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 Applicants’ filing on December 29, 2025. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1,2, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 20 have been amended, claim 10 has been cancelled, and claims 22 and 23 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11, 13-20 and 22-23 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 9-17 filed December 29, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation, the amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, however, the amendments do not address the interpretation. Therefore, the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are maintained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendments have addressed the conditions recited in the rejection. Therefore, the rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection, the arguments and amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, but they are not persuasive. The basic elements of the invention are merely data gathering or presenting information with insignificant extra solution activity in the further limitations. Therefore, the rejection is upheld in the Final Office Action Below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“decision making component” in claim 1, 11, 14, 15, and 20. A review of the specification shows that it is configured to assess suitability of the candidate perception setup embodies on a computer ( Pg.4, Ln.11).
Because this/these claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11, 13-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 20 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 20 recites the limitations of (storing, receiving, providing(transmitting), and computing):
A computer system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured to implement the method of any preceding claim for testing a candidate perception setup for an autonomous vehicle,
the candidate perception setup tested using a decision making component to assess suitability of the candidate perception setup in terms of its effect on driving decisions, the computer system comprising:
at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the computer-readable instructions, which upon execution cause the at least one processor to:
receive ground truth of a real or simulated driving scenario run, in which an ego agent operated independently of the decision making component and independently of the candidate perception setup;
provide, to the decision making component, a time-sequence of ground truth snapshots of the driving scenario run, wherein for each ground truth snapshot, the decision making component decides a first ego action for the ego agent, thereby determining a first time-sequence of decisions for the ground truth snapshots;
provide, to the decision making component, a time-sequence of ablated snapshots of the driving scenario run, each ablated snapshot generated based on the ground truth and the candidate perception setup, so as to cause, in the ablated snapshot, perception error that is representative of the candidate perception setup, wherein for each ablated snapshot, the decision making component decides a second ego action for the ego agent, thereby determining a second time-sequence of decisions for the ablated snapshots; and
compute a similarity measure between the first time-sequence decisions and the second time-sequence of decisions, the similarity measure denoting an extent to which the candidate perception setup caused a change in one or more decisions points of the second time-sequence of decisions relative to the first time-sequence of decisions, a decision point occurring when a decision changes between adjacent timesteps; and
assess the suitability of the candidate perception setup when applied to the real or simulated driving scenario run by comparing the similarity measure to a threshold value.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (storing, receiving, comparing, computing, and transmitting) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally review simulated performance data of an autonomous vehicle and determine whether the vehicle responded appropriately to the scenario presented.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “memory and processor” multiple times. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “compute a similarity measure”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1 and 14 cite the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-11, 13, 15-19, and 22-23 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Furthermore, Claims 8 and 15 further recite an additional element of a graphical user interface to the system. However, these characteristics are considered “extra solution activity” and would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13-20, and 22-23 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C.101 and 112(b) rejections above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the specific limitations of “computing a similarity measure between the first time sequence of decisions and the second time-sequence of decisions, the similarity measure denoting an extent to which the candidate perception setup caused a change in one or more decisions points of the second time sequence of decisions relative to the first time-sequence of decisions, a decision point occurring when a decision changes between adjacent timesteps.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach the specifics in the claims. The examiner could find no motivation to combine references to read on all the limitations without improper hindsight.
The following references are the most relevant prior art and are representative of the current state of the art:
Wong et al. (NPL ref “Testing the safety of self-driving…”) discloses a method for testing the safety of self-driving vehicles in simulation. The differentiating feature of claim 1 over Wong is computing a similarity measure between the first time-sequence decisions and the second time-sequence of decisions, the similarity measure denoting an extent to which the candidate perception setup caused a change in one or more decisions points of the second time-sequence of decisions relative to the first time-sequence of decisions, a decision point occurring when a decision changes between adjacent timesteps. Wong does not compute explicitly a similarity measure between the two decision time-sequences, but evaluates the effects of the two decision time-sequences in terms of perturbation models for perception and prediction simulations. These noise correlations provide opportunities to similarly train the model by alternative means, see e.g. sections 3.2 for specific models and techniques used.
Piazzoni et al. (NPL ref.” Modeling Perception Errors…”) discloses an approach to test and study perception errors in a virtual environment. The differentiating feature of claim 1 over Piazzoni is computing a similarity measure between the first time-sequence decisions and the second time-sequence of decisions, the similarity measure denoting an extent to which the candidate perception setup caused a change in one or more decisions points of the second time-sequence of decisions relative to the first time-sequence of decisions, a decision point occurring when a decision changes between adjacent timesteps. Piazzoni does not compute explicitly a similarity measure between the two decision time-sequences, but evaluates the effects of the two decision time-sequences in terms of "minimal spatial distance", "minimum temporal distance" or "success rate" (no collision), see e.g. sections 5.1 and 5.2. Those quantities are presented in figures 7 and 8.
Lei et al. (CN112113593A1) discloses a method and system for testing the sensor configuration of a vehicle. They complete object detection and sensor verification using a sensor suite in a simulated environment to train the model. However, the differentiating feature of claim 1 over Lei is computing a similarity measure between the first time-sequence decisions and the second time-sequence of decisions, the similarity measure denoting an extent to which the candidate perception setup caused a change in one or more decisions points of the second time-sequence of decisions relative to the first time-sequence of decisions, a decision point occurring when a decision changes between adjacent timesteps. Lei does not compute explicitly a similarity measure between the two decision time-sequences, but evaluates the signal against a requirement in a singular evaluation.
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669