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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025, 11/12/2025, and 11/19/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 15, each have been amended to include “determining, based on the information representative of the environment of the vehicle, vehicle processing resources, and vehicle battery resources, a current scenario of the environment of the vehicle”, wherein the underlined portions reflect the newly added material. However, when looking to the published application, particularly paragraphs [0020], [0092], [0098]-[0100], and [0103], it is clear that vehicle processing resources and vehicle battery resources are altered based on a current scenario (i.e. after the current scenario has been determined) and nowhere does it state that such resources are used to determine the current scenario. This is further exemplified in Figure 6, steps 604-606 which shows that resources are altered post the current scenario being determined and Figure 5 which show current vehicle status, which could includes current resources, is sent to controller 508 and not to scenario recognition 506. Furthermore, the other cited paragraphs make it clear that the current scenario is based on what is going on in the environment surrounding the vehicle (e.g. if there are multiple pedestrians per paragraph [0020]) and not resources as currently claimed. In the Reply, Applicant contends that paragraphs [96]-[98] (which correspond to paragraphs [0097]-[0099] of the published application) teach these limitations. However, the only scenarios listed in those paragraphs are inline with the above interpretation of scenario and state that the claimed resources are adjusted after the scenario has been determined.
Based on the above findings, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the amended portions of the independent claims constitute new matter. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependence on the independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0088647 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912.
Regarding claim 1, Ingram teaches a vehicle (see Ingram Figure 1 and paragraph [0034]), comprising:
at least one computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; at least one processor communicatively coupled to at least one sensor and configured to execute the computer executable instructions, the execution carrying out operations (see Figure 1, processor 152 and memory 154 and paragraph [0057]) comprising:
obtaining, from the at least one sensor (see Figure 1, lidar sensor 120 and radar sensor 130), information representative of an environment surrounding the vehicle (see Figure 2, sensor data 202 and 204 and paragraph [0061]);
determining, based on the information representative of the environment of the vehicle, a current scenario of the environment of the vehicle (see Figure 2, steps 210 to 220 and paragraph [0066]);
determining, based on the current scenario, a level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see Figure 2, step 230 and paragraphs [0068] and [0078]); and
adjusting at least one parameter associated with the at least one sensor based on the level of computational resources (see Figure 1, step 240 and paragraphs [0068] and [0078]).
Ingram does not expressively teach determining, based on vehicle processing resources, and vehicle battery resources, a current scenario of the environment.
However, Sharma in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system (see Sharma Figure 1A) configured for determining a current scenario of a device environment and determining, based on the current scenario, a level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see paragraph [0043]) as taught in Ingram further configured for
determining, based on device processing resources, and device battery resources, [the] current scenario of the environment (see paragraph [0043]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of using processing and battery resourced for determining a current scenario as taught in Sharma with the system taught in Lee, the motivation being to ensure higher resources are available before making resource adjustments thereby ensuring the adjustments can be made.
Independent claims 10 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the operations comprising determining information about the current vehicle status, wherein the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario is determined based at least in part on the current vehicle status (see Ingram paragraph [0066]).
Claims 13 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 4, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a LIDAR sensor (see Ingram Figure 2, lidar sensor 120), and the at least one parameter comprises a rotational frequency of the LIDAR sensor (see Ingram paragraph [0068], wherein scan rate for lidar is well known in the art to by synonymous with rotational frequency).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0017111 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a vehicle (see Lee Abstract), comprising:
at least one computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; at least one processor communicatively coupled to at least one sensor and configured to execute the computer executable instructions, the execution carrying out operations (see paragraph [0141]) comprising:
obtaining, from the at least one sensor, information representative of the environment of the vehicle (see Figure 2, s23);
determining, based on the information representative of the environment of the vehicle, a current scenario of the environment of the vehicle (see Figure 2, s24);
determining, based on the current scenario, a level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see Figure 2, s25 and paragraph [0074]); and
adjusting at least one parameter associated with the at least one sensor based on the level of computational resources (see paragraph [0077]).
