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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/24/25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. The rejection of Claims 11–18 over Bracquemond (US 2020/0331495 A1) is maintained.
A. Reliance on EPO Prosecution Is Not Persuasive
Applicant argues that corresponding claims were allowed in the European application EP4392843 and therefore should be allowed in the present application.
This argument is not persuasive.
Allowance by a foreign patent office, including the EPO, is not binding on the USPTO. Patentability under U.S. law is determined independently based on U.S. statutes, case law, and examination standards. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP §2141. The fact that the EPO reached a different conclusion does not overcome the teachings of Bracquemond as applied to the present claims.
B. Bracquemond Discloses Receiving a Request for Information Relating to a Decision
Applicant asserts that Bracquemond does not teach:
“receiving a request for information relating to a decision to be taken for controlling the vehicle by the autonomous control means, the request being transmitted by the decision-making module.”
This argument is not persuasive.
Bracquemond explicitly discloses a decision block (47) that performs arbitration and final selection of information for vehicle control decisions, including steering and emergency braking.
para [0237] states:
“The decision block (47) performs the final choice of the path, as a function of the confidences, coherences, reliability indexes and performance index.”
paras [0097]–[0101] disclose that planning modules rely on perception information to make steering decisions:
“The planning process… calculates the different trajectories that the autonomous vehicle can take… based on the perception functions of the vehicle’s environment.”
In Bracquemond, the decision-making module inherently requests and receives the environmental information necessary to take a control decision. An explicit “request” message is not required where the architecture necessarily operates by invoking perception and arbitration processes to support decision-making. See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (functional interaction need not be explicitly labeled).
C. Bracquemond Determines a Selection of Information Based on the Decision to Be Taken
Applicant further argues that Bracquemond merely removes redundant objects based on data quality and does not select information “based on a decision to be taken.”
This argument is not persuasive.
While Bracquemond does consider data quality, it does so in the context of selecting information needed to make a specific driving decision, including trajectory selection, steering behavior, and emergency braking.
para [0093] states:
“The computer executes processing that synthesizes all the results and decides on the best object to send to the planning.”
para [0106]–[0110] disclose that information selection is driven by the intended vehicle action:
“Intelligent safety decision… decides the best trajectory… guaranteeing the safety of people.”
para [0111] further links selection to the nature of the decision:
“This selection is influenced by the history of the trajectory followed by the autonomous vehicle, traffic, types of infrastructure… and the criticality of the potential risks.”
Thus, Bracquemond explicitly teaches selecting a subset of structured environmental information to be consulted in order to take a particular control decision, including normal driving versus emergency/refuge behavior. The fact that confidence, coherence, and reliability are used as criteria does not negate that the selection is decision-driven.
D. Bracquemond Links Decision-Making and Interpretation of the Vehicle’s Situation
Applicant argues that Bracquemond “does not teach a link between a decision to be made and an effective and reliable interpretation of the autonomous vehicle’s situation.”
This assertion is contradicted by the reference.
para [0039] discloses:
“an additional computer constituting the arbitration module for deciding the selection of the said delegated driving information.”
para [0040] explains that this decision identifies the safest result for objects and situations:
“The decision of the arbitration module enables the safest result to be identified for any type of object perceived in the scene.”
para [0112] further discloses:
“The behavioral choice algorithm… opts for the most secure and the most comfortable one… and the attendant speed.”
These passages establish a direct causal link between decision-making and the interpretation of the vehicle’s environment, exactly as required by Claim 11.
E. Claim 11 Does Not Require More Than What Bracquemond Teaches
Claim 11 does not require:
an explicit command-based “request” protocol,
a separate environmental model database distinct from perception variables, or
decision-specific modeling beyond selective consultation and integrity evaluation.
Bracquemond teaches all required elements, including:
an overall environmental model formed from structured perception variables (paras [0083]–[0085]),
selective consultation of information (paras [0088]–[0093]),
integrity indices based on confidence, coherence, and reliability (paras [0048]–[0050], [0090]–[0092]),
and providing this selective model to a decision module (paras [0093], [0237]).
Accordingly, Bracquemond discloses every feature recited in independent Claim 11, either expressly or inherently.
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)(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 11–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BRACQUEMOND US20200331495A1.
Claim 11 recites a method for modeling a navigation environment. BRACQUEMOND discloses defining an overall environmental model of a vehicle as structured information from data provided by multiple perception means, as taught in para [0059]–[0061]. The reference further teaches receiving a request for information relating to a decision to be taken, as set forth in para [0093]. The reference discloses determining and consulting a selection of information from the overall model, assigning confidence or integrity indices to such information, and providing the decision-making module with a selective model containing this information, as taught in paras [0065]–[0067], [0177]–[0183], and [0237].
Claim 12 recites acquiring at least one item of information using first and second environment perception means and determining an integrity index based on consistency. BRACQUEMOND teaches using multiple sensors, including cameras, radar, lidar, and GPS, to capture redundant data, as in para [0059]–[0061]. The reference further teaches determining coherence and confidence levels from redundant sensor inputs, as in para [0065]–[0067].
Claim 13 recites acquiring information at a first instant and a second instant and determining the integrity index based on consistency across time. The reference explicitly teaches comparing observations at different times to verify persistence of objects, as in para [0105]–[0109]. It further describes confidence indicators that increase when objects persist and decrease when objects appear or disappear inconsistently, as in para [0177]–[0183].
Claim 14 recites handling decisions with short-term, medium-term, and long-term deadlines, each associated with a different selection of information. BRACQUEMOND teaches path planning that is immediate for obstacle avoidance, tactical for lane changes, and strategic for route choices, as described in para [0127]–[0134].
Claim 15 recites providing the decision-making module with a model characterizing the situation after applying a decision. BRACQUEMOND discloses generating predictions of how the environment will evolve after an action, including future vehicle positions and intersection states, as in para [0138]–[0143].
Claim 16 recites configuring a finite list of decisions, associating each decision with required information, ordering the consultation of information, and defining methods for consulting each type of information. The reference teaches a preprogrammed finite set of driving decisions such as stopping, turning, lane changing, and overtaking, with associated parameters and ordered consultation of sources, as disclosed in para [0095]–[0103].
Claim 17 recites a device comprising hardware and/or software configured to implement the method of claim 11. BRACQUEMOND describes a hyper-perception system comprising a computer, software modules, and sensor interfaces that perform the claimed functions, as set forth in para [0057]–[0060].
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program to execute the method. The reference explicitly discloses a computer program product comprising program code instructions stored on a computer-readable medium for carrying out the method, as in para [0259]–[0262].
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 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 MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657