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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----12/4/2025 for application 18/480,178. Claim 1, 5 – 8, 12 – 15, 19 – 22, 26 – 32 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 2 – 4, 9 – 11, 16 – 18, 23 – 25 are canceled.
Claim 29 – 32 are new.
Claim 1, 5 – 8, 12 – 15, 19 – 22, 26 – 28 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2025, 12/4/2025, 1/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation is:
“means for determining” in Claim 15 – 21. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at [0099] of the instant application “due to the nature of software and computers, functions described above can be implemented using software executed by a processor, hardware, firmware, hardwiring, or a combination of any of these.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Respond to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Respond to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/4/2025, with respect to the claim rejection under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made to Claim 8, 12 – 13, 15, 19 – 20, 22, 26 – 27. For further detail, refer to the following section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8, 12 – 13, 15, 19 – 20, 22, 26 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rummelhard et al., (hereinafter Rummelhard), “Conditional Monte Carlo Dense Occupancy Tracker”.
Claim 8, Rummelhard discloses an occupancy grid probability prediction method comprising:
determine a plurality of dynamic particle probability based on a first probability that a dynamic particle will move from a donor cell of an occupancy grid to a recipient cell of the occupancy grid (fig. 4, illustrated multiple particle dynamically moving from donor cell to recipient cell; fig. 4, “the data is expressed in the new reference frame, by interpolation of grids and particle accumulation for dynamic parts”; sec. II.A – B, & eq. 1 shows the determination of current state probabilities of are based upon the moving probabilities at prior states )
determine a plurality of predicted probabilities of the recipient cell based on the dynamic particle probability (sec. II.A., “Possible states are s for ‘occupied by a static object’ object”, d for ‘occupied by a dynamic object’, e for ‘empty’ and u for ‘unknown’”; fig. 2, “environment is divided into cells to which are associated static, dynamic, empty and unknown coefficients”; i.e., occupancy grid with different/plurality of particle probabilities)
wherein determine the plurality of predicted probabilities comprises:
(1) the processor is configured to determine a predicted static probability of the recipient cell by reducing a present static probability of the recipient cell based on the dynamic particle probability (sec. III.A – B, “The s state refers to motionless occupancy, which includes strictly speaking static objects”, “The static part is represented in a classic probabilistic grid”, “a static component is assumed to remain static, or in a restricted portion to become dynamic (hypothetical set in motion of previously stationary elements)”; i.e., with a dynamic particle entering a static cell, the static object can be set in motion and reduce the probability that the cell remains static);
(2) the processor is configured to determine a predicted dynamic probability of the recipient cell by increasing a present dynamic probability of the recipient cell based on the dynamic particle probability (sec. III.A – B, ” The d state refers to dynamic occupancy represented by a set of weighted particles which sample the cell velocity”; i.e., when there are probability that a moving/dynamic particle enters the cell, the probability that the cell remain dynamic increases ); and
(3) the processor is configured to determine a predicted empty probability of the recipient cell by reducing a present empty probability of the recipient cell based on the dynamic particle probability (sec. III.A – B, “The e state corresponds to the free space, and is described in a classic probabilistic grid”; i.e., when there are probability that a moving/dynamic particle enters the cell, the probability that the cell remain empty reduces);
performing an autonomous driving operation based on the one or more predicted probabilities of the at least one of the donor cell or the recipient cell (sec. I, “The field of occupancy grid based interpretation of the environment is a developed study domain, overlapping various applications, such as … automatic autonomous navigation”).
Claim 12, Rummelhard discloses all the limitation of Claim 8. Rummelhard further teach: determine the plurality of predicted probabilities comprises: (4) the processor is configured to determine a predicted unknown probability of the recipient cell by increasing a present unknown probability of the recipient cell based on the dynamic particle probability (sec. III.A – C, “consideration is reflected on state transition coefficients, which allow a significant depreciation into the unknown state, which represents the lack of information”, “Typically, in case of laser data, the ”unknown” model scores low values before and around the impact, and high values further (where no information is available)”; as illustrated in Fig. 5, when dynamic/moving particle enters a cell having static object, the impact happens and the probability of “unknown” state raise up. ).
Claim 13, Rummelhard discloses all the limitation of Claim 8. Rummelhard further teach: the dynamic particle probability is a composite dynamic particle probability comprising an aggregate of a plurality of probabilities of dynamic particles from a plurality of donor cells being received by the recipient cell. (eq. 1 – 3, & sec. II. B., “P(C−1) is the distribution over all possible antecedents of the cell”; i.e., when evaluating the dynamic particle, more than one donor cells are considered; sec. III.C., “Dynamic predictions are accumulated (adding) from moving particles located in the cell. In a given cell c, according to equation (3), those predictions are confronted with the observation”; i.e., when considering the recipient cells, the formular accumulate all the cells/particles that have a possibility to be received by the recipient cell).
Claim 15, 19 – 20, 22, 26 – 27 are the corresponding apparatus and non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium claim of Claim 8 – 13. The methods discloses in sec II are algorithm instructions for the computation unit to perform. The non-transitory storage medium is inherent to a generic computation system. The claims are rejected with same reason.
Claim 30, Rummelhard discloses all the limitation of Claim 13. Rummelhard further teach: the composite dynamic particle probability is a sum of the plurality of probabilities of dynamic particles from a plurality of donor cells being received by the recipient cell (refer to the mapping in Claim 13 & sec. III.C., “accumulated (sum) from moving particles”).
Claim 31 and 32 are the corresponding apparatus and non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium claim of Claim 30 and thus are rejected with same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 5 – 7, and 29 are allowed.
Specifically, none of the prior fairly discloses either along or combination the calculation of probability of the static, dynamic and empty state as described in the independent Claim 1.
Claim 14, 21 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, none of the prior fairly discloses either along or combination the calculation of probability of the static, dynamic and empty state as described in Claim 14, 21 and 28.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Adarve et al., “Computing Occupancy Grid From Multiple Sensor Using Linear Opinion Pool”, IEEE, 2012, which teaches the method and computing system that performs real time occupancy grid estimation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645