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 .
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al (U.S. 20210241612) and further in view of Gyllenhammar et al (2022/0089153).
1. As per claims 1,9,17-18 19 Ucar disclosed a method performed by a locations mapping system for supporting identifying locations crucial to a vehicle equipped with an Automated Driving System, ADS (the vehicle 100 is configured to switch selectively between an autonomous mode, one or more semi-autonomous operation modes, and/or a manual node”, [Paragraph. 0079], the method comprising:
obtaining data of crucial locations of past vehicle situations identified as one or both critical and challenging (“the knowledge identifies characteristics and events associated with the location that may be difficult to detect [Paragraph. 0045]), (the zone module 220 accumulates the knowledge about the location and other locations (e.g., distant or other connected roads/paths) in the form of the knowledge set 260” [Paragraph.0046]);
extracting from the crucial locations data, for at least a first past vehicle situation, static road features and operating conditions pertaining to the at least first past vehicle situation (the zone module 220 identifies the pattern by analyzing the knowledge set to determine whether aspects (i.e., the characteristic/event) associated with separate knowledge set 260 occur with a sufficient frequency to influence movement (e.g., navigation, unplanned movement, etc.) through the zone”, [Paragraph. 0048]).
Identifying, by querying a digital map [Analysis of the knowledge set], road segments exhibiting road features to a predeterminable extent matching the static road features pertaining to the at least first past vehicle situation (“The zone module 220, in one approach, defines a tag according to the identified zone attribute from the analysis of the knowledge set 260”, the tag generally functions as a mechanism of conveying prior knowledge to the entity even though the entity may not have previously encountered the zone, As such, the zone module 220 generates the tag to include various information about the zone, such as an identifier that characterizes the zone attribute (e.g, zone type-dangerous” [Paragraph. 0049]); the road segments being located at geographical locations other than crucial locations [the system can further process the acquired knowledge to determine which characteristics and events sufficiently influence movement (e.g., traffic, dangerous areas, etc.) through a zone, including the location (e.g., roadway segment). As a result, the system identifies common zone attributes for the zone and generates tags within a map indicating the particular zone attributes. It should be noted that the zone attributes include aspects, in various embodiments, extending beyond traffic on a roadway segment and may further encompass aspects relating to pedestrians and other entities, such as a density of pedestrians, safety for walking through a zone, and so on. The tag generally outlines a location and other information such as suggested actions to improve operation (e.g., behavior, navigation, etc.) through the zone. As such, the system can distribute the mapping to other entities (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians) to increase awareness about the zone attributes.] (Paragraph. 0007). and
However, Ucar did not explicitly disclose, “generating a mapping associating the identified road segments located at the geographical locations other than the crucial locations with the operating conditions to form a scaled-up mapping of crucial locations [area segment based on risk parameters] comprising both the crucial locations of past vehicle situations [risk map over time] and the identified road segments representing one or both of potentially challenging and critical situations to the past vehicle situations”.
In the same field of endeavor Gyllenhammar disclosed, “Moving on, the control system 10 comprises a risk evaluation module 21, which is configured to compile the risk map and to evaluate the risk exposure of the ADS by determining a compounded risk based on the planned path and the risk map or based on an aggregation of the risk parameters of the area segments in the risk map. In more detail, the risk map is built up of the worldview of the ADS 30 including the uncertainties of the detections and predictions from the perception system 31 (i.e. the estimated location of free-space areas), the localization within the map as well as the uncertainties of the capabilities of the vehicle platform 33. The ADS 30 is herein depicted as a module comprising a sub-module for decision and control 32, where information from the perception system 31 and vehicle platform 33 is used to generate paths for execution by the vehicle platform 33. The risk associated with that path may subsequently calculated/quantified by another module 22 based on the compiled risk map (Paragraph. 0071)”. Furthermore disclosed, “Then, a risk map is generated or formed by the risk map compiling module 24 based on the obtained actuation capability and the obtained location of free-space areas. The risk map comprises a risk parameter for each of a plurality of area segments comprised in the surrounding environment of the vehicle. The risk map may be understood as a virtual map of the surrounding environment of the vehicle with a number of defined area segments, each being associated with a corresponding risk parameter” (Paragraph. 0075). The determined compounded risk value against a compounded risk trigger threshold. A development of the risk map over time against a map volatility trigger threshold (Paragraph. 0016). A development of the compounded risk value over time against a risk volatility threshold (Paragraph. 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated Moving on, the control system 10 comprises a risk evaluation module 21, which is configured to compile the risk map and to evaluate the risk exposure of the ADS by determining a compounded risk based on the planned path and the risk map or based on an aggregation of the risk parameters of the area segments in the risk map. In more detail, the risk map is built up of the worldview of the ADS 30 including the uncertainties of the detections and predictions from the perception system 31 (i.e. the estimated location of free-space areas), the localization within the map as well as the uncertainties of the capabilities of the vehicle platform 33. The ADS 30 is herein depicted as a module comprising a sub-module for decision and control 32, where information from the perception system 31 and vehicle platform 33 is used to generate paths for execution by the vehicle platform 33. The risk associated with that path may subsequently calculated/quantified by another module 22 based on the compiled risk map and then, a risk map is generated or formed by the risk map compiling module 24 based on the obtained actuation capability and the obtained location of free-space areas. The risk map comprises a risk parameter for each of a plurality of area segments comprised in the surrounding environment of the vehicle. The risk map may be understood as a virtual map of the surrounding environment of the vehicle with a number of defined area segments, each being associated with a corresponding risk parameter. The determined compounded risk value against a compounded risk trigger threshold. A development of the risk map over time against a map volatility trigger threshold. A development of the compounded risk value over time against a risk volatility threshold as taught by Gyllenhammar in the method and system of Ucar to increase the efficiency of the vehicle awareness of the surrounding environment.
2. As per claims 2,10 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed wherein the generating a mapping comprises generating a heat map in which the identified road segments are attributed with the operating conditions (Ucar, Paragraph. 0065).
3. As per claims 3,11 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed further comprising: implementing the mapping in a digital map accessible from the vehicle (Ucar, Fig.1, map data116 in vehicle 100).
4. As per claims 4,12 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed further comprising: determining one or both current and expected quasi-static conditions pertaining to respective one or more of the road segments of the mapping; comparing for the one or more road segments, respective road segment’s associated operating conditions with the corresponding determined one or both current and expected conditions; and blocking from the mapping, road segments associated with operating conditions to a predeterminable extent not complying with the corresponding determined one or both current and expected conditions (Ucar, Paragraph. 0071 & 0073).
5. As per claims 5,13 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed wherein the road segments are taken from an ADS compliant digital map (Gyllenhammar, Paragraph 0067). The claims 5,13 has the same motivation as to claims
6. As per claims 6,14 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed further comprising: classifying road segments into a set of clusters, respective cluster comprising road segments exhibiting road features to a predeterminable extent being similar; and the identifying road segments then comprising identifying a cluster, out of the set of clusters, comprising road segments exhibiting road features to a predeterminable extent matching the static road features pertaining to the at least first past vehicle situation, and the generating a mapping then comprising generating a mapping associating the identified cluster with the operating conditions (Ucar, Paragraph. 0044 & 0047).
7. As per claims 7,15,20 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed wherein the road segments are taken from an ADS compliant digital map (Gyllenhammar, Paragraph 0067).
8. As per claims 8,16 Ucar- Gyllenhammar disclosed wherein the obtaining data of crucial locations, comprises obtaining the data from one or both: accidentology data indicative of past various geo-tagged one or more critical vehicle situations, challenging vehicle situations and vehicle accidents; and one or both actual and simulated vehicle performance data indicative of past various geo-tagged key performance indicators, KPIs, identified as one or both critical and challenging (Ucar, Paragraph. 0065).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a situations obtaining unit configured to” in at least claim 9
“an extracting configured to” in at least claim 9
“a matching unit configured to” in at least claim 9
“a mapping generating unit configured to” in at least claim 9
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, corresponding structure in the specification includes:
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 9-16 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 in connection with the 112(f) interpretation. 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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected for the following reasons: With respect to claim 9, there is no corresponding structure provided in the specification for “a situations obtaining configured to”, “an extraction unit configured to”, “a matching unit configured to” and “a mapping generating unit configured to”. Claims 10-16 are rejected on the basis of their dependency to rejected independent claims.
“When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI”. See MPEP 2181 II B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9-16 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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected for the following reasons: With respect to claim 9, there is no corresponding structure provided in the specification for “a situations obtaining configured to”, “an extraction unit configured to”, “a matching unit configured to” and “a mapping generating unit configured to”. Claims 10-16 are rejected on the basis of their dependency to rejected independent claims.
Moreover, the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art does not relieve the Applicant from the duty for the specification to disclose a sufficiently definite structure for a corresponding claim term. See MPEP 2181, IA (“For example, in Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380[, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230] (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court embraced the proposition that ‘consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. The court in Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953[, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123] (Fed. Cir. 2007), put the point this way: "The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure”).
If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). See MPEP 2163.03, section VI.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
A. Applicant alleged that prior art did not disclose, “generating a mapping associating the identified road segments located at the geographical locations other than the crucial locations with the operating conditions to form a scaled-up mapping of crucial locations [area segment based on risk parameters] comprising both the crucial locations of past vehicle situations [risk map over time] and the identified road segments representing one or both of potentially challenging and critical situations to the past vehicle situations”.
As to applicant’s argument disclosed Gyllenhammar disclosed, “Moving on, the control system 10 comprises a risk evaluation module 21, which is configured to compile the risk map and to evaluate the risk exposure of the ADS by determining a compounded risk based on the planned path and the risk map or based on an aggregation of the risk parameters of the area segments in the risk map. In more detail, the risk map is built up of the worldview of the ADS 30 including the uncertainties of the detections and predictions from the perception system 31 (i.e. the estimated location of free-space areas), the localization within the map as well as the uncertainties of the capabilities of the vehicle platform 33. The ADS 30 is herein depicted as a module comprising a sub-module for decision and control 32, where information from the perception system 31 and vehicle platform 33 is used to generate paths for execution by the vehicle platform 33. The risk associated with that path may subsequently calculated/quantified by another module 22 based on the compiled risk map (Paragraph. 0071)”. Furthermore disclosed, “Then, a risk map is generated or formed by the risk map compiling module 24 based on the obtained actuation capability and the obtained location of free-space areas. The risk map comprises a risk parameter for each of a plurality of area segments comprised in the surrounding environment of the vehicle. The risk map may be understood as a virtual map of the surrounding environment of the vehicle with a number of defined area segments, each being associated with a corresponding risk parameter” (Paragraph. 0075). The determined compounded risk value against a compounded risk trigger threshold. A development of the risk map over time against a map volatility trigger threshold (Paragraph. 0016). A development of the compounded risk value over time against a risk volatility threshold (Paragraph. 0017). Examiner interpreted the “challenging and crucial locations” as [area segment based on risk parameters] and “past vehicle situations” as [risk map over time].
B. Applicant alleged that prior art did not disclose, “identifying road segments exhibiting road features to a predeterminable extent matching the static road features pertaining to the at least first past vehicle situation, the road segments being located at geographical locations other than the crucial locations”.
As to applicant’s allegation Ucar disclosed , “The zone module 220, in one approach, defines a tag according to the identified zone attribute from the analysis of the knowledge set 260”, the tag generally functions as a mechanism of conveying prior knowledge to the entity even though the entity may not have previously encountered the zone, As such, the zone module 220 generates the tag to include various information about the zone, such as an identifier that characterizes the zone attribute (e.g, zone type-dangerous” [Paragraph. 0049] and [the system can further process the acquired knowledge to determine which characteristics and events sufficiently influence movement (e.g., traffic, dangerous areas, etc.) through a zone, including the location (e.g., roadway segment). As a result, the system identifies common zone attributes for the zone and generates tags within a map indicating the particular zone attributes. It should be noted that the zone attributes include aspects, in various embodiments, extending beyond traffic on a roadway segment and may further encompass aspects relating to pedestrians and other entities, such as a density of pedestrians, safety for walking through a zone, and so on. The tag generally outlines a location and other information such as suggested actions to improve operation (e.g., behavior, navigation, etc.) through the zone. As such, the system can distribute the mapping to other entities (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians) to increase awareness about the zone attributes.] (Paragraph. 0007). Examiner interpreted the crucial locations as the “dangerous areas or traffic) by the previous vehicles and whereas the geographical location as “zones with common attributes”.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
11. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights