Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 11/14/2025 (claimed foreign priority date 07/16/2021):
Claims 11 and 13-20 have been examined.
Claims 1-10 and 12 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 11, 13-14 and 18-20 have been amended by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 101 rejections to claims 1-20 from the previous Office Action.
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.
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.
1. Claims 11, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker (US20200118425).
As per claim 11, Amacker discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), a method for monitoring a region surrounding a vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, Para [0048, 0058]), the method comprising:
receiving sensor data from at least one sensor of an assistance system of the vehicle which describe the region surrounding the vehicle at a measurement time (see entire document, particularly abstract, fig. 3, Para [0007, 0038, 0042, 0050, 0058, 0076-0084] – teaching acquisition module 220 that acquires sensor data from at least one infrastructure sensor 280 associated with the roadway segment at which the infrastructure system is situated; the acquisition module 220 that periodically acquires the sensor data 250, as taught in Para [0042] for example);
transmitting environmental model data from a data exchange device to the assistance system, wherein the environmental model data describe at least one part of the region surrounding the vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 2, Para [0006-0007, 0013, 0019-0021, 0025, 0036, 0038-0056, 0060-0062, 0067-0070, 0076, 0078, 0082, 0084, 0094, 0102]); and
detecting vulnerable road users in the surrounding region on the basis of the sensor data and the environmental model data (see entire document, particularly abstract, fig. 5, Para [0021, 0039, 0063, 0066-0070] – teaching other hazards (e.g., erratic pedestrians, animals),
wherein
the environmental model data are continuously generated by the data exchange device and transmitted to the assistance system (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0047-0050, 0058]),
the environmental model data are generated such that they describe only static objects in the at least one part of the surrounding region (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0006, 0020, 0047-0052]),
the environmental model data are generated by data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles which were recorded within a recording period (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0003, 0080, 0094] – teaching sensors of the vehicle that acquire the sensor data for a constrained time period when approaching a road segment (e.g., intersection, merge, etc.); sensor system 120 that acquires data of at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 (e.g., nearby vehicles); autonomous driving module(s) 160 that determine the location of obstacles, obstacles, or other environmental features including traffic signs, trees, shrubs, neighboring vehicles, pedestrians, etc.);
the detection of the vulnerable road users comprises determining characteristic distinguishing features between the sensor data and the environmental model data (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0038, 0067]); and
wherein the method further comprises performing at least a partially automated driving function based at least in part on the detection of the vulnerable road users (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0071-0072, 0090] – teaching processor(s) 110, the infrastructure module 170, and/or the autonomous driving module(s) 160 operable to control the navigation and/or maneuvering of the vehicle 100 by controlling one or more of the vehicle systems 140 and/or components thereof).
Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period.”
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period” was a common thing, and could have been introduced and/or presented as “data from plurality of further sources from other plural or multiple other vehicles recorded within a recording period,” because it is well known in the art the “at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles” and “plurality of further sources from plural or multiple other vehicles” are the same things. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's filing to modify Amacker such that it comprises “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period”. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Amacker.
Claim 12 canceled.
As per claim 13, Amacker further discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), measurement time of the sensor data that temporally follows the recording period of the data from the at least two further sources (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0005-0006, 0018, 0019, 0028-0029, 0031, 0033, 0036, 0038].).
As per claim 14, Amacker further discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), recording period of the data from the at least two further sources within a predetermined maximum period (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0005-0006, 0018, 0019, 0028-0029, 0031, 0033]).
As per claim 15, Amacker further discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), when determining the characteristic distinguishing features for detecting the vulnerable road users, shapes and contours derived from the environmental model data compared with shapes and contours derived from the sensor data (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 5, Para [0021, 0038-0039, 0063, 0066-0070]).
As per claim 18, Amacker discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), an assistance system for a vehicle for monitoring a region surrounding the vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, Para [0048, 0058]), comprising:
a sensor for providing sensor data which describe the region surrounding the vehicle at a measurement time (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 3, Para [0007, 0038, 0042, 0050, 0058, 0076-0084]);
a communication apparatus for receiving environmental model data from a data exchange device, wherein the environmental model data describe at least one part of the region surrounding the vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 2, Para [0006-0007, 0013, 0019-0021, 0025, 0036, 0038-0056, 0060-0062, 0067-0070, 0076, 0078, 0082, 0084, 0094, 0102]);
wherein the environmental model data are generated such that they describe only static objects in the at least one part of the surrounding region (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0006, 0020, 0047-0052]), and
the environmental model data are generated by data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles which were recorded within a recording period(see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0003, 0080, 0094] – teaching sensors of the vehicle that acquire the sensor data for a constrained time period when approaching a road segment (e.g., intersection, merge, etc.); sensor system 120 that acquires data of at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 (e.g., nearby vehicles); autonomous driving module(s) 160 that determine the location of obstacles, obstacles, or other environmental features including traffic signs, trees, shrubs, neighboring vehicles, pedestrians, etc.); and
a control unit (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0090]) configured to:
detect vulnerable road users in the surrounding region on the basis of the sensor data and the environmental model data, wherein the detection of the vulnerable road users comprises determining characteristic distinguishing features between the sensor data and the environmental model data (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0038, 0067]); and
perform at least a partially automated driving function based at least in part on the detection of the vulnerable road users (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0071-0072, 0090] – teaching processor(s) 110, the infrastructure module 170, and/or the autonomous driving module(s) 160 operable to control the navigation and/or maneuvering of the vehicle 100 by controlling one or more of the vehicle systems 140 and/or components thereof).
Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period.”
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period” was a common thing, and could have been introduced and/or presented as “data from plurality of further sources from other plural or multiple other vehicles recorded within a recording period,” because it is well known in the art the “at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles” and “plurality of further sources from plural or multiple other vehicles” are the same things. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's filing to modify Amacker such that it comprises “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period”. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Amacker.
As per claim 19, Amacker discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), a data exchange device, comprising:
a computing apparatus for continuously generating environmental model data which describe only static objects in at least one part of a region surrounding a vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0006, 0020, 0047-0052]),
wherein the environmental model data are generated by data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles which were recorded within a recording period (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0003, 0080, 0094] – teaching sensors of the vehicle that acquire the sensor data for a constrained time period when approaching a road segment (e.g., intersection, merge, etc.); sensor system 120 that acquires data of at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 (e.g., nearby vehicles); autonomous driving module(s) 160 that determine the location of obstacles, obstacles, or other environmental features including traffic signs, trees, shrubs, neighboring vehicles, pedestrians, etc.); and
a transmitting apparatus for transmitting the environmental model data to an assistance system of the vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 2, Para [0006-0007, 0013, 0019-0021, 0025, 0036, 0038-0056, 0060-0062, 0067-0070, 0076, 0078, 0082, 0084, 0094, 0102]),
wherein the assistance system of the vehicle detects vulnerable road users in a surrounding region of the vehicle on a basis of sensor data and the environmental model data (see entire document, particularly abstract, fig. 5, Para [0021, 0039, 0063, 0066-0070] – teaching other hazards (e.g., erratic pedestrians, animals),
wherein the assistance system of the vehicle performs at least a partially automated driving function based at least in part on the detection of the vulnerable road users (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0071-0072, 0090] – teaching processor(s) 110, the infrastructure module 170, and/or the autonomous driving module(s) 160 operable to control the navigation and/or maneuvering of the vehicle 100 by controlling one or more of the vehicle systems 140 and/or components thereof).
Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period.”
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period” was a common thing, and could have been introduced and/or presented as “data from plurality of further sources from other plural or multiple other vehicles recorded within a recording period,” because it is well known in the art the “at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles” and “plurality of further sources from plural or multiple other vehicles” are the same things. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's filing to modify Amacker such that it comprises “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period”. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Amacker.
As per claim 20, Amacker discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document), a system for monitoring a region surrounding a vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, Para [0048, 0058]), comprising:
(i) an assistance system (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, Para [0048, 0058]), comprising:
a sensor for providing sensor data which describe the region surrounding the vehicle at a measurement time (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 3, Para [0007, 0038, 0042, 0050, 0058, 0076-0084]);
a communication apparatus for receiving environmental model data, wherein the environmental model data describe at least one part of the region surrounding the vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 2, Para [0006-0007, 0013, 0019-0021, 0025, 0036, 0038-0056, 0060-0062, 0067-0070, 0076, 0078, 0082, 0084, 0094, 0102]); and
a control unit (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0090]) configured to:
detect vulnerable road users in the surrounding region on the basis of the sensor data and the environmental model data, wherein the detection of the vulnerable road users comprises determining characteristic distinguishing features between the sensor data and the environmental model data (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0038, 0067]); and
perform at least a partially automated driving function based at least in part on the detection of the vulnerable road users (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0071-0072, 0090] – teaching processor(s) 110, the infrastructure module 170, and/or the autonomous driving module(s) 160 operable to control the navigation and/or maneuvering of the vehicle 100 by controlling one or more of the vehicle systems 140 and/or components thereof); and
(ii) a data exchange device, comprising:
a computing apparatus for continuously generating the environmental model data which describe only static objects in at least one part of a region surrounding a vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0006, 0020, 0047-0052]),
wherein the environmental model data are 12:enerated by data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles which were recorded within a recording period (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0003, 0080, 0094] – teaching sensors of the vehicle that acquire the sensor data for a constrained time period when approaching a road segment (e.g., intersection, merge, etc.); sensor system 120 that acquires data of at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 (e.g., nearby vehicles); autonomous driving module(s) 160 that determine the location of obstacles, obstacles, or other environmental features including traffic signs, trees, shrubs, neighboring vehicles, pedestrians, etc.); and
a transmitting apparatus for transmitting the environmental model data to the assistance system (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, fig. 2, Para [0006-0007, 0013, 0019-0021, 0025, 0036, 0038-0056, 0060-0062, 0067-0070, 0076, 0078, 0082, 0084, 0094, 0102]).
Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period.”
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period” was a common thing, and could have been introduced and/or presented as “data from plurality of further sources from other plural or multiple other vehicles recorded within a recording period,” because it is well known in the art the “at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles” and “plurality of further sources from plural or multiple other vehicles” are the same things. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's filing to modify Amacker such that it comprises “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period”. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Amacker.
2. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker further in view of Viente (US20220067209).
As per claim 16, Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing a confidence value for one of the vulnerable road users, which is determined during object detection inside the vehicle, increased when a vulnerable road user described by the sensor data is located between the sensor and an object described by the environmental model data, wherein the object described by the environmental model data is at most partially described by the sensor data.
However, Viente discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0146, 0150, 0160, 0316] – teaching executing stereo image analysis module 404 to detect candidate objects (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians, road marks, traffic lights, road hazards, etc.) within the first and second plurality of images, filter out a subset of the candidate objects based on various criteria, and perform multi-frame analysis, construct measurements, and determine a confidence level for the remaining candidate objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Amacker by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Viente who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a navigational response based on, for example, an analysis of images captured by one or more of the cameras (see entire Viente document, particularly Para [0004]).
As per claim 17, Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing a characteristic distinguishing features between the sensor data and the environmental model data for detecting the vulnerable road users not determined when a confidence value for a vulnerable road user, which is determined during object detection inside the vehicle, exceeds a predefined plausibility threshold value.
However, Viente discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0139, 0146, 0150, 0156-0157, 0160, 0124, 0266, 0276, 0316, 0318, 0336, 0344, 0369].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Amacker by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Viente who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a navigational response based on, for example, an analysis of images captured by one or more of the cameras (see entire Viente document, particularly Para [0004]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Xiao (US20200026280) – (see entire Xiao document, particularly abstract – teaching a system and method for autonomously transporting and delivering one or more commodities from drop-off point to recipient preferred environment; the system configured to analyze an authorized person's voice command or request and executes the request; the system that provides at least two modes of operation to deliver the commodities comprising mapped location delivery mode and human following delivery mode; the system configured to analyze the command and extract the delivery location; the system further configured to identify the location of the point of the interest based on object detection system and environment understanding system, to deliver the commodities; at human following delivery mode, the ADV that follows the recipient and saves the location or path data once the preferred environment located; at mapped location delivery mode, ADV that maneuvers itself to the destination location by retrieving information on recipient's previous history of delivering commodities).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2. Applicant argues, on page 8 of 12 of the remarks filed 11/14/2025, that “… the Office Action's attempt to apply BRI to the prior art is in clear error.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 3-12 of the office action above, where, in the rejections, in response to the currently amended claims, the Examiner presents the following: “… Amacker discloses, under giving BRI to the instant application, through the invention (see entire document),” thereby clarifying that BRI is being applied to the claims and specification. Additionally, the Examiner presents that “[i]n determining the scope and content of the prior art, Office personnel must first obtain a thorough understanding of the invention disclosed and claimed in the application under examination by reading the specification, including the claims, to understand what has been invented. See MPEP § 904. The scope of the claimed invention must be clearly determined by giving the claims the "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and MPEP § 2111. Once the scope of the claimed invention is determined, Office personnel must then determine what to search for and where to search.” (MPEP §2141,II.A).
For the above reason, it is believed that he rejections should be maintained.
3. Applicant argues, on page 8 of 12 of the remarks filed 11/14/2025, that “… Office Action is relying on Applicant's own disclosure to obviate its own claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 3-12 of the office action above, where, in the rejections, in response to the currently amended claims, the Examiner presents the following: “Amacker does not explicitly disclose through the invention “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period.” However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period” was a common thing, and could have been introduced and/or presented as “data from plurality of further sources from other plural or multiple other vehicles recorded within a recording period,” because it is well known in the art the “at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles” and “plurality of further sources from plural or multiple other vehicles” are the same things. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's filing to modify Amacker such that it comprises “data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period”. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Amacker.”
For the above reason, it is believed that he rejections should be maintained.
4. Applicant argues, on pages 9-10 of 12 of the remarks filed 11/14/2025, that “… Amacker never discloses or suggests sending only data about the static objects to the vehicle, and instead always discloses sending the data about both the static and the dynamic objects;” that “[e]ach of the cited paragraph excepts explicitly disclose sending both the static and dynamic objects to the vehicles;” that “… Amacker fails to disclose this aspect;” that “… it would have been non-obvious to modify Amacker so that it sends data only about the static objects;” that “[d]eviating from that arrangement to instead provide data that includes only the static objects would impermissibly render Amacker unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of providing, utilizing, and relying on the data of both the static and the dynamic objects;” that “… any such modification would be per se nonobvious;” that “… modifying Amacker in such a manner would also impermissibly change the principle of operation of Amacker,” BUT, HOWEVER, Applicant does not provide any evidence, discussion or explanation about HOW or WHY Amacker never discloses or suggests sending only data about the static objects to the vehicle, and instead always discloses sending the data about both the static and the dynamic objects; OR HOW or WHY each of the cited paragraph excepts explicitly disclose sending both the static and dynamic objects to the vehicles; OR HOW or WHY Amacker fails to disclose this aspect; OR HOW or WHY it would have been non-obvious to modify Amacker so that it sends data only about the static objects; OR HOW or WHY deviating from that arrangement to instead provide data that includes only the static objects would impermissibly render Amacker unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of providing, utilizing, and relying on the data of both the static and the dynamic objects; OR HOW or WHY any such modification would be per se nonobvious; OR HOW or WHY modifying Amacker in such a manner would also impermissibly change the principle of operation of Amacker.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 3-10 of the office action above, where, in the rejections, in response to the currently amended claims, it is discussed in details how the Amacker reference teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
For the above reason, it is believed that he rejections should be maintained.
5. Applicant argues, on page 10 of 12 of the remarks filed 11/14/2025, that “… Amacker never discloses that "the environmental model data are generated by data from at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles which were recorded within a recording period;" that ”… Amacker never discloses or suggests that its data is from at least two other vehicles.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at page 4 of the office action above, where, in the rejections, in response to the currently amended claims, the Examiner presents the following: “(see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0003, 0080, 0094] – teaching sensors of the vehicle that acquire the sensor data for a constrained time period when approaching a road segment (e.g., intersection, merge, etc.); sensor system 120 that acquires data of at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 (e.g., nearby vehicles); autonomous driving module(s) 160 that determine the location of obstacles, obstacles, or other environmental features including traffic signs, trees, shrubs, neighboring vehicles, pedestrians, etc.). Therefore, Amacker does teach on the currently claimed “at least two further sources from at least two other vehicles recorded within a recording period;" and “data from at least two other vehicles.”
For the above reason, it is believed that he rejections should be maintained.
6. Applicant argues, on pages 10-11 of 12 of the remarks filed 11/14/2025, that “… it would have been non-obvious to modify Amacker so that it generates and sends a data model generated from at least two sources from at least two other vehicles;” that “[d]eviating from that arrangement to instead provide data from at least two other vehicles would impermissibly render Amacker unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of utilizing and relying on the statically and permanently installed infrastructure system 200;” that “… any such modification would be per se non-obvious;” that “… modifying Amacker in such a manner would also impermissibly change the principle of operation of Amacker;” that “… Amacker fails to disclose every limitation of independent claims 11 and 18-20, which failure is not remedied by the other applied prior art;” that “… it would be per se non-obvious to modify Amacker to arrive at the instant claims;” that “… the prior art fails to support a prima facie showing of obviousness,” BUT, HOWEVER, Applicant does not provide any evidence, discussion or explanation about HOW or WHY it would have been non-obvious to modify Amacker so that it generates and sends a data model generated from at least two sources from at least two other vehicles; OR HOW or WHY deviating from that arrangement to instead provide data from at least two other vehicles would impermissibly render Amacker unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of utilizing and relying on the statically and permanently installed infrastructure system 200; OR HOW or WHY any such modification would be per se non-obvious; OR HOW or WHY modifying Amacker in such a manner would also impermissibly change the principle of operation of Amacker; OR HOW or WHY Amacker fails to disclose every limitation of independent claims 11 and 18-20, which failure is not remedied by the other applied prior art; OR HOW or WHY it would be per se non-obvious to modify Amacker to arrive at the instant claims; OR HOW or WHY the prior art fails to support a prima facie showing of obviousness.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 3-10 of the office action above, where, in the rejections, in response to the currently amended claims, it is discussed in details how the Amacker reference teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
For the above reason, it is believed that he rejections should be maintained.
7. Regarding the applicant’s arguments on page 11 of 12 of the remarks filed 11/14/2025 with respect to claims 13-17, the Examiner presents the same arguments regarding the rejection as presented for claims 11 and 18-20.
For the above reason, it is believed that the rejections should be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571-270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662