DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are rejected as cited below.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of improper grammar (e.g. “… monitor for an indication of an occurrence of one or more event message trigger conditions …”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Improper grammar (same issue as the Abstract cited above). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Applicant states “… in response to fulfilment of the one or more event message trigger conditions …” (line 7), and “ … in response to fulfillment of one or more event recording trigger conditions …” (line 13), yet the method states to “… monitor for an indication of an occurrence …” of the one or more trigger conditions. It is unclear if “fulfillment” of a trigger condition is the same as an “occurrence” of the condition. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the “fulfillment” of a condition as an “occurrence” of a condition.
Secondly, Applicant states that the ADS data is monitored for both “one or more event message trigger conditions” and “one or more event recording trigger conditions.” Examples of event message trigger conditions are listed in Applicant specification ¶ [0042], however, the specification does not define what constitutes an event recording trigger condition. Specification ¶ [0043] merely states “the event recording trigger conditions comprise a subset of the event message trigger conditions.” It is unclear what comprises a subset of the event message trigger conditions and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain such information. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret an “event recording trigger condition” as any condition related to those listed in specification ¶ [0042].
Due to the above listed issues, the scope of the claim is unclear, and thus indefinite.
Claim 10 recites a system which performs the method detailed in claim 1, thus is rejected for the same reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 6, the lack of a conjunction (e.g. and, or, and/or) prior to the final limitation of “a confidence in a road model output of the ADS” renders the required metadata components unclear. It is unclear whether all or only some of the metadata components (e.g. timestamp, ADS hardware info, etc.) listed in the claim are required, thus the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the metadata as comprising any one of the single limitations listed in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the one or more event trigger conditions" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the one or more processors" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Claims 11-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if the above 35 USC § 112 rejections are overcome. Examiner finds that the closest prior art of record (Wehinger et al., US Pub. 2022/0343700 A1; listed in the IDS filed 06/14/2024) lacks teachings for at least 2 of the limitations described in claim 1 of the instant application. Firstly, Applicant claims the method/system monitors ADS data for an indication of an occurrence of one or more event message trigger conditions and an occurrence of one or more event recording trigger conditions. This implies that both trigger conditions are monitored for simultaneously. Wehinger does monitor for a trigger condition, however, only one type of trigger is monitored at a time. See Wehinger at least ¶ [0044] “The application 1 gives the actor 2A or 2B the option of defining for the vehicle fleet 9 its triggers 10 10A or 10B for obtaining sensor data 50 for generating training data (e.g. for stop sign identification), consisting of trigger condition 11 …” Wehinger Fig. 1 shows the trigger sets, 10A and 10B, each containing their own specific trigger condition 11. Therefore, Wehinger does not monitor for 2 separate trigger conditions (e.g. message trigger condition and recording trigger condition) at the same time, as required by the instant application. Secondly, the instant application requires the metadata and perception data be stored in separate steps. Wehinger teaches both metadata and perception data (i.e. sensor data 50) being sent to a server outside the vehicle at the same time, see Wehinger at least ¶ [0068] “The sensor data 50 determined through the trigger classifier 13 are processed in a postprocessing module 59 in order to improve the quality, and/or to reduce the quantity of the data to be transmitted via the network. These are then for example supplemented by metadata 80 from other vehicle systems and sensors 33, and combined into a sensor data set 70.”. For at these reasons, Examiner believes the claims as a whole distinguish themselves over the closest prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Konrardy et al. (US Pat. 10,249,109 B1)
Della Penna (US Pat. 11,022,971 B2)
Lee et al. (US Pub. 2023/0040552 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668