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 . This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-9, 13-14 and 18-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument and Rule 132 Declaration
Applicant’s arguments (along with Rule 132 Declaration) with respect to the Claim Rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-9, 13-14 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (lack of written description and enablement requirement) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (Pages 5-14 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on 05/13/2026 and arguments are repeated in Rule 132 Deceleration of 05/13/2026.)
Examiner notes that the Deceleration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 05/13/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14 and 18-20 based upon 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the last Office action because:
In Response to Applicant’s Rule 132 Deceleration:
Regarding point(s) (1)-(7), the declaration states inventor’s education (Master’s degree), experience (CEO and co-founder of the company, extensive experience in the relevant field), patent portfolio (more than 100 applications and patents), and familiarity with the invention (co-inventor of instant application):
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that these facts may establish that the declarant is highly knowledgeable in the relevant technology, but they do not, standing alone, establish compliance with the written description requirement. The relevant question under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description is whether the application as field reasonably conveys to a PHOSITA that inventors was in possession of the claimed invention at the filing date. The analysis is directed to the disclosure of the Application and that the claim must be supported as a whole. Accordingly, the inventor’s education, employment position/experience, patent portfolio and subjective understanding of the invention cannot substitute for disclosure in the specification.
Regarding point(s) 8, the declaration states that the specification expressly discloses determining virtual fields by applying a neural network trained to mimic driving patterns using behavior cloning or reinforcement learning:
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that this point is only partially persuasive. The issue is not whether the specification mentions a neural network, behavior cloning, reinforcement learning, and virtual fields individually. The issue is whether the specification reasonably coneys possession of the claimed relationship between all those elements. Specifically, the deceleration should identify where the specification discloses the relationship of: (i) object information; then (ii) neural network processing; and (iii) virtual field outputs; and in particular, what the neural network actually outputs that constitutes the claimed “virtual field”. The specification merely states that a neural network may determine virtual fields and may be trained by BC/RL, and does not necessarily explains what the NN produces or how the output corresponds to the claimed virtual field representation. See MPEP 2163.03 V. ORIGINAL CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED: While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this point is persuasive only to the extent that the cited portions of the specification discloses the technical relationship between the NN and the virtual-field representation.
Regarding point(s) 9, the declaration states that the specification expressly discloses a virtual physical model based on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that this point is insufficient if the cited disclosure merely repeats the claim language. The rejection is directed to the absence of disclosure explaining how the asserted physical theory is used to constructed the claimed virtual physical model (e.g., if virtual fields are virtual charges, how are the virtual charges assigned to the one or more objects (based on object position, size, mass, velocity, threat/risk level, importance or something else) and particularly (what process/algorithm) how are the electromagnetic fields and forces are computed and used to predict object interaction or vehicle behavior? The specification must disclose enough of the claimed adaption of the known theory to demonstrate possession of the claimed virtual physical model.
Regarding point(s) 10, the declaration states that the specification expressly disclose calculating a difference between the reference driving pattern between the reference driving pattern and the driver’s driving pattern and using that difference to amend the neural network or as an input to a loss function.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that this point establishes that the specification discloses the reference pattern and driver specific patterns produces a difference that’s used as a loss function for NN modification. However, the recited claim requires that the virtual physical model is built based on one or more physical laws and at least one additional driving related parameter wherein the driving related parameter comprises difference between the reference and driver specific patterns produced by the NN. The specification states that the difference is used to modify NN weights or loss function, while the claim requires the difference is used to build the virtual physical model. Accordingly, the deceleration does not necessarily establish written description support for the recited claim limitation.
Regarding point(s) 11 (also applies to point 17), the declaration states that determining a desired/target virtual acceleration based on the equivalent of Newton’s second law and includes performing a vector weighted sum on the one or more virtual forces associated with the one or more objects. Applicant further points to the disclosure in which object-relative kinematic information (xrel,I; Vrel,i) is obtained for individual objects, a perception field f0(xrel,I; vrel,I; vego,i) is calculated for each object, the individual perceptions fields are summed and normalized, and a differential equation describing ego-vehicle acceleration is constructed.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that the declaration is acknowledged. The disclosure is acknowledged as providing a specific neural network/perception field processing sequences. However, the disclosure does not establish that the individual f0 outputs are virtual forces, that their summation constitutes the claimed total virtual forces or that the resulting acceleration is calculated from the total virtual forces according to the claimed virtual physical model. Summing and normalizing perception field vectors, without identifying the physical quantity represented by those vectors or a governing physical relationship, does not establish the claimed force-based calculation.
Further, Applicant’s reliance on Newton’s second law does not cure the deficiency. Newton’s second law establishes a relationship between an already determined net force and acceleration, it does not supply the missing model for determining the claimed virtual force from the disclosed neural network generated perception fields. Merely stating that the virtual physical model may be based on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory does not disclose WHICH particular physical relationship is employed or how object location, velocity, ego velocity and/or neural network output are mapped to the variables of that relationship. Accordingly, the disclosed sequence of calculating, summing and normalizing perception fields and constructing an acceleration equation demonstrated a learned perception function but does NOT demonstrate possession of the claimed combination of physical law based virtual field, conversion of that virtual field into virtual force, total virtual force, and subsequent force based acceleration; hence, applicant’s deceleration does not overcome 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection.
Regarding point(s) 12, the declaration states that inventors’ extensive patent portfolio and experience in the autonomous vehicle field and perception-field technologies demonstrate that the claimed concepts would be readily understood by a PHOSITA.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner does not dispute that the inventors may possess substantial expertise. However, inventors’ credentials, numbers of patents granted or applications filed, or familiarity with the technology do NOT establish that Applicant has demonstrated possession of the claimed subject matter as filed. Written description is evaluated based on the disclosure of the application, not the subjective knowledge of the inventors. Moreover, inventors’ other patents or patent application cannot supply limitations that are absent from the instant application. Accordingly, the asserted qualifications do not cure the identified deficiency concerning the claimed physical law based virtual model, conversion of virtual fields to virtual forces, incorporation of the additional driving-related parameter, or calculation of acceleration from the claimed total virtual force.
Regarding point(s) 13, the declaration states that prior art recited in previous office action allegedly demonstrate that virtual potential fields were well known and that a PHOSITA would therefore understand the present disclosure.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner notes that the existence of prior art potential field technique does not demonstrate that Applicant possessed the presently claimed combination. Conventional potential field methods do not necessarily disclose the claimed combination of neural network generated virtual fields, a virtual physical model based on electromagnetic or mechanical force theory, driver specific and reference pattern differences, and determination of acceleration from a total virtual force. Further, the fact that a generic concept is known does not permit the specification to omit disclosure of how applicant’s particular components are combined. The present issue is that 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires that the specification itself demonstrate possession of the claimed invention, NOT whether a PHOSITA could supply missing details/information not disclosed in the specification. Knowledge in the art may be used to interpret what is disclosed but it cannot replace disclosure of claim limitation that are absent from the specification. Accordingly, this argument/declaration is NOT persuasive because the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is evaluated based on Applicant’s own disclosure NOT on the state of the prior art.
Regarding point(s) 14, Applicant argues that the additional driving related parameter of claim 9 recited as safety parameter would inherently be understood by a PHOSITA to include collision risk metrics, time-to-collision thresholds, or minimum safe distance.”
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 9 does not merely recites a generic safety consideration, it limits the additional driving related parameter to “safety parameters representing at least one collision risk metric, time-to-collision threshold, or a minimum safe distance.” The originally filed specification reference to “safety parameters” without identifying these particular parameters or describing their relationship to claimed virtual physical model, does not demonstrate Applicant’s possession of the narrower claimed subject matter. Applicant’s reliance on what a PHOSITA would consider to be common safety consideration cannot substitute for disclosure of the claimed limitation. Collision-risk metrics, time-to-collision threshold, and minimum safe distance parameters are different types of quantities that may be calculated and incorporated into a vehicle control system in materially different ways. The application/specification does not explain which of these is intended, how the parameter is determined from the closed object information/driving patterns, and/or how it modifies/influences or incorporated into the claimed virtual physical model or the virtual fields and forces. Accordingly, the fact that such safety considerations may have been well known in the autonomous driving does not establish that the inventors possessed the specifically claimed safety parameter limitation at the time of filing.
Regarding point(s) 15, Applicant argues that Newton’s second law provides adequate written-description support for determining desired acceleration from force.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is NOT persuasive. The Examiner does not dispute that Newton’s second law, F=ma, is a fundamental physical principle that would be understood by a PHOSITA. However, the issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description requirement is NOT whether a PHOSITA knows how to calculate acceleration once a physical force and mass have been identified; rather, the issue is whether the application as filed demonstrates Applicant’s possession of the claimed invention in which virtual forces are derived from the claimed virtual fields according to the claimed virtual physical model and a desired acceleration is determined from the resulting total virtual force. The specification’s disclosure of perception field functions and aggregation of perception outputs does not, merely by invoking Newton’s second law, establish that those outputs constitutes physical or virtual forces, or that the relevant mass and other physical model parameters are defined. Newton’s second law supplies the general physical relationship a=F/m but does NOT supply the missing disclosure concerning how the disclosed neural network generated perception fields are converted into the claimed virtual forces or how the claimed electromagnetic field or mechanical force model governs that conversion. Accordingly, the fact that a PHOSITA could apply Newton’s second law does not demonstrate that Applicant possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date, and that 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection is maintained.
Regarding point(s) 16, the declaration states that a PHOSITA could implement the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that Applicant’s assertion is not persuasive because it does not address the specific technical gaps identified in the Final Action (mailed on 02/13/2026). The specification provides an embodiment in which object relative kinematic information is processed by f0 to generate perception fields, the fields are aggregated and normalized, and an acceleration is constructed. However, the claim extends beyond that disclosed learned perception field embodiment to require virtual physical model based on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory, virtual forces derived from the virtual fields, and determination of acceleration from a total virtual force. The specification does NOT adequately teach how to select or construct the claimed physical model, how the NN generated perception fields are converted into virtual forces, or how the physical model variables, assumptions, and parameters are established/affected. Accordingly, the application does not provide sufficient guidance to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Regarding point(s) 17, Applicant relies on the disclosed equation and working examples for calculating acceleration.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner acknowledges the disclosed relationship providing meaningful guidance for implementing a particular neural network based perception field/acceleration embodiment. Nevertheless, the equations do NOT demonstrate enablement of the full breadth of the claim because they do not identify the individual f0 outputs as physical forces or providing the missing physical law based transformation from a virtual field to a virtual force. In particular, the equations do not disclose what electromagnetic or mechanical force model is used, its governing equation(s) or assumptions, or how the resulting total virtual force is related to acceleration. The disclosed equations reduce the amount of experimentation for the particular NN-based perception field embodiment but do NOT establish the entire claimed genus of electromagnetic or mechanical virtual physical models can be practiced without undue experimentation.
Regarding point(s) 18, Applicant relies on the skill of a PHOSITA in autonomous vehicle technologies.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner acknowledges that a PHOSITA in autonomous vehicle technologies would possess substantial knowledge of neural networks, perception system, vehicle dynamics, and control systems. However, the level of skill is only ONE wands factor and must be weighed against the breadth of the claim, the nature and predictability of the invention, the amount of guidance provided, and the quantity of experimentation required. In the instant Application, the missing information concerns not merely routine implementation but the selection and formulation of the physical model that connects the learned perception fields to virtual forces and acceleration. The Examiner does not find the asserted level of skill sufficient, by itself, to establish enablement of the full claimed scope.
Regarding point(s) 19, Applicant asserts the BC/RL and potential field techniques were well understood in the prior art.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that Applicant’s evidence that BC, RL, and potential field techniques were individually known in acknowledged. The declaration does not establish that the prior art provide a standardized or predictable method for converting NN generated perception fields into virtual forces according to an electromagnetic or mechanical physical model and the using the resulting total force to determine vehicle acceleration. Accordingly, the asserted state of prior art does not sufficiently reduce the experimentation require to practice the full scope of the claim.
Regarding point(s) 20, Applicant asserts that the breadth of the claim is commensurate with the disclosure.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the specification provides embodiment involving object relative kinematic, NN generated perception fields, summation/normalization, and an acceleration equations. The claim encompasses substantially broader implementations, in particular, the claim covers virtual physical model based on at least one of electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory, without identifying a particular physical model, governing relationship, assumptions or parameters. The claim also encompasses the use of such models to derive virtual forces and a total virtual force for determining acceleration and the specification’s single disclosed perception-field/acceleration does not demonstrate that the full range of these materially different physical model implementations can be practice without undue experimentation.
Regarding point(s) 21, Applicant asserts that only routine experimentation would be necessary.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner responds that this assertion is not persuasive because Applicant has not established that the missing technical features can be supplied through routine experimentation. The disclosed NN perception field embodiment may only require routine experimentation by a skilled person; however, practicing the full claim additionally requires determining how an electromagnetic or mechanical model is selected and formulated, identifying the relevant model parameters and assumptions, mapping sensor/object kinematics and NN outputs to the model, converting the resulting virtual fields into virtual forces, and determining acceleration from the total virtual forces. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence establishing that these missing aspect would be routine rather than requiring substantial independent modeling and experimentation.
Regarding point(s) 22-23, Applicant concludes that the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement rejection should be withdrawn based on deceleration of points (16-21)
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The declaration provides evidence favorable to enablement of a particular embodiment, namely, the disclosed NN based perception field calculation and aggregation used to construct an acceleration relationship but does not demonstrate enablement of the full scope of the claim, which encompasses the additional physical model and virtual force limitation. The Examiner’s conclusion is based on the evidence as a whole and on the Wands factors, rather than on the absence of a particular number of equations/examples.
Regarding point(s) 24-30, Applicant asserts that the claim is definite because a PHOSITA would understand the claimed virtual fields, virtual physical model, virtual forces, and acceleration relationship.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is NOT persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that the specification provides additional disclosure concerning perception fields, including determining perception fields for respective objects, summing and normalizing the resulting vectors, and constructing an acceleration relationship. However, this disclosure does not resolve the uncertainty as to the scope of the claim, from the lack of teachings from the specification. In particular, the claim requires that the virtual fields be determined based on a virtual physical model built according to electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory, that virtual forces be derived from the virtual fields according to the model, and that a total virtual force be used to determined the desired acceleration. The specification does not sufficiently identify what distinguishes a claimed virtual field from the disclosed learned perception field, what physical quantity the perception field output represents, when such output constitutes a virtual force, or what particular relationship causes the aggregated field to constitute the claimed total virtual force. The limitation requires the virtual physical model to be based on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory introduces additional uncertainty. The claim does not identify which physical law, governing relationship, model assumptions, and the specification does not adequately establish how object information and the NN outputs are mapped to such model. The disclosure of summing and normalizing perception into an equation of acceleration does not itself resolve whether the resulting quantity is a perception representation, a virtual field, virtual force, or an acceleration command. Applicant further relies on Newton’s second law as providing a universally understood relationship between the claimed total virtual force and desired acceleration (declaration point 27). The Examiner agrees that Newton’s second law, when applied to a known physical force acting on a known mass, provides a well-understood relationship such as a=F/m. However, the claim does not identify what mass is used in the asserted relationship, and the specification does not establish that the normalization factor or other operation in the disclosed relationship corresponds to the inverse mass of the ego vehicle. Nor does the specification establish that the perception outputs constitutes forces having the physical meaning to invoke Newton’s second law. Thus, the reference to Newton’s second law does not by itself define the claimed total virtual force or its relationship to the claimed acceleration calculation. The uncertainty is further illustrated by the claimed limitation “virtual physical model to be based on mechanical force theory”, e.g., if a mechanical model were an elastic or spring-like model, the force to acceleration relationship would depends on displacement and spring stiffness (F=-kx followed by a=F/m). The specification does not identify what physical quantity corresponds to the displacement/stiffness or other parameters are selected/determined, how velocity dependent terms are included, or how nn generated perception fields supplies these quantities. Similar analogies applies to electromagnetic field model concerning the modeled field quantity, source properties, and force relationship. Thus, the reference to Newton’s second law does not provide reasonable certainty as to how the claimed virtual fields becomes virtual forces or how the total virtual forces is calculated to determine the force to acceleration relationship. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained because the claim, when read in light of the specification, does not provide sufficient clear boundaries as to the claimed virtual fields, virtual physical models, virtual forces, and their relationship to the desired acceleration.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument and Rule 132 Declaration regarding claims rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are NOT persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b) rejections are maintained. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below for details.
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, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 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 Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), Applicant has apparently not described, in the specification, in sufficient details, for any or all of the recited limitations:
The limitation of “determining…one or more virtual fields…by applying a neural network trained to mimic reference driving patterns using behavior cloning or reinforcement learning;” fails to comply with written description requirement. The specification fails to provide adequate written description support for this limitation. While the specification references the concept of virtual fields at a high level, it does not describe how such virtual fields are generated by a neural network trained using behavior cloning or reinforcement learning. In particular, the specification is completely silent how reference driving patterns are associated with virtual fields, or how the outputs of the neural network corresponds to parameters defining the virtual fields, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of a neural network trained to determine virtual fields from object information.
The limitation of “determining of the one or more virtual fields is based on a virtual physical model…one or more physical laws… electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory” fails to comply with written description requirement. The claim recited that the virtual fields are determined based on a virtual physical model built on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory but the specification’s disclosure of this element is limited to conditional and hypothetical statements suggesting possible analogies to electromagnetic or mechanical phenomena, without identifying any specific physical laws, governing equations, model assumptions or computational logics. Electromagnetic and mechanical theories encompass numerous materially different models, the failure to specify any particular model prevents the specification from demonstrating possession of the claimed virtual physical model, hence, the disclosure fail to support the full breadth of the this limitation.
The limitation of “wherein the virtual physical model is built based on one or more physical laws and at least one additional driving related parameter…parameter comprises differences between the reference driving patterns and driving patterns of a driver of the vehicle” fails to comply with written description requirement. The claim recited that the virtual physical model is built based on “one or more physical law” and “differences between the reference driving pattern and driving patterns of a driver of the vehicle” but the specification merely repeats the claim language without providing any disclosure explaining how these elements are combined, integrated or jointly used to build the claimed virtual physical model; specifically, the specification fails to describe: (i) how the additional driving related parameter modifies, influences, or is incorporate into the virtual physical model, including whether the parameters alters field strength, force direction, model coefficient, biases the physical law equations or something else; (ii) any mathematical relationship or interactions between the physical law (e.g. electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory), and the differences between reference driving patterns and the driving patterns of the driver; (iii) any working examples, embodiment illustrating how a difference between reference and driver driving patterns is quantified and how that quantified differences is used in constructing or modifying the virtual physical model.
The limitation of “determining a desired acceleration of the vehicle based on the total virtual force…derived from one or more virtual fields according to the virtual physical model” fails to comply with written description requirement. The specification fails to describe how the total virtual force is used to calculate the desired acceleration in accordance with the claimed virtual physical model. Although the specification generally references virtual forces and mentions that a “vector weighted sum” may be performed, it does not disclose any specific algorithm, equations or steps for translating the total virtual force into a desired acceleration. The disclosure does not define how force magnitude or directions is mapped to acceleration, and further because the virtual physical model is broadly defined as being based on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory, the specification does not explain how acceleration is calculated consistently across these models. The specification fails to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention, particularly the concept of a virtual physical model as broadly claimed. While the illustrated examples involves electromagnetic charges/fields/forces and mechanical models are presented, there is no description on how virtual fields/forces are computed from any object information and how to select or apply virtual model or integrate the virtual fields to affect vehicle behavior or using it in a functional driving system. See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]"). Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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 Claim 9, recites limitation “a safety parameter that represents at least one of a collision risk metric, a time-to-collision threshold, or minimum safe distance” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings.
The original specification is completed silent in regards to the limitation “a safety parameter that represents at least one of a collision risk metric, a time-to-collision threshold, or minimum safe distance”. The specification merely refers generally to safety parameters but does not disclose a collision risk metric, time-to-collision threshold, or a minimum safe distance parameter, either individually or in combination. The specification also does not disclose how any such parameter is calculated, quantified, selected or derived from the object information, reference and driver-specific patterns or how the parameter is incorporated into or modifies the claimed virtual physical model or fields and are used to calculated the desired acceleration. Per broadest reasonable interpretation in the art and the lack of specificity from the specification. The newly amended limitation “a safety parameter that represents at least one of a collision risk metric, a time-to-collision threshold, or minimum safe distance” was not supported from the original disclosure. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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 1 and 13 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Given the limited guidance in the specification, a PHOSITA at the time of effectively filing would not be able to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. see MPEP 2164.01(a); enablement is evaluated in view of the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), which collectively weigh against enablement in the present claim.
(A) The breadth of the claims: The claims are so broad as to cover any environment, any object type and any form of virtual field modeling that including any physical laws and driving related parameters to calculate vehicle acceleration. The specification, however, provides only high-level and abstract descriptions, which are not commensurate with the breadth of the claimed subject matter.
(B) The nature of the invention: The claimed invention is technically complex, involving the integration of sensor data, neural network processing, physical force modeling, and vehicle control logic. Such system would require precise definitions of models, parameters and algorithms to function as intended.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art does not provide a standardized or universally accepted approach for representing objects in a vehicle environment as virtual electromagnetic or mechanical force fields and using such fields to calculate vehicle acceleration as claimed. Accordingly, the state of prior art does not supply the missing implementation details required to practice the claimed invention.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: Although a PHOSITA may have expertise in vehicle system, control theory, or machine learning, such skill does not eliminate the need for disclosure of core aspects of the claimed invention. Even a PHOSITA would need to exercise substantial inventive judgement to fill in the missing details of the claimed invention.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The art is highly unpredictable. Electromagnetic and mechanical models can vary widely in formulation and behavior, and different modeling choices can lead to significant different vehicle behavior and control outcomes. The interaction between neural network outputs and physical law models further increase unpredictability, necessitating detailed disclosure.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The specification provides minimum guidance. Disclosure relating to virtual physical models rely on general and conditional statements referencing electromagnetic or mechanical theory without identifying any specific governing equations, modeling assumptions, or computational steps. Similarly, the specification does not explain how neural network outputs are structured or how they interface with virtual physical model.
(G) The existence of working examples: The specification lacks working examples demonstrating the claimed method/system. There are no examples showing how virtual fields are computed, how a virtual physical model is incorporated or how virtual forces and desired accelerations are calculated and applied in a vehicle system. and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Practicing claim 1 (similarly claim 13) would require extensive experimentation because the specification does not disclose how to determine virtual fields from object information, how to construct or select a virtual physical model out of all possible electromagnetics and mechanical models, how to derive virtual forces from the virtual fields, or how to compute desired accelerations from all these forces. A PHOSITA would be required to independently design mathematical formulations, selecting a physical model out of all possible electromagnetics and mechanical models, define parameters, and validate system behavior through repeated testing.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement because the specification does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of claim 1 without undue experimentation considering all eight In re Wands factors.
The dependent claims 3, 5, 8-9, 14, and 18-20 are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “one or more virtual fields” is indefinite and not reasonably certain, with indeterminate metes and bounds1, from the teachings of the specification, because it is unclear what are these “virtual fields” (e.g. the published specification [0148] merely described examples not limitations) and how are they defined from “object information”, e.g. are they based on object’s size, location, velocity, mass, risk/threat level, importance, or something else, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “virtual physical model” is indefinite and not reasonably certain, with indeterminate metes and bounds1, from the teachings of the specification, because it is unclear what are these “virtual physical model” (e.g. the published specification [0148] merely described examples of electromagnetic models or mechanical models, not limitations) but the claim allows for any model that is built on one or more physical laws and at least one driving related parameter; hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “desired virtual acceleration…virtual forces derived…virtual fields…physical model” is indefinite because it is unclear, from the lack of teachings of the specifications, how forces are combined and because the physical model is undefined and the mapping from force to acceleration is unspecified, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “wherein the virtual physical model is built based on one or more physical laws and at least one additional driving related parameter…parameter comprises differences between the reference driving patterns and driving patterns of a driver of the vehicle” is indefinite because the claim does not specify how the additional driving related parameter is incorporated into the virtual physical model or how it interacts with the recited physical laws specifically because the claim fail to provide reasonable certainty of: (i) what it means for the virtual physical model to be built based on physical laws and the additional driving related parameter (e.g. does the additional driving related parameter modifies the physical laws equations, is it an input into the physical laws); (ii) the specification merely repeats the claim language and does not clarify how the additional driving related parameters is incorporated into the virtual physical model or how it affects the application of physical laws. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the claim is indefinite in its entirety, it is internally inconsistent, reciting a combination of neural network based determination, physics based virtual fields, and driver specific behavior parameters without providing any clear explanation of how these elements interact to produce a coherent technical solutions. Terms such as “additional driving related parameter”, “driving related operations”, and the manner in which the virtual physical model incorporates both physical laws and driver behavior differences are ambiguous and unsupported by the specification (the specification fails to provide adequate written description or enablement for its entirety, see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections above). Because the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted by the examiner or those skilled in the art to define its scope or operation, the claim is too confusing to be given meaningful consideration against any prior art, and no references can be applied to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2173.06, II: Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
Prosecution Insights