Lee does not expressively teach determining, based on vehicle processing resources, and vehicle battery resources, a current scenario of the environment.
However, Sharma in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system (see Sharma Figure 1A) configured for determining a current scenario of a device environment and determining, based on the current scenario, a level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see paragraph [0043]) as taught in Lee further configured for
determining, based on device processing resources, and device battery resources, [the] current scenario of the environment (see paragraph [0043]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of using processing and battery resourced for determining a current scenario as taught in Sharma with the system taught in Lee, the motivation being to ensure higher resources are available before making resource adjustments thereby ensuring the adjustments can be made.
Independent claims 10 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the operations comprising determining information about the current vehicle status, wherein the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario is determined based at least in part on the current vehicle status (see Lee paragraphs [0093]-[0094]).
Claims 13 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 4, and are rejected under similar rationale.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and McDermott et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,511,878.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a camera (see Lee paragraph [0112]).
Lee does not expressively teach the at least one parameter comprises a frame rate of the camera.
However, McDermott in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle comprising a camera (see McDermott Abstract), wherein the vehicle is configured to adjust at least one parameter of the camera based on computational resources (see column 4, lines 61-67 and column 5, lines 1-5) as taught in Lee and further teaches
the at least one parameter comprises a frame rate of the camera (see column 5, lines 7-8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the adjustment of the at least one parameter of the camera taught in Lee in view of Sharma with the teaching of adjusting a frame rate of a camera based on computation resources as taught in McDermott to yield the predictable results of successfully lowering power in the system.
Claims 2, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0088647 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and Dong et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409912.
Regarding claim 2, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein determining the current scenario of the environment of the vehicle comprises providing the information representative of the environment of the vehicle to at least one machine learning model, wherein providing the information causes the at least one machine learning model to generate at least one output associated with the current scenario.
However, Dong in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle (see Dong Figure 1B, vehicle 152) configured to determine a current scenario of an environment of the vehicle (see Figure 1B, encode environment information step to determine scenario information step) based on at least one sensor (see paragraph [0024]) as taught in Ingram in view of Sharma wherein determining the current scenario of the environment of the vehicle comprises
providing the information representative of the environment of the vehicle to at least one machine learning model (see Figure 3E, machine learning model 328 with input 327 and paragraph [0025], “The sensor data can be captured by the vehicle 301 over some period of time at pre-defined time intervals. In some embodiments, the schema encoding module 206 can analyze the captured sensor data to determine the presence of agents within the environment 300, such as a first agent vehicle 303 (“Car 1”), a second agent vehicle 304 (“Car 2”), a third agent vehicle 305 (“Car 3”), and pedestrians 306. For example, one or more machine learning models can be trained to recognize agents within the environment 300 based on the captured sensor data, such as image data capture by optical cameras of the vehicle 301, point clouds captured by a LiDAR system in the vehicle 301, and radar data captured by a radar system in the vehicle 301, to name some examples”), wherein providing the information causes the at least one machine learning model to generate at least one output associated with the current scenario (see Figure 3E, output 329 and paragraph [0028], “The machine learning model 328 can evaluate the schema-based encoding 327 to determine scenario information 329 associated with the environment during the period of time. For example, the machine learning model 328 can be trained to determine scenario families, scenario sub-families, and individual scenarios based upon an evaluation of the schema-based encoding 327”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of using a machine learning model for analyzing the information representative of the environment as taught in Dong with the system taught in Ingram in view of Sharma, the motivation being to utilize the processing capabilities and accuracy of such systems for high accuracy outputs in the vehicle.
Claims 11 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 2, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3, 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0088647 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and Beck et al, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0153635.
Regarding claim 3, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein determining the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario comprises accessing an entry of a look-up table, the entry corresponding to the current scenario, and wherein the at least one parameter is adjusted based on information associated with the entry.
However, Beck in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle (see Beck Figure 1) configured to determine a level of computational resources appropriate for a current scenario involving the vehicle and adjusting at least one parameter based on the current scenario (see paragraph [0005]) as taught in Ingram in view of Sharma wherein determining the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario comprises
accessing an entry of a look-up table, the entry corresponding to the current scenario, and wherein the at least one parameter is adjusted based on information associated with the entry (see paragraph [0011]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of using a look-up table for adjusting a parameter as taught in Beck with the system taught in Ingram in view of Sharma, the motivation being to allow adjustments to be made to the look-up table entries based on real world data thereby allowing the system to be dynamic.
Claims 12 and 17 recite similar limitations as claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach a communications network, the operations comprising adjusting a bandwidth of the communications network based on the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario.
However, Beck in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle (see Beck Figure 1) configured to perform operations such as determining a level of computational resources appropriate for a current scenario involving the vehicle and adjusting at least one parameter based on the current scenario (see paragraph [0005]) as taught in Ingram in view of Sharma further comprising
a communications network, the operations comprising adjusting a bandwidth of the communications network based on the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see paragraph [0011]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of adjusting bandwidth of communications as taught in Beck with the system taught in Ingram, the motivation being to allow further power savings in the system via such an adjustment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0088647 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and Zaidi, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0072969.
Regarding claim 7, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach a power supply, the operations comprising adjusting a voltage of the power supply based on the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario.
However, Zaidi in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system comprising operations to control a radar system (see Zaidi Figure 6 and paragraph [0009]) that is adjusted based on a level of computation resources appropriate for a current scenario it is to operate under (see paragraph [0040]) as taught in Ingram in view of Sharma further comprising
a power supply, the operations comprising adjusting a voltage of the power supply based on the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see Figure 6, power control 612 and paragraph [0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of a power supply controlling power for a radar system as taught in Zaidi with the vehicle comprising a radar system with adjustable power taught in Ingram in view of Sharma, the motivation being to have more direct control over individual components of the radar system thereby being able to have more granularity in what has decreased power.
Claims 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0088647 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and Yoo et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0272149.
Regarding claim 9, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach the operations comprising adjusting a clock speed of the processor based on the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario.
However, Yoo in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle (see Yoo Figure 1 and paragraph [0023]) comprising a processor (see Figure 1, processor 112) configured to execute operations (see paragraph [0026]) based on a level of computation resources appropriate for a current scenario of the vehicle (see paragraph [0051]) as taught in Ingram in view of Sharma the operations comprising
adjusting a clock speed of the processor based on the level of computational resources appropriate for the current scenario (see paragraph [0051]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of adjusting a clock speed of a processor based on a current scenario as taught in Yoo with the system taught in Ingram in view of Sharma, the motivation being to have more direct control over the processor power specifically in the system thereby being able to have more granularity in what has decreased or increased power.
Claims 14 and 19 recite similar limitations as claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0088647 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and Abdelmoneum, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0237504.
Regarding claim 20, Ingram in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not expressively teach wherein vehicle processing resources are embodied on a first system-on-chip (SoC) and vehicle battery resources are embodied on a second SoC.
However, Abdelmoneum in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with processing resources and battery resources (see Abdelmoneum paragraph [0142]) as taught in Ingram in view of Sharma wherein
processing resources are embodied on a first system-on-chip (SoC) and battery resources are embodied on a second SoC (see paragraph [0142]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of separate SoCs for resources as taught in Abdelmoneum with the system taught in Ingram in view of Sharma, the motivation being to decentralize the system thereby easing faults when they occur.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0017111 in view of Sharma et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232912 and Abdelmoneum, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0237504.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not expressively teach wherein vehicle processing resources are embodied on a first system-on-chip (SoC) and vehicle battery resources are embodied on a second SoC.
However, Abdelmoneum in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with processing resources and battery resources (see Abdelmoneum paragraph [0142]) as taught in Lee in view of Sharma wherein
processing resources are embodied on a first system-on-chip (SoC) and battery resources are embodied on a second SoC (see paragraph [0142]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of separate SoCs for resources as taught in Abdelmoneum with the system taught in Lee in view of Sharma, the motivation being to decentralize the system thereby easing faults when they occur.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635