DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is filed in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendment dated September 4, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-12, 14-15, and 18-20 are currently amended and claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered by Examiner.
In view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-12, 15, and 18-20 are withdrawn. Contrary to Applicant assertion in the Remarks at p. 7, claim 13 remains unamended and claims 14 and 16-17 inherit the unresolved deficiency of claims 12 and 13 (see the Claim Rejections -- 35 USC § 112(b) section below).
In view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the 35 USC 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Although Applicant states on p. 7 of the Remarks that a Terminal Disclaimer has been filed to overcome the Double Patenting rejections, no Terminal Disclaimer has been filed. Accordingly, the Double Patenting rejections are maintained (see the Double Patenting section below).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered, but are not persuasive, as detailed below in the Prior Art Argument - Rejections section. To the extent that Applicant has amended these claims, additional clarification has been provided below where necessary to further point out that the prior art of record cited in the previous Office Action discloses the claimed limitations as currently amended.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
Prior Art Arguments – Rejections
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered by Examiner, but they are moot and/or not persuasive, as follows:
With respect to claim 1, Applicant first argues “Partridge does not disclose an object editing node for parameterizing an interaction of a challenger object relative to an ego object. For instance, Partridge [0019] mentions that ‘details of desired autonomous vehicle simulations are received from a user’ via an interface, and notes that scenario details and presence of traffic may be detailed. Partridge [0078] mentions that ‘[d]ynamic actors may include, for example, traffic vehicles (e.g., cars, trucks, buses, etc.), bicyclists, pedestrians, and other third-party actors relative to the ego vehicle.’ While this passage uses the language, ‘relative to the ego vehicle,’ Partridge is merely indicating that its dynamic actors are third parties relative to the ego. There remains no disclosure in Partridge of parametrizing interactions relative to the ego.”1 Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that “During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’ … Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. In contrast, an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim … Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (‘During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.’)” (See MPEP § 2111).
In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard that must be applied during examination, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to Partridge’s disclosure of a user interface for entering aspects of a desired simulation that includes the “ego vehicle” and other “dynamic actors” (emphasis added) that are “relative to the ego vehicle.”2 In Partridge, the user is not merely defining stationary third-party actors relative to the ego vehicle, but rather “dynamic” third-party actors, meaning that they are moving relative to the ego vehicle, i.e., a user defines a scenario by entering information “parametrizing interactions relative to the ego.” If there is a specific meaning that Applicant would like to be given to an “interaction” beyond that it is “relative to the ego vehicle,” Examiner suggests amending the claim accordingly.
Applicant next argues “Partridge also fails to disclose ‘user input defining at least one temporal or relational constraint of the challenger object relative to the ego object’ as recited by claim 1. While Partridge mentions parameterization of environmental factors (e.g., Partridge [0022]) and sensor settings, the reference does not describe constraints that tie the challenger's timing or position relative to the ego vehicle.”3 In response, Examiner again notes the broadest reasonable interpretation standard that must be applied during examination. In view of this standard, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the portions of Partridge disclosing that a user defines a scenario by detailing “a specific circumstance or event for which the user would like to test the autonomous vehicle. For example, the user may detail the presence of traffic vehicles and/or pedestrians taking specific actions at specific times”4 (emphasis added) and that the third-party actors are “dynamic”5 and “relative to the ego vehicle.”6 In short, Partridge describes defining a scenario to test a specific circumstance or event for the ego vehicle such that dynamic third-party actors that are relative to the ego vehicle take specific actions at specific times, i.e., “user input defining at least one temporal or relational constraint of the challenger object relative to the ego object,” as claimed. If Applicant would like a specific meaning to be given to “temporal or relational constraint” beyond what is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner suggests amending the claim accordingly.
Lastly, Applicant argues “Partridge also fails to disclose the claimed ‘interaction point’ and ‘interaction stage,’ as scenarios in Partridge are not defined based on interactions relative to the ego.” However, for the reasons set forth above, Partridge does disclose defining a scenario based on interactions relative to the ego vehicle.
For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
With respect to all other claims, Applicant references the arguments made with respect to claim 1, which are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
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. For example, claim 8 recites, “step of selecting a static topology.” 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.
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 12, 13, 14, and 16-17 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.
With respect to claim 12, line 1 recites “the ego vehicle.” However, there is no previously recited “ego vehicle” and it is unclear if this means “the ego object,” as previously recited on line 7 of claim 1. The claim is therefore indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claim 13 as reciting “the ego object”.
With respect to claim 13, line 3 recites “the ego vehicle.” However, there is no previously recited “ego vehicle” and it is unclear if this means “the ego object,” as previously recited on line 7 of claim 1. The claim is therefore indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claim 13 as reciting “the ego object”.
With respect to claims 14 and 16-17, each inherits the 35 USC 112(b) deficiency of claim 13 identified above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/274,259 (reference application) in view of Partridge et al. (US 20200250363, hereinafter Partridge), as illustrated with the help of the following table:
Instant Application
Reference App. No. 18/274,259
1. A computer implemented method of generating a scenario to be run in a simulation environment for testing a behaviour of an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
rendering on a display of a computer device, an image of a static scene topology;
rendering on the display an object editing node comprising a set of input fields for receiving user input, the object editing node for parameterizing an interaction of a challenger object relative to an ego object;
receiving into the set of input fields of the object editing node user input defining at least one temporal or relational constraint of the challenger object relative to the ego object, the at least one temporal or relational constraint defining an interaction point of a defined interaction stage between the ego object and the challenger object;
storing the at least one temporal or relational constraint and the defined interaction stage in an interaction container in a computer memory of a computer system;
generating scenario data of a scenario to be run in a simulation environment, the scenario comprising the defined interaction stage executed on the static scene topology at the interaction point; and
[performing a simulation of the scenario by a scenario runtime module based on the scenario data, to generate runtime output data].
Claims 18 and 19. (text omitted as being substantially similar to claim 1).
1. A computer implemented method for generating a simulation environment for testing an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
…
providing to a simulator a dynamic layer of the scenario comprising parameters of the dynamic interaction…
8. (Currently Amended) The method claim 1, wherein the step of generating the scenario comprises:
rendering on a display of a computer device, an image of the static scene topology;
rendering on the display an object editing node comprising a set of input fields for receiving user input, the object editing node for parametrising an interaction of a challenger object relative to an ego object;
receiving into the input fields of the object editing node using input defining at least one temporal or relational constraint of the challenger object relative to the ego object, the at least one temporal or relational constraint defining an interaction point of a defined interaction stage between the ego object and the challenger object;
storing the set of constraints and defined interactions stage in an interaction container in a computer memory of the computer system; and
generating the scenario, the scenario comprising the defined interaction stage executed on the static scene topology at the interaction point.
8. The method of claim 1 comprising a step of selecting the static scene topology from a library of predefined scene topologies, and rendering the selected static scene topology on the display.
9. The method of claim 8 comprising the step of selecting the static scene topology from a library of predefined scene topologies, and rendering the selected scene topology on the display.
With respect to claims 1, 18, and 19, As can be seen in the table above, the reference claims disclose all of the limitations except for the following, which is taught in analogous art, Partridge: performing a simulation of the scenario by a scenario runtime module based on the scenario data, to generate runtime output data (e.g., Fig. 2 and associated text, e.g., [0058], at block 206, executing a plurality of simulations, each corresponding to a respective value of the variable parameter; [0061], test simulation may be recorded such that the simulation may be replayed in one or more forms to a user; [0063], outputting one or more of the recorded simulations for a user. Outputting a recorded simulation may include, for example, displaying the recorded simulation, transmitting the recorded simulation, or other form of output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge because “advantageously enables a user to provide a component of an autonomous vehicle control system—e.g., a specific sensor, a specific sensor arrangement, a specific vehicle control strategy for a specific event—and thoroughly test that component under a wide range of environmental conditions and/or in combination with a wide range of the other components of the autonomous vehicle control system,” as suggested by Partridge (see [0042]).
These are provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to claim 7, the reference claim does not appear to disclose wherein the static scene topology comprises a road layout. However, this is further taught in Partridge (e.g., Figs. 1-6 and associated text, e.g., [0073], FIG. 6 is an example simulated urban roadway scene 600 [wherein the static scene topology comprises a road layout] that may find use with the method 500 of FIG. 5; see also [0021] and [0048].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 8, As can be seen in the table above, the limitations are disclosed in claim 9 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 12, the reference claim does not appear to disclose rendering on the display an ego object editing node for parameterizing the ego vehicle in the scenario by receiving a starting condition of the ego object and behaviour constraints for the ego object prior to the interaction point. However, this is further taught in Partridge (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0025] In the Designer, the user may also specify a starting location for the ego vehicle [rendering on the display an ego object editing node for parameterizing the ego vehicle in the scenario by receiving a starting condition of the ego vehicle], as well as an intended destination and/or desired path for the ego vehicle through the road network [behaviour constraints for the ego object prior to the interaction point]; see also [0077-78].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 13, the reference claim does not appear to disclose wherein the challenger object comprises a dynamic actor, wherein the interaction defines an action to be taken by the dynamic actor at a time and location in the scene relative to the ego vehicle defined by the at least one temporal or relational constraint. However, this is further taught in Partridge (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., and associated text, e.g., [0019], Designer 102 [rendering on the display] comprises an interface through which the details of desired autonomous vehicle simulations are received from a user; [0021], The user may enter aspects including scenario details and vehicle details. A scenario may include one or more scenes—each including, e.g., a road network, weather and other environmental details, stationary obstacles, other static details of the virtual environment in which the simulations will take place, and dynamic actors in the scene, including pedestrian and vehicle traffic [wherein the challenger object comprises a dynamic actor]; [0022], the user may detail the presence of traffic vehicles and/or pedestrians taking specific actions at specific times [wherein the interaction defines an action to be taken by the dynamic actor at a time and location in the scene relative to the ego vehicle defined by the at least one temporal or relational constraint]; [0078] The method 500 may further include, at block 506, placing one or more dynamic actors and setting behaviors of the one or more dynamic actors in the test scenario. Dynamic actors may include, for example, traffic vehicles (e.g., cars, trucks, buses, etc.), bicyclists, pedestrians, and other third-party actors relative to the ego vehicle; see also [0027] and [0071].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 15, the reference claim does not appear to disclose storing the interaction container with an interaction container identifier which identifies the defined interaction stage and the scene topology. However, this is further taught in Partridge (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and 11 along with associated text, e.g., [0059], executing a simulation may include creating a simulation engine container instance, which container instance includes the scenario of the simulation and remaining test simulation parameter set [the defined interaction stage and the scene topology]; [0085], The simulation engine container instance may be specific to a set of test parameter values [an interaction container identifier]; see also [0054], [0082], and [0086].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/274,181 (reference application) in view of Partridge, as illustrated with the help of the following table:
Instant Application
Reference App. No. 18/274,181
1. A computer implemented method of generating a scenario to be run in a simulation environment for testing a behaviour of an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
rendering on a display of a computer device, an image of a static scene topology;
rendering on the display an object editing node comprising a set of input fields for receiving user input, the object editing node for parameterizing an interaction of a challenger object relative to an ego object;
receiving into the set of input fields of the object editing node user input defining at least one temporal or relational constraint of the challenger object relative to the ego object, the at least one temporal or relational constraint defining an interaction point of a defined interaction stage between the ego object and the challenger object;
storing the at least one temporal or relational constraint and the defined interaction stage in an interaction container in a computer memory of a computer system;
generating scenario data of a scenario to be run in a simulation environment, the scenario comprising the defined interaction stage executed on the static scene topology at the interaction point; and
[performing a simulation of the scenario by a scenario runtime module based on the scenario data, to generate runtime output data].
Claims 18 and 19. (text omitted as being substantially similar to claim 1).
1. A computer implemented method of generating a scenario to be run in a simulation environment for testing the behaviour of an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
rendering on the display of a computer device an interactive visualisation of a scenario model for editing, the scenario model comprising one or more interaction between an ego vehicle object and one or more dynamic challenger objects, each interaction defined as a set of temporal and/ or relational constraints between the dynamic ego object and at least one of the challenger objects, wherein the scenario model comprises a scene topology and the interactive visualisation comprises scene objects including the ego vehicle and the at least one challenger object displayed in the scene topology;
…
generating on the display an interactive visualisation of the scene topology and scene objects of the scenario displayed at the selected time instant.
5. displaying to a user at an editing user interface of the computer device the set of temporal and/or relational constraints defining one or more of the interactions presented in the scenario, and receiving user input which edits one or more of the set of temporal and/or relational constraints for each one or more of the interactions; and
regenerating and rendering on the display a new interactive visualisation of the scenario, comprising the one or more edited interaction.
With respect to claims 1, 18, and 19, Although some of the limitations presented in the table above in bold differ between the instant claims and references claims (see table above), the limitations in bold of the instant claims are nonetheless taught by the reference claim. For example, the instant claims recite “receiving into the set of input fields of the object editing node user input defining at least one temporal or relational constraint of the challenger object relative to the ego object, the at least one temporal or relational constraint defining an interaction point of a defined interaction stage between the ego object and the challenger object,” which is taught by “the scenario model comprising one or more interaction between an ego vehicle object and one or more dynamic challenger objects, each interaction defined as a set of temporal and/ or relational constraints between the dynamic ego object and at least one of the challenger object, as recited in reference claim 1, and “displaying to a user at an editing user interface of the computer device the set of temporal and/or relational constraints defining one or more of the interactions presented in the scenario, and receiving user input which edits one or more of the set of temporal and/or relational constraints for each one or more of the interactions,” as recited in reference claim 5, which depends from claim 1.
As can be seen in the table above, the reference claims do not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Partridge: performing a simulation of the scenario by a scenario runtime module based on the scenario data, to generate runtime output data (e.g., Fig. 2 and associated text, e.g., [0058], at block 206, executing a plurality of simulations, each corresponding to a respective value of the variable parameter; [0061], test simulation may be recorded such that the simulation may be replayed in one or more forms to a user; [0063], outputting one or more of the recorded simulations for a user. Outputting a recorded simulation may include, for example, displaying the recorded simulation, transmitting the recorded simulation, or other form of output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge because “advantageously enables a user to provide a component of an autonomous vehicle control system—e.g., a specific sensor, a specific sensor arrangement, a specific vehicle control strategy for a specific event—and thoroughly test that component under a wide range of environmental conditions and/or in combination with a wide range of the other components of the autonomous vehicle control system,” as suggested by Partridge (see [0042]).
These are provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to claim 8 the reference claim does not appear to disclose a step of selecting the static scene topology from a library of predefined scene topologies, and rendering the selected static scene topology on the display. However, this is further taught in Partridge (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0021], the user may select from a predetermined set of scenario details (e.g., a predetermined road network, such as a freeway, urban block, parking lot, etc.) [selecting a static scene topology from a library of predefined scene topologies]; [0073], FIG. 6 is an example simulated urban roadway scene 600 [rendering]; see also [0048].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claims 7, 12, 13, 15, please see the rejection above over Application No. 18/274,259 in view of Partridge as the rejections are substantially similar.
These are provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejections.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/274,259 in view Partridge, and further in view of Amelunxen et al. (US 20190295335, hereinafter Amelunxen).
With respect to claim 2, The reference claims do not appear to disclose wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of a defined interaction for the challenger object to execute in the scenario. However, this is taught in analogous art, Amelunxen (e.g., Figs. 1-4, [0065], The GUI is part of a piece of software for creating a simulation environment. According to the example of FIG. 4, maneuver definition corresponds to the test vehicle E, denoted by “Ego,” and a plurality of “fellow” vehicles [challenger object].… For each fellow, there is also a second text input field. This second text input field is labeled “vehicle maneuver” [a field for receiving an indication of a defined interaction for the challenger object to execute in the scenario]; see also [0062] and [0064].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of the reference claim with the invention of Amelunxen such that the user interface uses input fields because “there is apparent interest in technologies which are applicable to simulating different traffic situations for a test vehicle,” as suggested by Amelunxen (see [0011]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 3, Amelunxen further teaches wherein the set of input fields comprises an input field for receiving an indication of a manner in which the defined interaction is to be executed in the scenario (e.g., Figs.1-4, [0062], As such, if a situation has been detected in which a vehicle [challenger object] is in front of the test vehicle E, and in which the left-hand and right-hand lanes are occupied by further vehicles, the vehicle ahead of the test vehicle can have heavy braking imparted to it [an indication of the manner in which the defined interaction is to be executed in the scenario]. The braking delay can be to be configured beforehand, and can be varied in different runs of the simulation. Such is depicted schematically in FIG. 2; [0065], FIG. 4, in particular, depicts the input of traffic situation entries which correspond to the example discussed hereinabove in connection with FIG. 2. The GUI is part of a piece of software for creating a simulation environment. According to the example of FIG. 4, maneuver definition corresponds to the test vehicle E, denoted by “Ego,” and a plurality of “fellow” vehicles [challenger object].… For each fellow, there is also a second text input field. This second text input field is labeled “vehicle maneuver. The “vehicle maneuver” field for a given fellow can be used to define a maneuver that the fellow performs once all of the target specifications, set via the corresponding “requirements” text input field, have been met [wherein the set of input fields comprises an input field for receiving an indication of the manner in which the defined interaction is to be executed in the scenario]; see also [0064].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of the reference claim with the invention of Amelunxen for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 4, The reference claims do not appear to disclose wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of a behavior of the challenger object at the interaction point. However, this is taught in analogous art, Amelunxen (e.g., Figs. 1-4, [0062], As such, if a situation has been detected in which a vehicle [challenger object] is in front of the test vehicle E, and in which the left-hand and right-hand lanes are occupied by further vehicles, the vehicle ahead of the test vehicle can have heavy braking imparted to it [an indication of a behavior of the challenger object at the interaction point]. The braking delay can be to be configured beforehand, and can be varied in different runs of the simulation. Such is depicted schematically in FIG. 2; [0065], FIG. 4, in particular, depicts the input of traffic situation entries which correspond to the example discussed hereinabove in connection with FIG. 2. The GUI is part of a piece of software for creating a simulation environment. According to the example of FIG. 4, maneuver definition corresponds to the test vehicle E, denoted by “Ego,” and a plurality of “fellow” vehicles [challenger object].… For each fellow, there is also a second text input field. This second text input field is labeled “vehicle maneuver. The “vehicle maneuver” field for a given fellow can be used to define a maneuver that the fellow performs once all of the target specifications, set via the corresponding “requirements” text input field, have been met [wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of a behavior of the challenger object at the interaction point].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of the reference claim with the invention of Amelunxen such that the user interface uses input fields “there is apparent interest in technologies which are applicable to simulating different traffic situations for a test vehicle,” as suggested by Amelunxen (see [0011]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 5, the reference claim does not appear to disclose wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of an object type. However, in analogous art, Partridge teaches wherein the set of input [fields] comprises a [field] for receiving an indication of an object type e.g., Fig. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0023] As noted above, through the Designer 102, the user may also specify vehicle details that is, details of an autonomous vehicle under test (which may be referred to in this disclosure as the “ego vehicle”). The vehicle details may include, for example, the type; [0026], [0026] Through the Designer 102, the user may define one or more parameterized features of the scenario or the vehicle. For example, one or more of the following features may be parameterized: … vehicle type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge because “advantageously enables a user to provide a component of an autonomous vehicle control system—e.g., a specific sensor, a specific sensor arrangement, a specific vehicle control strategy for a specific event—and thoroughly test that component under a wide range of environmental conditions and/or in combination with a wide range of the other components of the autonomous vehicle control system,” as suggested by Partridge (see [0042]).
Furthermore, in analogous art, Amelunxen teaches fields e.g., Fig. 4, particularly Ego requirements, Fellow 1 requirements, vehicle maneuver [a set of input fields] and associated text, e.g., [0065], predefined traffic situations can be input on a screen using a GUI…. For each fellow, a target specification in the form of absolute parameters (or parameters relative to the test vehicle) is storable via a text input field “requirements.” For each fellow, there is also a second text input field. This second text input field is labeled “vehicle maneuver.” The “vehicle maneuver” field for a given fellow can be used to define a maneuver that the fellow performs once all of the target specifications, set via the corresponding “requirements” text input field, have been met.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the reference claim with the invention of Amelunxen such that the user interface uses input fields because they are a well-known and user-friendly means to input information.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 9, the reference claim does not appear to disclose wherein the road layout comprises one or more driving lane, and wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of lane driving behavior of the challenger object. However, Partridge further teaches wherein the road layout comprises one or more driving lane, and [wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of lane driving behavior of the challenger object] (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0021], the user may select from a predetermined set of scenario details (e.g., a predetermined road network, such as a freeway, urban block, parking lot, etc.) [selecting a static scene topology from a library of predefined scene topologies]; [0073], FIG. 6 is an example simulated urban roadway scene 600 [rendering]; see also [0048].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
Additionally, in analogous art, Amelunxen teaches wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of lane driving behavior of the challenger object (e.g., Figs. 1-4, [0062], As such, if a situation has been detected in which a vehicle is in front of the test vehicle E, and in which the left-hand and right-hand lanes are occupied by further vehicles, the vehicle ahead of the test vehicle can have heavy braking imparted to it. The braking delay can be to be configured beforehand, and can be varied in different runs of the simulation. Such is depicted schematically in FIG. 2; [0065], FIG. 4, in particular, depicts the input of traffic situation entries which correspond to the example discussed hereinabove in connection with FIG. 2. The GUI is part of a piece of software for creating a simulation environment. According to the example of FIG. 4, maneuver definition corresponds to the test vehicle E, denoted by “Ego,” and a plurality of “fellow” vehicles [challenger object].… For each fellow, there is also a second text input field. This second text input field is labeled “vehicle maneuver. The “vehicle maneuver” field for a given fellow can be used to define a maneuver that the fellow performs once all of the target specifications, set via the corresponding “requirements” text input field, have been met; see also [0063].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the reference claim with the invention of Amelunxen such that the user interface uses input fields because they are a well-known and user-friendly means to input information.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 20, Partridge also discloses wherein the static scene topology comprises a road layout and the road layout comprises one or more driving lane, and [wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of lane driving behavior of the challenger object] (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0021], the user may select from a predetermined set of scenario details (e.g., a predetermined road network, such as a freeway, urban block, parking lot, etc.) [selecting a static scene topology from a library of predefined scene topologies]; [0073], FIG. 6 is an example simulated urban roadway scene 600 [rendering]; [0073], ach of the streets may include one or more lanes; see also [0048].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of reference application with the invention of Partridge for the same reason set forth above.
Additionally, in analogous art, Amelunxen teaches wherein the set of input fields comprises a field for receiving an indication of lane driving behavior of the challenger object (e.g., Figs. 1-4, [0062], As such, if a situation has been detected in which a vehicle is in front of the test vehicle E, and in which the left-hand and right-hand lanes are occupied by further vehicles, the vehicle ahead of the test vehicle can have heavy braking imparted to it. The braking delay can be to be configured beforehand, and can be varied in different runs of the simulation. Such is depicted schematically in FIG. 2; [0065], FIG. 4, in particular, depicts the input of traffic situation entries which correspond to the example discussed hereinabove in connection with FIG. 2. The GUI is part of a piece of software for creating a simulation environment. According to the example of FIG. 4, maneuver definition corresponds to the test vehicle E, denoted by “Ego,” and a plurality of “fellow” vehicles [challenger object].… For each fellow, there is also a second text input field. This second text input field is labeled “vehicle maneuver. The “vehicle maneuver” field for a given fellow can be used to define a maneuver that the fellow performs once all of the target specifications, set via the corresponding “requirements” text input field, have been met; see also [0063].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the reference claim with the invention of Amelunxen such that the user interface uses input fields because they are a well-known and user-friendly means to input information.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 10, Amelunxen further teaches assigning lane identifiers to each of the one or more driving lanes of the road layout, and receiving an association via the object editing node of an identified lane and the challenger object at the interaction point (e.g., Figs. 1-4, particularly, Fig. 4, lane_rel=-1, lane_rel=0, lane_rel=1 [assigning lane identifiers to each of the one or more driving lane of the road layout, and receiving an association via the object editing node of an identified lane and the challenger object at the interaction point], and associated text e.g., [0065], According to the example of FIG. 4, the test vehicle is to travel at a speed of at least 40 km/h, and the first fellow is to be in the lane to the left of the test vehicle at a distance of no more than 10 m in front of or behind the test vehicle E; see also [0055], [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the reference application with the invention of Amelunxen for the same reason set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 11, the reference claim does not appear to disclose rendering on the display a second object editing node for further parameterizing the challenger object and receiving user input into fields of the second editing node to define a further stage of the a particular defined interaction, wherein the particular defined interaction is defined as a respective sequence of interaction stages, wherein the generated scenario comprises the respective sequence of interaction stages executed by the challenger object. However, with the exception of fields, this is further taught in Partridge (e.g., Fig. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0071-72] FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating an example method 500 of defining a scenario for a test simulation of an autonomous vehicle and/or component thereof. The method 500, or one or more portions thereof, may be performed by or with the Designer 102 [discloses rendering on the display a second object editing node for further parameterizing the challenger object and receiving user input into …of the second editing node], in some embodiments; [0077-78], The method 500 may further include, at block 506, placing one or more dynamic acto