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 Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on November 25, 2025.
Claims 1, 10-18, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding Claim Objections:
The outstanding objection of claim 20 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments adding “non-transitory” before “computer storage medium” in the preamble.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant correctly points out that the Examiner made a typographical error indicating claim 1 instead of claim 10 when referring to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) for the following terms:
“surroundings obtaining unit” (in originally presented claim 10);
“interaction determining unit” (in originally presented claim 10);
“interaction selection unit” (in originally presented claims 10, 12, and 16);
“position determining unit” (in originally presented claims 10, 13, and 17);
“virtual vehicle controlling unit” (in originally presented claim 10); and
“data generating unit”(in originally presented claim 10).
Similarly, Applicant correctly points out that the Examiner made a typographical error indicating claim 2 instead of claim 11 when referring to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) for the following term:
“data collecting unit” (in originally presented claim 11, and also originally presented claim 15).
The outstanding 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation for the following terms is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting all of these terms from the claim language and replacing them with “at least one processor configured to”:
“surroundings obtaining unit” (in originally presented claim 10);
“interaction determining unit” (in originally presented claim 10);
“interaction selection unit” (in originally presented claims 10, 12, and 16);
“position determining unit” (in originally presented claims 10, 13, and 17);
“virtual vehicle controlling unit” (in originally presented claim 10);
“data generating unit”(in originally presented claim 10);
“data collecting unit” (in originally presented claims 11 and 15);
“an ODD fulfillment determining unit” (in originally presented claims 14 and 18); and
“a value determining unit” (in originally presented claim 15).
The Examiner notes that an objection to claim 13 is currently being made because the format of the current amendment is not proper. The current amend to claim 13 shows the addition of the text, “at least one processor” in line 2. However, the claim amendment does not show the deletion of the original text “the position determining unit”.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant correctly points out that the Examiner made a typographical error in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The rejection should have stated that claims 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC (b), not claims 1, 13, and 17.
The outstanding 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 10, 13, and 17 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting the term “position determining unit” from all of the claims and replacing it with “at least one processor configured to”.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
Applicant correctly points out that the Examiner made a typographical error in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection. The rejection should have stated that claims 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC (a), not claims 1, 13, and 17.
The outstanding 35 USC 112(a) rejections of claims 10, 13, and 17 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting the term “position determining unit” from all of the claims and replacing it with “at least one processor configured to”.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “claims do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Prong One). … Taken together, Applicant’s method represents a process that is not merely a mental process.” See p. 13 Applicant’s Remarks filed November 25, 2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations that are found to include an abstract idea are, “determining by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users; selecting at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested; identifying an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development; and controlling …, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position”. Each of these limitations may practically be performed in the human mind.
The Applicant further states that claims, “1, 10, and 20 are similar to Example 38 in ‘Examples: Abstract Ideas’ issued January 7, 209, by the USPTO (herein referred to as ‘USPTO Examples’.)” See p. 13 in Applicant’s Remarked filed November 25, 2025.
The Examiner takes the position that the claim limitations in Example 38 require more specific information that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for example, “initializing a model of an analog circuit in the digital computer, said model including a location, initial value, and a manufacturing tolerance range for each of the circuit elements within the analog circuit; generating a normally distributed first random value for each circuit element, using a pseudo random number generator, based on a respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range; and simulating a first digital representation of the analog circuit based on the first random value and the location of each circuit element within the analog circuit.” These claim limitations are more specific and define steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind including using a pseudo random number generator” specifically “based on a respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range” and “simulating a first digital representation of the analog circuit based on the first random value and the location of each circuit element within the analog circuit”. Conversely, the current claim limitations, more broadly, include “determining by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users”, which a human can practically perform in their mind potential interaction situations ahead of the vehicle and determine potential surrounding road users; “selecting at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested”, which a human can practically perform in their mind by determining an upcoming potential interaction, for example a driver can identify and determine that there is an upcoming traffic jam and select that the vehicle’s cruise control will need to be either turned off or adjusted; “identifying an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development”, which a human can practically perform in their mind by identifying another vantage point, for example, a sign post along the side of the road, and identify the movement of a vehicle in front of the current vehicle, that is already in the upcoming traffic jam, relative to the identified sign post; and “controlling …, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position”, which a human can practically perform in their mind by controlling a virtual version of the vehicle they are driving at the identified position. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that the current claims recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner takes the position that the current claims are more similar to claim 2 in Example 47, in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, because the claim does not put any limits on how the data is received, what specific data is being used, how the vehicle surroundings data is assessed to determine one or more potential interaction situations, what the predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations includes or involves, how an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle is selected, how the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interactions situation are identified, nor does the claim limit how the control of the virtual version of the vehicle deployed is related to or impacted by the prior limitations. Since there are no specific limitations provided, all of the claim limitations are given their plain meanings.
The Applicant further argues that “Applicant’s Claims recite a practical application (Prong Two)”. Applicant further states that the claim includes features that “relate to operation of vehicle-mounted sensors and improved functionality of an ADS of a vehicle, which recites particular machines and not simply generic computer components.” See pp. 14-15, Applicant’s Remarks submitted November 25, 2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claim requires “obtaining vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors”, which is insignificant extra-solution activity involving mere data gathering. There is no indication of what specific vehicle surroundings data is obtained.
Further, there is no indication from the claim language how the functionality of an ADS of a vehicle is improved, rather the claim language requires, “controlling, by the ADS, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position”. This limitation, nor any other limitation, indicates how the functionality of the ADS of a vehicle is improved.
Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that, “Independent Claims 1, 10, and 20 meet Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis.” Applicant goes on to argue that, “these claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.” See p. 15 of Applicant’s Remarks filed November 25, 2025. Further arguments state that, “Applicant’s claims recite more than well-known activities known to the industry as related to ADS generation of driving scenarios. For example, Applicant’s claimed features are not well-known. This is evidenced by the Office Action’s cited references that do not disclose the claimed selection, as described below.” See p. 16 of Applicant’s Remarks filed November 25, 2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. References have been identified that disclose all of the claim limitations, as explained in detail in the updated (based on Applicant’s amendments) 35 USC 103 rejection below.
Further, there is no indication that “Applicant’s generating ADS performance data using an ADS-controlled virtual vehicle in an identified position relating to an interaction situation selected based on sensor data from a vehicle-mounted sensor is directed to improving the functioning of a computer, i.e., an ADS of a vehicle”. See p. 16 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 25, 2025. It is not clear how the functioning is improved. An example that has been identified by the Courts as improving the functioning of a computer includes, “a modification of conventional internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage”. See MPEP 2106.05, I, A, i.
Regarding “claim 10 being directed to a scenario generating system that has processing circuitry that causes certain actions to be performed” (See p. 16 of Applicant’s Remarked filed November 25, 2025), the “Automated Driving System, ADS” onboard “the vehicle”, that includes “at least one processor” are all additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. They are all recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained but are modified below based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2025 have been fully considered. The Applicant’s amendments to each of the independent claims has changed the scope of the claims prompting an updated search. Based upon the updated search, new reference, Teraguchi (Publication US 2024/0185499 A1) has been cited, for each independent claim, as disclosing “identify an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development” in paragraphs [0063], [0065] and [0066], as explained in detail below. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
The outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained but are modified based on Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The format of the current amendment is not proper. The current amend to claim 13 shows the addition of the text, “at least one processor” in line 2. However, the claim amendment does not show the deletion of the original text “the position determining unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 10 is directed to a system (i.e., an apparatus).
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium storing a computer program containing computer program code (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 20 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claims 10 and 20) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method performed by a scenario generating system for supporting generation of driving scenarios of an Automated Driving System, ADS, the ADS being provided onboard a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors;
determining by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users;
selecting at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested;
identifying an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development;
controlling by the ADS, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position; and
generating ADS performance data enacted from the ADS-controlled virtual vehicle.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users; selecting at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested; identifying an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development; and controlling …, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method performed by a scenario generating system for supporting generation of driving scenarios of an Automated Driving System, ADS, the ADS being provided onboard a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors;
determining by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users;
selecting at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested;
identifying an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development;
controlling by the ADS, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position; and
generating ADS performance data enacted from the ADS-controlled virtual vehicle.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “by the ADS”, it merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitations, “obtaining vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors”; and “generating ADS performance data enacted from the ADS-controlled virtual vehicle” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an ADS processor to perform the “determining by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users; selecting at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested; identifying an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development; and controlling …, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors”; “generating ADS performance data enacted from the ADS-controlled virtual vehicle”; and “by the ADS”, the Examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors”; “generating ADS performance data enacted from the ADS-controlled virtual vehicle”; and “by the ADS”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the ADS processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokolov (Publication WO 2022/106829), in view of Lee (Publication KR 2024 0073259 A) and Teraguchi (Publication US 2024/0185499 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Sokolov”, “Lee”, and “Teraguchi”.)
As per claim 10 (representative of claims 1 and 20),
Sokolov discloses a scenario generating system for supporting generation of driving scenarios of an Automated Driving System, ADS, the ADS being provided onboard a vehicle, [see at least Sokolov p. 28 "This model we refer to as the 'Metaverse World Model" or 'world model'. The time-step ahead computation of the next most probable state of individual objects in this metaverse is an essential task…In the Metaverse implementation, the next most probable state of a metaverse world object is a computed inference of its physical state in a certain time-step. It can be derived from its actual known state, considering surrounding circumstances (including actual conditions and events)..."] the scenario generating system comprising at least one processor configured to:
obtain vehicle surroundings data based on sensor data derived from one or more vehicle-mounted sensors [see at least Sokolov p. 19 "The Roborace Metaverse system is a data fusion system for use in a real-world vehicle, in which the vehicle includes multiple data sources that generate sensor data that is spatially-mapped to a real-world region…"];
determine, by assessing the vehicle surroundings data, one or more potential interaction situations ahead involving the vehicle and one or more potential surrounding road users [see at least Sokolov p. 21 "More importantly, the fusion of all physical and virtual spatial data into the Metaverse World Model is the foundation for interaction between physical and virtual objects. Possible use cases include the following: … the physical world locations of cars, the status of the traffic lights, the time of day, weather conditions, mountain roads, city roads, highways, lanes, parking bays, garages..."];
select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations … [see at least Sokolov p. 23 "...we have an automated driving system (ADS) for a vehicle, in which the ADS includes a local world model derived from sensing the physical world around the vehicle, … "];
… control, by the ADS, a virtual version of the vehicle deployed in the identified position [see at least Sokolov p. 23 " The local world model in the ADS sends data to, and the ADS Planning and Control layer receives data from, an external fused or metaverse world model system."]; and
generate ADS performance data enacted from the ADS-controlled virtual vehicle [see at least Sokolov p. 27 "5. Metaverse World Models -- shared data models for describing semi-simulated (e.g. hybrid virtual and real-world) dynamic physical systems, in order to seamlessly fuse data acquired in the physical world with data generated within a virtual world."]
Sokolov fails to disclose … at least one processor configured to: … select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested … . However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 10 "... the MRM determiner is MRM (minimum risk) for autonomous driving, characterized in that it is configured to use an ADS profile in which information of the autonomous driving system including autonomous driving level, object detection range, object detection distance, and driving speed is stored when determining the MRM mode."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use … at least one processor configured to: … select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria pinpointing interaction situations in view of which further ADS development is requested … as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
The combination of Sokolov and Lee fails to disclose … identify an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development … . However, Teraguchi teaches this limitation [see at least Teraguchi [0063] "...a virtual viewpoint position ahead of the vehicle in a traveling direction is set; the acquired surrounding information is used to generate virtual surrounding information indicating the surrounding environment at the set virtual viewpoint position... driving assistance information for assisting driving of the vehicle is generated based on the received driving operation information … “; [0065] “… position information indicating a position of the vehicle is acquired; the virtual viewpoint position in the surrounding environment of the vehicle is calculated with the position of the vehicle as a reference; and the surrounding image is used to generate the virtual surrounding image based on the virtual viewpoint position. This makes it possible to use the surrounding image and generate a virtual surrounding image of the virtual viewpoint position based on the positional relationship in the surrounding environment with the position of the own vehicle as a reference.”; [0066] “Further, in the present embodiment, the surrounding image is acquired from at least one of sensor information acquired by the vehicle, sensor information acquired by another vehicle, and sensor information acquired by an infrastructure sensor installed along a traveling road. This makes it possible to acquire even a surrounding image of a place that cannot be acquired by the sensors of the own vehicle because it is a blind spot.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Sokolov and Lee to use … identify an on-road located position offering another vantage point other than a vantage point of the vehicle to the selected at least first potential interaction situation, the on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria defining on-road located positions relative the selected at least first potential interaction situation, of interest in view of further ADS development … as disclosed in Teraguchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of enable driving an autonomous vehicle in response to changes in the traveling circumstances without delay. [See at least Teraguchi [0004].]
As per claim 11 (representative of claim 2), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Sokolov discloses … further comprising: a data collecting unit configured to collect at least a portion of the generated ADS performance data for development of ADSs [see at least Sokolov p. 29 "This Metaverse implementation also introduces the concept of data infusers, which are a key active component of the Metaverse platform that fulfil fusion of real (actual) and virtual (simulated) data into the control and sensor data of the machines. Technically, the infusers are onboard digital components connected to internal controllers and sensors of a machine via its internal communication bus, or directly as separate hardware units or as symbiotic software modules installed to its existing hardware units. Spatially-mapped data flows from the control and sensor systems up to the infusers and from there up to the world model and from there to the vehicle planning and control system (e.g. ADS system),... ."]
As per claim 12 (representative of claim3), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Sokolov fails to disclose … wherein the interaction selecting unit is configured to select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data. However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 5 "The ADS profile (39) stores the information of the autonomous driving system and contains basic information of the autonomous driving system such as autonomous driving level, object detection range (front, rear, left room, right room, etc.), object detection distance, and maximum driving speed. It is saved. The ADS profile 39 is set in a storage device such as a memory in the MRM device 27."; p. 5 "When an emergency situation occurs in which normal autonomous driving service cannot be provided, the MRM device 27 determines the severity of the emergency situation, selects one of the six MRM modes shown in FIG. 2, and performs it."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use … wherein the interaction selecting unit is configured to select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
As per claim 13 (representative of claim 4), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Sokolov discloses … wherein the position determining unit is configured to identify an on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria ... [see at least Sokolov p.28 "This model we refer to as the 'Metaverse World Model' or 'world model'. The time-step ahead computation of the next most probable state of individual objects in this metaverse is an essential task for its functioning; … In the Metaverse implementation, the next most probable state of a metaverse world object is a computed inference of its physical state in a certain time-step. It can be derived from its actual known state, considering surrounding circumstances (including actual conditions and events ... )."]
Sokolov fails to disclose … wherein the position determining unit is configured to identify an on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data. However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 5 "The ADS profile (39) stores the information of the autonomous driving system and contains basic information of the autonomous driving system such as autonomous driving level, object detection range (front, rear, left room, right room, etc.), object detection distance, and maximum driving speed. It is saved. The ADS profile 39 is set in a storage device such as a memory in the MRM device 27."; p. 5 "When an emergency situation occurs in which normal autonomous driving service cannot be provided, the MRM device 27 determines the severity of the emergency situation, selects one of the six MRM modes shown in FIG. 2, and performs it."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use … wherein the position determining unit is configured to identify an on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
As per claim 14 (representative of claim 5), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Sokolov fails to disclose … further comprising: an ODD fulfilment determining unit configured to determine that Operational Design Domain, ODD, conditions of the ADS are fulfilled. However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 7 "...it is checked (219) whether the ADS is operating normally and the ODD is satisfied,… ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use … further comprising: an ODD fulfilment determining unit configured to determine that Operational Design Domain, ODD, conditions of the ADS are fulfilled as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
As per claim 15 (representative of claim 6), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Sokolov discloses … further comprising: a value determining unit configured to determine a development value of the generated ADS performance data; and wherein the data collecting unit is configured to collect the at least a portion of the generated ADS performance data, provided that the development value fulfils predeterminable development value criteria [see at least Sokolov p. 6 "The ultimate aim is to develop software-implemented agents or systems that perform better across a far broader range of scenarios."; p. 22 "External software development teams ensure that an agent’s “Local World Model” can be shared into the Roborace “Metaverse World Model”. For example, by doing so the “Local World Model” of an Automated or Autonomous Driving System (ADS) can be referenced against the Roborace “Metaverse World Model” for accuracy. This creates an objective measure of ADS performance, without source code interrogation, and where appropriate the results can be used to impose safety restrictions."]
As per claim 16 (representative of claim 7), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Sokolov fails to disclose …wherein the interaction selecting unit is configured to select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data. However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 5 "The ADS profile (39) stores the information of the autonomous driving system and contains basic information of the autonomous driving system such as autonomous driving level, object detection range (front, rear, left room, right room, etc.), object detection distance, and maximum driving speed. It is saved. The ADS profile 39 is set in a storage device such as a memory in the MRM device 27."; p. 5 "When an emergency situation occurs in which normal autonomous driving service cannot be provided, the MRM device 27 determines the severity of the emergency situation, selects one of the six MRM modes shown in FIG. 2, and performs it."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use …wherein the interaction selecting unit is configured to select at least a first of the one or more potential interaction situations, fulfilling predeterminable interaction criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
As per claim 17 (representative of claim 8), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Sokolov discloses … wherein the position determining unit is configured to identify an on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria ... [see at least Sokolov p. 28 "This model we refer to as the 'Metaverse World Model' or 'world model'. The time-step ahead computation of the next most probable state of individual objects in this metaverse is an essential task for its functioning; … In the Metaverse implementation, the next most probable state of a metaverse world object is a computed inference of its physical state in a certain time-step. It can be derived from its actual known state, considering surrounding circumstances (including actual conditions and events ... )."]
Sokolov fails to disclose … wherein the position determining unit is configured to identify an on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data. However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 5 "The ADS profile (39) stores the information of the autonomous driving system and contains basic information of the autonomous driving system such as autonomous driving level, object detection range (front, rear, left room, right room, etc.), object detection distance, and maximum driving speed. It is saved. The ADS profile 39 is set in a storage device such as a memory in the MRM device 27."; p. 5 "When an emergency situation occurs in which normal autonomous driving service cannot be provided, the MRM device 27 determines the severity of the emergency situation, selects one of the six MRM modes shown in FIG. 2, and performs it."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use … wherein the position determining unit is configured to identify an on-road located position fulfilling predeterminable position criteria set in view of previously collected ADS performance data as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
As per claim 18 (representative of claim 9), the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Sokolov fails to disclose … further comprising: an ODD fulfilment determining unit configured to determine that Operational Design Domain, ODD, conditions of the ADS are fulfilled. However, Lee teaches this limitation [see at least Lee p. 7 "...it is checked (219) whether the ADS is operating normally and the ODD is satisfied,… ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Sokolov to use … further comprising: an ODD fulfilment determining unit configured to determine that Operational Design Domain, ODD, conditions of the ADS are fulfilled as disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety in unexpected situations. [See at least Lee p. 3].]
As per claim 19, the combination of Sokolov, Lee, and Teraguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Sokolov discloses … wherein the scenario generating system is comprised in one or both of a vehicle and an offboard system [see at least Sokolov p. 23 "By mediating the connection to the in-vehicle AR through the Roborace Metaverse World Model, objects such as virtual cars can be augmented into displays for human drivers. These renderings can also be used for augmenting real time graphics into on-board camera video feeds for transmission back to engineers and the live linear viewing experiences."]
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 PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights