DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/7/2023 and 1/9/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 8/7/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 and 17 are pending.
Claims 2-5 have been withdrawn but can be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claim 16 has been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 6-15 and 17 will be examined.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1, 14-15, and 17 are the independent claims.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 3/16/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 3/16/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claim 1, 6-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks “The claims recite that for areas outside the FOV, the occupancy threshold should be relatively higher. Likewise, for areas inside the FOV, the occupancy threshold should be relatively lower. This has verbatim support in paragraph [0012] of the description. The cited references teach the opposite of the claims, as noted on page 12 of the Office Action. More specifically, Widjaja at [0084]-[0085], [0088]-[0089] and [0119] that for areas inside the FOV, the occupancy threshold should be relatively higher. Likewise, for areas outside the FOV, the occupancy threshold should be relatively lower” and the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s remarks.
It remains the Office’s stance that Widjaja discloses the claimed limitations, as required. Widjaja discloses each element, based on the claimed subject matter as interpreted.
“determining, by the processing circuitry, the occupancy threshold on the basis of the area's position, wherein the occupancy threshold is determined to be relatively higher if the area is outside a field of view of the sensors carried by the AV”
Widjaja clearly states “a higher value for a given cell in the occupancy map 608 indicates a lower probability of a free space, or a space neither occupied by objects nor obstructed from the view of the sensors 602 on the AV” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084]. Here is stats a higher value is given to low probability of free spaces, which the Office is interpreting as a high probability of occupied (opposite of low-free is high-not free). Further it states that is high value of occupied is for by objects or obstructed from view of the sensors (out of range of the sensors). Further Widjaja states “When used as an image, the occupancy map 608 has free spaces shown as brighter regions (e.g., regions with higher pixel values), while occupied spaces shown as darker regions (e.g., regions with low pixel values). For example, a pixel in the occupancy map 608 is assigned 0 if the space corresponding to the pixel is not observable from the AV, e.g. when the space is behind a building which blocks the view of the sensors 602 on the AV. In such an example, the occupancy map 608 is an 8-bit grey-scale image with pixel values ranging from 0 to 255, where a pixel value of 0 represents black or a darkest intensity pixel” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084], where again, darker is higher probability of occupied and is out of range, as the claims require. Further Widjaja states “regions associated with a low likelihood of free space (e.g., regions beyond the range of sensors on a vehicle) in a corresponding occupancy map 608, the labeled drivable road segments are likely to be mislabeled or of little interest to the AV. Labeled drivable road segments having likelihood values in the corresponding occupancy map 608 that are lower than a threshold are considered false positives and are relabeled as not a drivable road segment” [Widjaja, ¶ 0089]. Again it states that the regions outside the range of the sensors are a low likelihood of free space, thus a higher likelihood of being occupied, as the claims require. Therefore Widjaja clearly discloses knowing where the vehicle is, where it wants to go, using an occupancy map, labeling areas as low likelihood of free space (areas outside the FOV of sensors) [High likelihood of objects] and areas of high likelihood of free space, areas inside the FOV, as the area closer in the FOV is known and captured by the sensors, as the current claims require.
“and to be relatively lower if the area is inside the field of view;”
Widjaja clearly states “a higher value for a given cell in the occupancy map 608 indicates a lower probability of a free space, or a space neither occupied by objects nor obstructed from the view of the sensors 602 on the AV” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084]. Here is stats a higher value is given to low probability of free spaces, which the Office is interpreting as a high probability of occupied (opposite of low-free is high-not free). Further it states that is high value of occupied is for by objects or obstructed from view of the sensors (out of range of the sensors). Further Widjaja states “When used as an image, the occupancy map 608 has free spaces shown as brighter regions (e.g., regions with higher pixel values), while occupied spaces shown as darker regions (e.g., regions with low pixel values). For example, a pixel in the occupancy map 608 is assigned 0 if the space corresponding to the pixel is not observable from the AV, e.g. when the space is behind a building which blocks the view of the sensors 602 on the AV. In such an example, the occupancy map 608 is an 8-bit grey-scale image with pixel values ranging from 0 to 255, where a pixel value of 0 represents black or a darkest intensity pixel” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084], where again, darker is higher probability of occupied and is out of range, as the claims require. Further Widjaja states “regions associated with a low likelihood of free space (e.g., regions beyond the range of sensors on a vehicle) in a corresponding occupancy map 608, the labeled drivable road segments are likely to be mislabeled or of little interest to the AV. Labeled drivable road segments having likelihood values in the corresponding occupancy map 608 that are lower than a threshold are considered false positives and are relabeled as not a drivable road segment” [Widjaja, ¶ 0089]. Again it states that the regions outside the range of the sensors are a low likelihood of free space, thus a higher likelihood of being occupied, as the claims require. Therefore Widjaja clearly discloses knowing where the vehicle is, where it wants to go, using an occupancy map, labeling areas as low likelihood of free space (areas outside the FOV of sensors) [High likelihood of objects] and areas of high likelihood of free space, areas inside the FOV, as the area closer in the FOV is known and captured by the sensors, as the current claims require.
Based on the claims as currently presented, there are occupancy thresholds, based on sensor data which updates the occupancy map. There are areas inside the FOV and outside the FOV and objects outside the FOV have a lower likelihood of being free, thus a higher likelihood of being occupied, as the claims require. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant remarks “No claim recitation can be ignored in determining anticipation. See Pac-Tex, Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 187, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a prior art reference, of each and every recitation as set forth in the claims. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 U.S.P.Q. 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., l U.S.P.Q.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986), and Akzo NV v. US. International Trade Commissioner, l U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1986). There must be no difference between the claimed invention and reference disclosure for an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (CAFC, 1991) and Studiengesellschaft Kahle GmbH v. Dart Industries, 220 U.S.P.Q. 841 (CAFC, 1984)” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior art still renders the claims obvious or anticipates the claimed subject matter, as stated previously and again above and below. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12-15, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Widjaja (United States Patent Publication 2023/0168100).
With respect to Claim 1: Widjaja discloses “A computer-implemented method of controlling an autonomous vehicle AV” [Widjaja, Abstract and ¶ 0043];
“which is movable on a surface” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“and which carries one or more sensors” [Widjaja, ¶ 0031, 0044-0045, and 0082];
“the method comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a model of the surface” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“by which each area of the surface is associated with a probabilistic occupancy score” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“determining, by the processing circuitry, an occupancy threshold to be applied to an area of the surface” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“enabling, by the processing circuitry, movement of the AV into the area if the associated occupancy score is less than the determined occupancy threshold” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“otherwise disabling, by the processing circuitry, movement into the area” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“and determining, by the processing circuitry, the occupancy threshold on the basis of the area's position” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“wherein the occupancy threshold is determined to be higher if the area is outside a field of view of the sensors carried by the AV” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“and to be relatively lower if the area is inside the field of view” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119];
“and controlling the AV based on the determined occupancy threshold” [Widjaja, ¶ 0075, 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119].
With respect to Claim 6: Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the model is obtained and/or updated based on measurement data from one or more sensors carried by the AV” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084-0085, 0088-0089 and 0119].
With respect to Claim 7: Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 6, wherein the sensors apply at least one of the following measuring principles: optical, electromagnetic reflection, electromagnetic scattering, electromagnetic diffraction, lidar, color-depth sensing, millimeter-wave radar, ultrawideband radar” [Widjaja, ¶ 0045, 0076-0077, 0088-0089 and 0119].
With respect to Claim 8: Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: updating, by the processing circuitry, the occupancy threshold in accordance with a current position of the AV” [Widjaja, ¶ 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119].
With respect to Claim 9: Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 8, further comprising: updating, by the processing circuitry, the occupancy threshold in accordance with a current orientation of the AV” [Widjaja, ¶ 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119].
With respect to Claim 12: Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the model includes an occupancy grid with a plurality of cells representing a partition of the surface into areas” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084, 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119].
With respect to Claim 13: Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 12, wherein the occupancy grid has a uniform spatial resolution” [Widjaja, ¶ 0084, 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119].
With respect to Claim 14: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-13. The vehicle controller taught/disclosed in Claim 14 can clearly perform on the method of Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-13. Therefore Claim 14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 15: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-13. The autonomous vehicle taught/disclosed in Claim 15 can clearly perform on the method of Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-13. Therefore Claim 15 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 17: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-13. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 17 can clearly perform on the method of Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-13. Therefore Claim 17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Widjaja (United States Patent Publication 2023/0168100) in view of Philbin et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0101624).
With respect to Claim 10: While Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling, by the processing circuitry, a speed of the AV away from any areas into which movement is disabled” [Widjaja, ¶ 0042, 0044, 0050, 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119];
Widjaja does not specifically state speed in relation to stopping distances.
Philbin, which is also a system that uses occupancy grids for vehicle control teaches “further comprising: controlling, by the processing circuitry, a speed of the AV based on a current position of the AV” [Philbin, ¶ 0020];
“and a relation describing a vehicle's stopping distance as a function of its speed” [Philbin, ¶ 0020];
“such that the AV is at least one stopping distance away from any areas into which movement is disabled” [Philbin, ¶ 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Widjaja to not only include creating an occupancy grid for vehicle control as Widjaja discloses but to also control speed for stopping distance based on the occupancy grid as taught by Philbin with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Philbin into Widjaja to create a more robust system that can create as system for safe stops [Philbin, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control based on occupancy grids and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Widjaja (United States Patent Publication 2023/0168100) in view of Hu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0135068).
With respect to Claim 11: While Widjaja discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the processing circuitry, a route of the AV towards a destination” [Widjaja, ¶ 0030, 0042, 0072, 0075, 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119];
“said route passing only via such areas into which movement is enabled” [Widjaja, ¶ 0030, 0042, 0072, 0075, 0088-0089, 0097, 0103, and 0119];
Widjaja does not specifically state estimating time to arrival.
Hu, which is also a system that uses occupancy grids for vehicle control teaches “and estimating a time of arrival at the destination” [Hu, ¶ 0057, 0094, and 0111].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hu into the invention of Widjaja to not only include creating an occupancy grid for vehicle control as Widjaja discloses but to also estimate the arrival time for the trajectory as taught by Hu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hu into Widjaja to create a more robust system that can account for route planning [Hu, ¶ 0094]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control based on occupancy grids and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 unpublished 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights