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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 22, 2026. Claims 1, and 12 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-3, and 5-21 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 22, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant argues several portions of their original disclosure reasonably convey that the recitations identified in the prior Office action are supported and not new matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to paragraphs 3 and 5 which are general descriptions of what is widely known in the vehicle arts, notably, that sensors are used to control vehicles, including autonomous control. Examiner notes general statements of what is well-known and routine in the art is not dispositive of what is conveyed by a disclosure for purposes of providing support for claim features which are not explicitly recited. Equation 3 and paragraph 106 appear to have no suggestion of control a vehicle, or more specifically autonomous control, and are limited to determining a classification for a trajectory falling short of explaining how this classification is then used to control a vehicle. Similarly, a discussion of risk and its relationship to the claimed management index falls short of explaining how this determination is actually used to a control a vehicle. As previously indicated, generically stating outputting a control signal to control operation of a vehicle is not the same as explicitly reciting control like acceleration, braking, and steering, and can encompass merely outputting an alarm, alert, etc., which is relevant to the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For at least the above reasons the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 22, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record Wyffels et al., US 20240185434 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wyffels, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended, specifically, outputting a subset of tracks among a plurality of tracks based on the claimed management index for each of the plurality of tracks. Applicant argues Wyffels appears to use track information of all detected objects rather than selecting and outputting a subset of tracks. Applicant further argues Wyffels fails to explicitly disclose the claimed management index. Lastly, Applicant argues the prior Office action conflates Wyffels collision-risk-triggered emergency maneuvers with the claimed index-based output of a subset of tracks, and that Wyffels outputs risk after generating object trajectories rather outputting object trajectories based on risk (or management index) as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Applicant appears to argue a more narrow definition of outputting than claimed because Applicant argues the claimed outputting connotes some selection, however, that appears more narrow than what is claimed. Wyffels explicitly discloses generating one or more possible object trajectories, and then subsequently, analyzing at least one of the generated possible object trajectories to determine a risk of collision. Examiner notes analyzing one of the one or more possible object trajectories is analogous to a subset as the analyzed possible object is one of the larger set of one or more possible object trajectories (See at least ¶38 of Wyffels).
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the claimed management index, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed management index is a value based on either a maintenance time of the corresponding track or a risk of collision between the vehicle and the corresponding object because that is what is recited by the claim. Therefore, Wyffels disclosure of a risk of collision is analogous to the claimed management index.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding outputting tracks based on a management index, i.e., risk, Wyffels outputs the results of its determination of risk related to object trajectories as part of its supervisory layer used in block 504 (See at least ¶64-65 and Fig. 5 of Wyffels).
For at least the above, Wyffels discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, and 5-21 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.
As to claim 1, the recitations “a subset of tracks,” and “based on the outputted tracks, controlling, by the control circuit, a travel of the vehicle” appear to be new matter. Applicant’s Specification fails to include the term “subset” so it is unclear where in Applicant’s original disclosure “a subset of tracks” finds support. Additionally, Applicant’s Specification discusses providing an output based on the claimed management index (See at least ¶128 and Fig. 2 of Applicant’s PGPUB), and performing non-specific control (See at least original Claim 20), however, fails to describe positive control of a vehicle’s movement in response to the claimed management index as currently claimed, which establishes grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 as new matter.
As to claim 12, the recitations “a subset of tracks,” and “based on the outputted tracks, control a travel of the vehicle” appears to be new matter. Similar to the discussion above regarding claim 1, Applicant’s Specification fails to include the term “subset” so it is unclear where in Applicant’s original disclosure “a subset of tracks” finds support and Applicant’s Specification fails to describe positive control of a vehicle’s movement in response to the claimed management index as currently claimed, which establishes grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 as new matter.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1, and claims 13-20 depend from claim 12.
Additionally, as to claim 20, the recitation “outputting, based on the management index, a signal to control autonomous driving operation of the vehicle” appears to be new matter. Applicant’s Specification briefly mentions autonomous driving, and appears to indicate if autonomous driving occurs, then the management index track may be used as information for a sensor fusion track (See at least ¶202 of Applicant’s PGPUB), however, there appears to be no discussion in Applicant’s disclosure directly drawing a causal connection that autonomous control is based on the management index as claimed.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 21 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a management index of an object’s track, which is an abstract idea under its broadest reasonable interpretation because the claimed invention is directed to an observation, judgment, and/or evaluation. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., outputting the results of the mental process, or generic sensors and hardware, i.e., interface, processor, etc., used in routine and conventional ways that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites a vehicle comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect a plurality of objects in a surrounding environment of the vehicle; an interface configured to receive sensing information from the one or more sensors; and a processor operatively connected to the interface, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the sensing information, identify a plurality of tracks each associated with a respective one of the plurality of objects; output tracks among the plurality of tracks based on a management index for each of the plurality of tracks, wherein the management index for each of the plurality of tracks is based on a maintenance time of the corresponding track; and based on the outputted tracks, control a travel of the vehicle.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process because determining a management index of object track information is analogous to judging/evaluating/observing an object’s track, which is an example of an abstract idea. The additional elements of performing data gathering using one or more sensors is insignificant pre-solution activity, which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the claimed invention. The additional elements of generic computing hardware, i.e., an interface, and processer, which are part of a vehicle, are considered insignificant additional elements and do not render the claimed invention eligible as they appear to be examples of what the courts have outlined as the “apply principle” as the claim is defining a generic imputing environment in a vehicle which is used to implement the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 21 recites nominal control which is recited so broadly it is unclear what control actually occurs in the vehicle as a result of outputting this control signal. Positive recitations of controlling vehicle movement typically, i.e. steering, braking, etc., render a claimed invention eligible, however, controlling a vehicle to output or display the results of an observation, judgment, or evaluation, typically does not render a claimed invention eligible. Applicant’s Specification does not appear to provide further details regarding this signal.
Claim 21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wyffels et al., US 20240185434 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wyffels.
As to claim 1, Wyffels discloses a method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting, via one or more sensors of the vehicle, a plurality of objects in a surrounding environment of the vehicle (LiDAR, and camera perform object detection – See at least Abstract);
based on sensing information from the one or more sensors, identifying, by a control circuit of the vehicle, a plurality of tracks each associated with a respective one of the plurality of objects (Object detection tracks – See at least ¶38, 60-61, and Fig. 1);
outputting, by the control circuit, a subset of tracks among the plurality of tracks based on a management index for each of the plurality of tracks, wherein the management index for each of the plurality of tracks is based on at least one of:
a maintenance time of the corresponding track, or
a risk of collision between the vehicle and the corresponding object (Risk of collision with respect to object trajectories/tracks – See at least ¶38); and
based on the outputted tracks, controlling, by the control circuit, a travel of the vehicle (Responsive emergency maneuvers – See at least ¶38).
Independent claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory categories of invention.
As to claim 20, Wyffels discloses outputting, based on the management index, a signal to control autonomous driving operation of the vehicle (Actuate various vehicle systems in response to object detection – See at least ¶6).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyffels et al., US 20240185434 A1, in view of Gade et al., US 20230061682 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wyffels, and Gade, respectively.
As to claim 2, Wyffels fails to explicitly disclose the management index for each of the plurality of tracks is based on the corresponding track being created in association with corresponding prior track information previously created, wherein the corresponding track is created based on updated sensing information of the one or more sensors within an update period of time. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wyffels and include the feature of the management index for each of the plurality of tracks is based on the corresponding track being created in association with corresponding prior track information previously created, wherein the corresponding track is created based on updated sensing information of the one or more sensors within an update period of time, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Gade teaches it is well-known and routine in the object tracking arts to perform object tracking over time to continuously update an object track to have a more accurate determination of the object’s track (Tracks generated continuously over time period, i.e., epoch, and updated accordingly – See at least ¶28-29 of Gade).
Claims 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyffels et al., US 20240185434 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wyffels, respectively.
As to claims 8, and 19, Wyffels fails to explicitly disclose a third management index value that is based on the risk of collision, and wherein the risk of collision is determined based on at least one of: a distance between the vehicle and the corresponding object, or a predicted time remaining until the vehicle collides with the corresponding object. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wyffels and include the feature of a third management index value that is based on the risk of collision, and wherein the risk of collision is determined based on at least one of: a distance between the vehicle and the corresponding object, or a predicted time remaining until the vehicle collides with the corresponding object, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Wyffels discloses the above features without designating them third (Time to collision within threshold period of time – See at least ¶38 of Wyffels; LiDAR data set includes distance at given time – See at least ¶135).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyffels et al., US 20240185434 A1, in view of Clawson et al., US 11807233 B1, hereinafter referred to as Wyffels, and Clawson, respectively.
As to claim 9, Wyffels fails to explicitly disclose the third management index value increases as the distance between the vehicle and the corresponding object decreases, or wherein the third management index value increases as the predicted time to the collision decreases. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wyffels and include the feature of the third management index value increases as the distance between the vehicle and the corresponding object decreases, or wherein the third management index value increases as the predicted time to the collision decreases, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Clawson teaches it is well-known and routine in the object tracking arts that a relationship exists between evaluating an object’s track and a distance between the object and the host/ego vehicle (See at least Abstract and Col. 17 Lines 61-67 of Clawson), like the object tracking of Wyffels.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyffels et al., US 20240185434 A1, in view of Yu et al., US 20250078927 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wyffels, and Yu, respectively.
As to claim 21, Wyffels discloses a vehicle comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect a plurality of objects in a surrounding environment of the vehicle (LiDAR, and camera perform object detection – See at least Abstract);
an interface configured to receive sensing information from the one or more sensors (Computer system architecture – See at least Figs. 2 and 4); and
a processor operatively connected to the interface (Computer system architecture – See at least Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the sensing information, identify a plurality of tracks each associated with a respective one of the plurality of objects (Object detection tracks – See at least ¶38, 60-61, and Fig. 1);
output tracks among the plurality of tracks based on a management index for each of the plurality of tracks (Object tracking, based in part on a risk, i.e., “management index” – See at least ¶38 and 64-65 and Fig. 5); and
based on the outputted tracks, control a travel of the vehicle (Responsive emergency maneuvers – See at least ¶38).
Wyffels fails to explicitly disclose the management index for each of the plurality of tracks is based on a maintenance time of the corresponding track. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wyffels and include the feature of the management index for each of the plurality of tracks is based on a maintenance time of the corresponding track, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yu teaches it is well-known and routine in the object tracking arts to incorporate a length of time an object has been tracked when predicting that objects trajectory (Data processing, i.e., “output,” can include period of time when predicting object track – See at least ¶34 of Yu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 11, and 14-18 recite allowable subject matter subject to their dependency on a rejected base claim and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights