5th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 83rd, 119th, and 139th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
establishing a testing domain, wherein the testing domain includes at least one mapped representation of a geographic region;, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 96th, 186th, 503rd, 542nd, and 590th-601st paragraphs))
determining whether one or more regions exist within the geographic region where outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
ensuring that each navigational action implemented by the navigation system of the host vehicle will not result in an accident for which the host vehicle is at fault., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 369th, 599th, 613th-616th, and 629th-635th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz does not teach but Bogdoll teaches:
simulating operation of the one or more sensors relative to the testing domain, wherein simulating operation of the one or more sensors includes generating, using a plurality of positions of the host vehicle along a target trajectory extending through the at least one mapped representation of the geographic region, a simulated output for the one or more sensors at that position, the simulated output including at least one of a simulated image, a simulated LIDAR output, or a simulated RADAR output; and based on the simulated output,, (See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz with these above aforementioned teachings from Bogdoll in order to create effective systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Bogdoll’s system for augmenting real sensor recordings with simulated sensor data in order to simulate operation of vehicle sensors includes generating a simulated output for the sensors. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Bogdoll would thus provide “an improved approach for generating scenarios from recorded sensor data by augmenting these with simulated sensor data.” (Bogdoll: Background of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 47:
Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
A method for evaluating a navigation system of a host vehicle, the method comprising: acquiring characteristics of one or more sensors included in the host vehicle;, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 5th-14th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 83rd, 119th, and 139th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
establishing a testing domain, wherein the testing domain includes at least one mapped representation of a geographic region;, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 96th, 186th, 503rd, 542nd, and 590th-601st paragraphs))
determining whether one or more regions exist within the geographic region where outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 504th and 538th-541st paragraphs))
ensuring that each navigational action implemented by the navigation system of the host vehicle will not result in an accident for which the host vehicle is at fault., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 369th, 599th, 613th-616th, and 629th-635th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz does not teach but Bogdoll teaches:
simulating operation of the one or more sensors relative to the testing domain, wherein simulating operation of the one or more sensors includes generating, using a plurality of positions of the host vehicle along a target trajectory extending through the at least one mapped representation of the geographic region, a simulated output for the one or more sensors at that position, the simulated output including at least one of a simulated image, a simulated LIDAR output, or a simulated RADAR output; and based on the simulated output,, (See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz with these above aforementioned teachings from Bogdoll in order to create effective systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Bogdoll’s system for augmenting real sensor recordings with simulated sensor data in order to simulate operation of vehicle sensors includes generating a simulated output for the sensors. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Bogdoll would thus provide “an improved approach for generating scenarios from recorded sensor data by augmenting these with simulated sensor data.” (Bogdoll: Background of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 79:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 46. Shalev-Shwartz does not teach but Bogdoll teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 46, wherein the simulated operation of the one or more sensors includes evaluating at least one characteristic of the one or more sensors relative to the testing domain., (See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz with these above aforementioned teachings from Bogdoll in order to create effective systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Bogdoll’s system for augmenting real sensor recordings with simulated sensor data in order to simulate operation of vehicle sensors includes generating a simulated output for the sensors. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Bogdoll would thus provide “an improved approach for generating scenarios from recorded sensor data by augmenting these with simulated sensor data.” (Bogdoll: Background of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Claims 36, 39-40, and 80-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0299983 A1) in view of Bogdoll (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065637 A1) in further view of Timmons (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0190972 A1).
Regarding Claim 36:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the host vehicle is at fault when, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 369th, 599th, 613th-616th, and 629th-635th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll does not teach but Timmons teaches:
[…] the host vehicle traveling at a simulated host speed cannot maintain a predetermined distance relative to a target vehicle traveling at a simulated target vehicle speed., (See (Timmons: Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 141st-154th paragraphs, FIG. 27-42))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll with these above aforementioned teachings from Timmons in order to create safe systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Timmons’s grid unlock system in order to simulate a host vehicle speed relative to a target vehicle. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Timmons would thus provide “systems for detecting the presence of stationary and non-stationary objects in the vicinity of a traveling vehicle, and controlling vehicle operational parameters in response to the presence of such objects.” (Timmons: Technical Field – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 39:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the host vehicle is at fault when, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 369th, 599th, 613th-616th, and 629th-635th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll does not teach but Timmons teaches:
[…] the host vehicle traveling at a simulated host speed cannot maintain a predetermined distance relative to one or more objects associated with geographical region., (See (Timmons: Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 141st-154th paragraphs, FIG. 27-42))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll with these above aforementioned teachings from Timmons in order to create safe systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Timmons’s grid unlock system in order to simulate a host vehicle speed relative to a target vehicle. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Timmons would thus provide “systems for detecting the presence of stationary and non-stationary objects in the vicinity of a traveling vehicle, and controlling vehicle operational parameters in response to the presence of such objects.” (Timmons: Technical Field – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 40:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the host vehicle is at fault when, (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Detailed Description – 369th, 599th, 613th-616th, and 629th-635th paragraphs))
[…] summed together with a simulated target travel distance of a target vehicle determined based on a simulated target speed of the target vehicle and an assumed maximum braking capability of the target vehicle., (See (Shalev-Shwartz: Summary – 11th-12th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 441st and 602nd-610th paragraphs))
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll does not teach but Timmons teaches:
[…] the host vehicle travels at a simulated host speed and undertakes a simulated navigational action, and wherein a simulated stopping distance for the host vehicle exceeds a simulated next-state distance of the host vehicle after undertaking the simulated navigational action […], (See (Timmons: Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 141st-154th paragraphs, FIG. 27-42))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll with these above aforementioned teachings from Timmons in order to create safe systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Timmons’s grid unlock system in order to simulate a host vehicle speed relative to a target vehicle. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Timmons would thus provide “systems for detecting the presence of stationary and non-stationary objects in the vicinity of a traveling vehicle, and controlling vehicle operational parameters in response to the presence of such objects.” (Timmons: Technical Field – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 80:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 79. Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll does not teach but Timmons teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 79, wherein the at least one characteristic includes at least one of a sensor type, a field of view, a depth of field, a dynamic range, or an angular resolution., (See (Timmons: Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 75th and 182nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll with these above aforementioned teachings from Timmons in order to create safe systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Timmons’s grid unlock system in order to simulate a host vehicle speed relative to a target vehicle. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Timmons would thus provide “systems for detecting the presence of stationary and non-stationary objects in the vicinity of a traveling vehicle, and controlling vehicle operational parameters in response to the presence of such objects.” (Timmons: Technical Field – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 81:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 47. Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll does not teach but Timmons teaches:
The method of claim 47, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient based on an at least partially occluded field of view of the one or more sensors., (See (Timmons: Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 75th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll with these above aforementioned teachings from Timmons in order to create safe systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Timmons’s grid unlock system in order to simulate a host vehicle speed relative to a target vehicle. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Timmons would thus provide “systems for detecting the presence of stationary and non-stationary objects in the vicinity of a traveling vehicle, and controlling vehicle operational parameters in response to the presence of such objects.” (Timmons: Technical Field – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 82:
Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 47. Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll does not teach but Timmons teaches:
The method of claim 47, wherein the outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for detecting an object., (See (Timmons: Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 75th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shalev-Shwartz in view of Bogdoll with these above aforementioned teachings from Timmons in order to create safe systems and methods for evaluating domain-specific navigation system capabilities. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s safe state system for safe state navigation with Timmons’s grid unlock system in order to simulate a host vehicle speed relative to a target vehicle. Combining Shalev-Shwartz and Timmons would thus provide “systems for detecting the presence of stationary and non-stationary objects in the vicinity of a traveling vehicle, and controlling vehicle operational parameters in response to the presence of such objects.” (Timmons: Technical Field – 1st paragraph)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 11th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in Bogdoll as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, See (Bogdoll: Detailed Description – 17th-21st, 41st-43rd, 48th-60th, and 63rd-74th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-7C) In doing so, Bogdoll addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “generating, using a plurality of positions of the host vehicle along a target trajectory extending through the at least one mapped representation of the geographic region, a simulated output for the one or more sensors at that position, the simulated output including at least one of a simulated image, a simulated LIDAR output, or a simulated RADAR output” as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claims 46-47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
