DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of 17, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claim 1 stands CANCELLED.
It is further noted that claims 2-19 are NEWLY-ADDED.
Th drawings of April 23, 2023 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of May 23, 2024; November 11, 2024; April 2, 2025; and, July 16, 2025 have been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Related applications 16/614,741 and 17/892,862, as well as their respective issued patents, have been checked during examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On lines 8, 10, and 12 of newly-added, independent claim 2, the uses of the term, “deficient information” are indefinite and unclear in context in that the term is not a known term in the prior art, is not defined in the specification, is not defined in the originally filed claims, is not defined in either of the specifications of related applications 16/614,741 or 17/892,862; and, is not defined in the originally-filed claims of related applications 16/614,741 or 17/892,862. So, one of ordinary skill-in-the-art would not be informed of what is meant by the uses of this term, or, by any phrase containing this term. Substantially the same remarks apply to the uses of the term “deficient information” in each of claims 3, 11, and 12.
In independent claim 2, it is unclear in context if the “multimodal sensor array” is positively recited as part of the overall claimed “system” (line 1). The same remarks apply to the use of this term in claim 9.
In independent claim 2, it is unclear in context if the “multiple sensors” are positively recited as part of the overall claimed “system” (line 1).
In independent claim 2, it is unclear in context if the “vehicle” (line 3) is positively recited as part of the overall claimed “system” (line 1). The same remarks apply to the use of this term in claim 8.
In independent claim 2, it is unclear in context if the “perception pipelines” are positively recited as part of the overall claimed “system” (line 1).
Overall, independent claim 11 is indefinite and unclear as to whether the claim only positively recites the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (line 1), due to the use of the phrase, “capable of storing instructions that” (lines 1-2). For purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as claiming only the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (line 1), and, that medium merely having the capability of storing the “instructions” in that claim and in the dependent claims.
Each of dependent claims 3-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 2.
Each of dependent claims 12-19 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 11.
Prior Art Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the “MOTOROLA M68000 FAMILY Programmer’s Reference Manual,” hereinafter the Manual.
Independent claim 11 is directed to claiming, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” that is “capable of storing” certain instructions. The “instructions” not actually being claimed as being stored on the “medium,” the claim limitations are fully-met by any prior art “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” So, the limitations of independent claim 11 are met by any memory that stores instructions that is mentioned in the Manual. Independent claim 11 is anticipated by the Manual.
In that dependent claims 12-19 do not recite anything that further limits the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of claim 11, each of dependent claims 12-19 are likewise anticipated by the Manual.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelley et al (‘953) or Shaffer et al (‘504).
Independent claim 11 is directed to claiming, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” that is “capable of storing” certain instructions. The “instructions” not actually being claimed as being stored on the “medium,” the claim limitations are fully-met by any prior art “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” So, the limitations of independent claim 11 are met by any memory that stores instructions that is mentioned in Kelley et al (‘953) (e.g., paragraph [153]) or Shaffer et al (‘504) (e.g., paragraph [48]). Independent claim 11 is anticipated by Kelley et al (‘953) or Shaffer et al (‘504).
In that dependent claims 12-19 do not recite anything that further limits the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of claim 11, each of dependent claims 12-19 are likewise anticipated by Kelley et al (‘953) or Shaffer et al (‘504).
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al (CN 103776654 A) is of general interest for the disclosure related to fault diagnosis in a multi-sensor system.
Usami (JP 2010249613 A) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the correction unit.
Fujioka (JP H1019614 A) is of general interest for failure diagnosis in a multi-sensor system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648