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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
2. The amendment filed on 01/23/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 21-22, 24-31 and 33-40 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claim 21-22, 24-31 and 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,8988,62. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claims in the instant invention are anticipated by Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,8988,62 and constitutes an obvious variation. Also it would be obvious to claim a media off the system and/or vice versa.
4. Claim 21-22, 24-27, 29-31, and 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,802,477. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claims in the instant invention are anticipated by Claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,802,477 and constitutes an obvious variation. Also it would be obvious to claim a media off the system and/or vice versa.
5. Claim 21-22, 24-31 and 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,975. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claims in the instant invention are anticipated by Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,978 and constitutes an obvious variation. Also it would be obvious to claim a media/system off the system/media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 21-22, 24-31 and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20160314224 A1), in view of Medium (“The View from the Front Seat of the Google Self-Driving Car, Chapter 4”), and further in view of Espindle et al. (“Safety Analysis of Upgrading to TCAS Version 7.1 Using the 2008 U.S. Correlated Encounter Model”)
Martin et al. (“Certification for Autonomous Vehicles”), and in further view of Eriksson et al. (“Tuning for Ride Quality in Autonomous Vehicle’).
As per Claim 21, 30, and 37, Wei et al. teaches a computer-implemented method/system/ non-transitory computer-readable storage media for evaluating environmental control software (Abstract), comprising:
storing, in a memory, a plurality of combinations of test conditions for a simulated environment (Fig. 1-2 [0019], [0031], [0033], [0039], “the memory system 18 includes model data 22 and simulation behavioral data 24. The model data 22 can include data associated with simulated renderings of the simulated virtual environment in which the simulated version of the autonomous vehicle interacts in a given simulated mission.”);
generating, by one or more processors, simulated sensor data for evaluating an autonomous operation feature of a plurality of autonomous operation features of an environmental operating system within the simulated environment under the plurality of combinations of test conditions ([0003] “a simulation controller configured to generate simulated sensor data based on model data and behavioral data associated with each of the simulated virtual environment and the spontaneous simulated events.”; [0016] “the autonomous vehicle simulation system 10 is configured to test the autonomous operation of the autonomous vehicle in a simulated manner,” [0020] “The simulation driver 20 is configured to integrate the simulation inputs SIM provided via the user interface 14 with the model data 22 and the simulation behavioral data 24 to provide the simulation commands SIM_CMD to the autonomous vehicle control system 12. Additionally, the simulation driver 20 is configured to receive the feedback signals SIM_CMD from the autonomous vehicle control system 12”, [0032], “the sensor models 60 can include models associated with a navigation sensor (e.g., modeled as a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and/or inertial navigation sensor(s) (INS)), a radar system, a lidar system, a video system, electro-optical sensors, and/or a variety of other types of sensors.”);
…
recording, in the memory, output generated by the emulator program, the recorded output including timestamps that associate the recorded output with a corresponding input sequence of simulated sensor data ([0003]” The simulated sensor data corresponds to simulated sensor inputs provided to the autonomous vehicle control system via sensors of the autonomous vehicle.”, [0004] “providing simulation feedback data from the autonomous vehicle control system comprising the simulated interaction of the autonomous vehicle within the simulated virtual environment and reactive behavior of the autonomous vehicle control system in response to the spontaneous simulated event to the user interface.”, [0017]-[0018] “The autonomous vehicle control system 12 can thus be tested for autonomous operation of the autonomous vehicle in a simulated mission based on inputs provided to and feedback provided from the autonomous vehicle control system 12. As described herein, the terms “simulated mission” and “simulation of the autonomous vehicle” describe a simulation operation of the autonomous vehicle control system in a simulated virtual environment in which a simulated version of the autonomous vehicle interacts with the simulated virtual environment based on the inputs provided to and the feedback provided from the autonomous vehicle control system 12.” [0020] “the simulation driver 20 can be configured as one or more processors configured to compile the simulated mission.”, [0038]-[0043] “the autonomous vehicle control system 12, in controlling the simulated version of the autonomous vehicle, can be tested for improvised reactive behavior to the events that are defined via the event inputs SIM_EVT based on the programming therein.”, “the event inputs SIM_EVT can correspond to scripted events (e.g., time-based)”, “thus, the simulated mission can be viewed and reviewed a number of times from start to finish, or at portions in between, at any time subsequent to completion of the simulated mission.”, “the event generator 302 also generates a time stamp based on a clock signal CLK that is provided via a clock 312. ”, “ the simulation feedback interface 258 can be configured to record the simulated mission to generate an event log that is saved in a memory (e.g., the memory system 50).”); and ….
Wei et al. fails to teach explicitly simultaneously implement a plurality of instances of an emulator program using the simulated sensor data to mimic the environmental operating system and control one or more settings of the autonomous operation feature under one at least one combination of test conditions within the simulated environment based upon the simulated sensor data corresponding to the at least one combination of test conditions, each instance of the emulator program corresponding to a respective emulated control of the autonomous operation feature under a respective one of the combinations of test conditions within the simulated environment;
generating, by the one or more processors, a quality metric for the autonomous operation feature based upon the recorded output generated in response to the simulated sensor data, wherein the quality metric indicates one or more risk levels associated with use of the autonomous operation feature of the plurality of autonomous operation features.
Medium teaches simultaneously implement a plurality of instances of an emulator program using the simulated sensor data to mimic the environmental operating system and control one or more settings of the autonomous operation feature under one at least one combination of test conditions within the simulated environment based upon the simulated sensor data corresponding to the at least one combination of test conditions, each instance of the emulator program corresponding to a respective emulated control of the autonomous operation feature under a respective one of the combinations of test conditions within the simulated environment (“We do this on our test track, in the real world (more than 1.3 million miles to date), and in our simulator (more than 3 million miles a day).” on pg 3, “ we replayed a real-world situation in our simulator,” on pg 4, “our powerful simulator generates thousands of virtual testing scenarios for us; it executes dozens of variations on situations we’ve encountered in the real world by adjusting parameters such as the position and speed of our vehicle and of other road users around us.” on pg 9). In particular, Medium teaches that Google’s simulator generates thousands of virtual testing scenarios, executing dozens of variations on real-world situations by adjusting parameters such as the position and speed of vehicle and other road users achieving more than three million simulated miles per day. The scale of three million simulated miles per day across thousands of scenario variations with different parameter sets necessarily implies a massively parallel server infrastructure as this throughput is physically impossible on a single server which require simultaneously running a plurality of instances of the simulation program, each instance corresponding to a respective emulated control of an autonomous driving feature under a respective one of the different combinations of test conditions.
Furthermore, Espindle et al. teaches generating, by the one or more processors, a quality metric for the autonomous operation feature based upon the recorded output generated in response to the simulated sensor data, wherein the quality metric indicates one or more risk levels associated with use of the autonomous operation feature of the plurality of autonomous operation features (“We created 500,000 sample encounters from the U.S. correlated encounter model in order to test the safety of V7.1. We then used our simulation environment, CASSATT, to run the encounters in simulation under various equipage and pilot response combinations, and computed metrics such as risk ratios and Near Mid Aid Collision (NMAC) rates.”, “The risk ratio for V7.1 when both aircraft respond to their RAs is 1.59%, compared to 1.61% with V7.0.” On pg iii; section 2.3.1. “A common metric that incorporates P(nmac | enc) is the risk ratio, which compares the P(nmac | enc) resulting from equipping one or more aircraft during the encounter with TCAS versus the nominal encounter condition where neither plane is equipped with TCAS” on pg 6-7; “The Collision Avoidance System Safety Assessment Tool (CASSATT) performs fast-time Monte Carlo analysis of aircraft encounters. CASSATT takes either real radar tracks or encounter model data,” on pg 41). In particular, Espindle et al. teaches computing a risk ration metric defined as the probability of a near mid-air collision (NMAC) with the collision avoidance system equipped divided by the probability of NMAC without the system equipped, there by generating a quality metric from simulation output that indicates risk levels associated with use of an autonomous collision avoidance feature (section 2.3.1. pg 6-7) after running 500,000 simulated encounters through the CASSAT fast time Monte Carlo simulation environment and computing the rick ratio for each equipage and pilot response combination, reporting, for example, that the risk ration when both aircraft respond to their resolution advisories is 1.59%, compared to 1.61% for V7.0 (pg iii, pg 5-6 & 41).
Wei et al., Medium, and Espindle et al. are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor evaluating autonomous vehicle control software.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Medium and Espindle et al. into Wei et al.’s invention to help test how a car would have performed under slightly different circumstances such as valuable preparation for a public road environment in which fractions of seconds can be of critical importance. (Medium: pg 9) and in order to determine the improved overall safety version of an autonomous operation feature (Espindle et al.: pg 13).
