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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 19 November 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and 101 as set forth in the office action of 19 August 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and 101 as set forth in the office action of 19 August 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Double Patenting rejection as set forth in the office action of 19 August 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection is still maintained, see below.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 19 August 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both instances of “vehicle” in the last limitation of claims 1, 8 and 15 should be amended to recite “AV” for consistency in claim language (two instances in each independent claim). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first “and” after the “collecting ...” limitation should be removed since the “applying ...” limitation is no longer the last limitation. Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “control” in the last limitation should be amended to recite “controlling” to match the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: There are two periods “..” at the end of the claim, there should only be one period, “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 recite “selected time period” (emphasis added), there is no support or recitation of a “selected time period” corresponding to the first/second sensor data in Applicant’s specification. If Applicant is merely indicating that the first sensor data is collected at a first time while the second sensor data is collected at a second time later than the first time then such should either be clarified by Applicant’s remarks in response to this action or amended to clarify the claim language.
Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (US20210333373A1) in view of Iwase (JP2021182001A – translation attached) in further view of Gada (US20230350420A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nair discloses a system (see at least claim 8) comprising: at least one memory (see at least claim 8); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to perform a method including (see at least claim 8): collecting first sensor data for an environment around an autonomous vehicle (AV) (see at least [0014], [0020], [0024] and claim 8); identifying a surface of the AV (see at least [0025] and claim 8); generating a mask representing one or more data points that correspond with the surface of the AV (see at least [0016], [0019] and claim 10); collecting second sensor data for the environment around the AV (see at least [0014], [0024], claim 8 and claim 10).
Nair does not explicitly disclose the mask being an image mask and applying the image mask to the collected second sensor data to generate processed sensor data; and controlling a system of the vehicle to navigate the vehicle based on the processed sensor data. However, Iwase teaches the mask being an image mask and applying the image mask to the collected second sensor data to generate processed sensor data; and controlling a system of the vehicle to navigate the vehicle based on the processed sensor data (see at least [0041], [0072], [0073], [0099]-[0103], [0109]-[0115] and [0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair to incorporate the teachings of Iwase which teaches the mask being an image mask and applying the image mask to the collected second sensor data to generate processed sensor data; and controlling a system of the vehicle to navigate the vehicle based on the processed sensor data since they are directed to mask generation for vehicle surface and incorporation of the teachings of Iwase would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Nair as modified by Iwase fails to disclose the first sensor data including a plurality of image frames collected over a selected time period; identifying a static image artifact, the static image artifact appearing at an identical location in each of the plurality of image frames; identifying the static image artifact as the surface of the AV; generating the image mask representing the one or more data points that correspond with the static image artifact as the surface of the AV. However, Gada teaches the first sensor data including a plurality of image frames collected over a selected time period; identifying a static image artifact, the static image artifact appearing at an identical location in each of the plurality of image frames; identifying the static image artifact as the surface of the AV; generating the image mask representing the one or more data points that correspond with the static image artifact as the surface of the AV (see at least [0010], [0077], [0079] and [0098]; motion analysis performed for plurality of images to distinguish between the stationary body of the robot/vehicle and the moving background in order to generate the mask using such information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair as modified by Iwase to incorporate the teachings of Gada which teaches the first sensor data including a plurality of image frames collected over a selected time period; identifying a static image artifact, the static image artifact appearing at an identical location in each of the plurality of image frames; identifying the static image artifact as the surface of the AV; generating the image mask representing the one or more data points that correspond with the static image artifact as the surface of the AV since they are all directed to vehicle systems using mask techniques and incorporation of the teachings of Gada would increase accuracy and flexibility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Nair as modified by Iwase fails to disclose wherein the collected second sensor data includes a plurality of subsequent image frames collected after the selected time period. However, Gada teaches wherein the collected second sensor data includes a plurality of subsequent image frames collected after the selected time period (see at least [0008], [0077]-[0079] and [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair as modified by Iwase to incorporate the teachings of Gada which teaches wherein the collected second sensor data includes a plurality of subsequent image frames collected after the selected time period since they are all directed to vehicle systems using mask techniques and incorporation of the teachings of Gada would increase accuracy and flexibility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 3, Nair as modified by Iwase fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the static image artifact as the surface of the AV using a machine learning model. However, Gada teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the static image artifact as the surface of the AV using a machine learning model (see at least [0008], [0077]-[0079] and [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair as modified by Iwase to incorporate the teachings of Gada which teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the static image artifact as the surface of the AV using a machine learning model since they are all directed to vehicle systems using mask techniques and incorporation of the teachings of Gada would increase accuracy and flexibility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 4, Nair as modified by Iwase fails to disclose wherein the image mask is generated using a machine learning model. However, Gada teaches wherein the image mask is generated using a machine learning model (see at least [0008], [0077]-[0079] and [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair as modified by Iwase to incorporate the teachings of Gada which teaches wherein the image mask is generated using a machine learning model since they are all directed to vehicle systems using mask techniques and incorporation of the teachings of Gada would increase accuracy and flexibility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 6, Nair does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data comprises time of flight (TOF) data. However, Iwase teaches wherein the sensor data comprises time of flight (TOF) data (see at least [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair to incorporate the teachings of Iwase which teaches wherein the sensor data comprises time of flight (TOF) data since they are directed to mask generation for vehicle surface and incorporation of the teachings of Iwase would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 7, Nair as modified by Iwase and Gada discloses wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data is collected by a sensor having a field of view configured to be fixed relative to the AV (see at least Nair Figure 1 and [0012]-[0016]).
Regarding claims 8-11, 13 and 14, claims 8-11, 13 and 14 are commensurate in scope with claims 1-4, 6 and 7, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 15, Nair discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising at least one instruction for causing a computer or processor to (see at least claim 15). The rest of claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, claims 16-18 and 20 are commensurate in scope with claims 2-4 and 6, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 2-4 and 6.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (US20210333373A1) in view of Iwase (JP2021182001A – translation attached) in further view of Gada (US20230350420A1) in further view of Puri (US20220101047A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nair as modified by Iwase and Gada does not explicitly disclose wherein the image mask is dilated before it is applied to the collected second sensor data. However, Puri teaches wherein the image mask is dilated before it is applied to the collected second sensor data (see at least [0051] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Nair as modified by Iwase and Gada to incorporate the teachings of Puri which teaches wherein the image mask is dilated before it is applied to the collected second sensor data since they are directed to mask generation and incorporation of the teachings of Puri would increase reliability of the overall system by remediating potential error (see Puri [0052]).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, claims 12 and 19 are commensurate in scope with claim 5. See above for rejection of claim 5.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,726,188 B2 in view of the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Although the claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,726,188 B2 are not identical to claims 1-20 of the instant application, claims 1-20 of the instant application are rendered obvious in view of the claims in view of the prior art. For example, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,726,188 B2 recite all elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application with the exception of the limitations mentioned in the 35 USC 103 rejection above that are taught/suggested by the corresponding prior arts in the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Accordingly, all elements of claims 1-20 are unpatentable over the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 11,726,188 B2 in view of prior art and as found obvious in the 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667