As per Claim 22, 31, and 38, Wei et al. teaches wherein the simulated sensor data comprises one or more sequences of simulated sensor signals associated with one or more time durations of simulated environmental operation ([0039], [0043]-[0045]).
As per Claim 24, 33, and 39, Wei et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein generating the quality metric includes: comparing, by one or more processors, the recorded output with one or more baseline output values associated with a set of test data.
Espindle et al. teaches wherein generating the quality metric includes: comparing, by one or more processors, the recorded output with one or more baseline output values associated with a set of test data (“We created 500,000 sample encounters from the U.S. correlated encounter model in order to test the safety of V7.1. We then used our simulation environment, CASSATT, to run the encounters in simulation under various equipage and pilot response combinations, and computed metrics such as risk ratios and Near Mid Aid Collision (NMAC) rates.”, “The risk ratio for V7.1 when both aircraft respond to their RAs is 1.59%, compared to 1.61% with V7.0.” On pg iii: same 500,000 encounter set run through both V7.0 (corresponding to “baseline”) and V7.1, results directly compared ).
As per Claim 25, 33, and 39, Wei et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein generating the quality metric further includes: determining, by one or more processors, one or more differences between the recorded output and the one or more baseline output values; and determining, by one or more processors, the quality metric based upon the one or more determined differences.
Espindle et al. teaches wherein generating the quality metric further includes: determining, by one or more processors, one or more differences between the recorded output and the one or more baseline output values (“V7.1 lowered the risk of NMAC over V7.0, in some cases substantially.”, “The risk ratio for V7.1 when both aircraft respond to their RAs is 1.59%, compared to 1.61% with V7.0.”, “The risk ratio for V7.1 when one aircraft does not respond to their RAs is 9.61%, compared to 9.85% with V7.0.” on pg iii-iv, Table 1 o pg 7; Table (9) and (10) on pg 23); and determining, by one or more processors, the quality metric based upon the one or more determined differences (“V7.1 lowered the risk of NMAC over V7.0, in some cases substantially.”, “The risk ratio for V7.1 when both aircraft respond to their RAs is 1.59%, compared to 1.61% with V7.0.”, “The risk ratio for V7.1 when one aircraft does not respond to their RAs is 9.61%, compared to 9.85% with V7.0.” on pg iii-iv, Tables on pg 7-8; Table (9) and (10) on pg 23).
As per Claim 26 and 34, Wei et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the emulator program is associated with a first version of environmental control software, wherein the one or more baseline output values are associated with a second version of environmental control software for the autonomous operation feature, wherein the second version is different from the first version.
Espindle et al. teaches wherein the emulator program is associated with a first version of environmental control software, wherein the one or more baseline output values are associated with a second version of environmental control software for the autonomous operation feature, wherein the second version is different from the first version (section 2.2 “Each of the 500,000 sampled encounters is simulated under various TCAS”, “V7.0: The aircraft is equipped with a TCAS unit with the Version 7.0 software, and a Mode S transponder with 25ft altitude quantization”, “V7.1: The aircraft is equipped with a TCAS unit with the Version 7.1 software, and a Mode S transponder with 25ft altitude quantization.” on pg 5-6: two explicitly different software versions, V7.0 (baseline) and V7.1, tested against same encounter set).
As per Claim 27 and 35, Wei et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the one or more determined differences include at least one indication of an improvement of the recorded output over the one or more baseline output values.
Espindle et al. teaches wherein the one or more determined differences include at least one indication of an improvement of the recorded output over the one or more baseline output values (“WhenV7.1 changes the vertical miss distance (VMD) compared to V7.0, VMD increases 91% of the time.”, “All supporting metrics support the same conclusion, that more risk lies in remaining with the status-quo over upgrading to V7.1.” on pg iv).
As Claim 28, Wei et al. teaches wherein a set of test data includes a plurality of subsets of test data, each subset associated with a respective combination of the plurality of combinations of test conditions ([0031], [0033], [0039], [0042], Fig. 7).
As per Claim 29, 36, and 40, Wei et al. teaches wherein the environmental operating system is one of a smart home operating system and an autonomous vehicle operating system (Title, Abstract, [0016]-[0017]).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – Wei et al. (US 20160314224 A1), in view of Medium (“The View from the Front Seat of the Google Self-Driving Car, Chapter 4”), and further in view of Espindle et al. (“Safety Analysis of Upgrading to TCAS Version 7.1 Using the 2008 U.S. Correlated Encounter Model”)
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights