DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20, 23-24 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 21-22 are Canceled. This is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the application filed 06/29/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 13, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the term “GNSS”. It is preferred to explicitly define the meaning of acronyms upon first introduction in the claims.
Claim 13 is written in the form of an independent claim. Independent claims should not reference preceding claims. Amend to explicitly incorporate the limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the term “GUI”. It is preferred to explicitly define the meaning of acronyms upon first introduction in the claims.
Claim 17 is written in the form of an independent claim. Independent claims should not reference preceding claims. Amend to explicitly incorporate the limitations of Claim 13.
Claim 19 is written in the form of an independent claim. Independent claims should not reference preceding claims. Amend to explicitly incorporate the limitations of Claim 13.
Claim 23 is written in the form of an independent claim. Independent claims should not reference preceding claims. Amend to explicitly incorporate the limitations of Claim 13.
Claim 24 is written in the form of an independent claim. Independent claims should not reference preceding claims. Amend to explicitly incorporate the limitations of Claim 13.
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 1-20, 23-24 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.
The term “difficult” in claim 1 and repeated in Claims 9, 11, 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims will be understood to mean any amount of effort with relation to “difficult” situations. All Dependent Claims are rejected based at least on their dependency on an indefinite claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the human operator behavioral policy". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected based at least on their dependency on an indefinite claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the selected set of driving data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the driving control action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the human operator behavioral policy". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second difficult situation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the feeds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A plurality of specific feeds are presented in Claim 13, the recitation of “the feeds” is insufficient to clarify which of these are included or excluded in the limitation. Claim 18 is rejected based at least on their dependency on an indefinite claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the feeds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A plurality of specific feeds are presented in Claim 13, the recitation of “the feeds” is insufficient to clarify which of these are included or excluded in the limitation. Claim 20 is rejected based at least on their dependency on an indefinite claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the present frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20, 23-24 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, as well as the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bin-Nun (US12583477) teaches autonomous vehicle validation using real-world adversarial events.
Blaes (US12221115) teaches updating data operations in a perception system.
Everman (US20240119345) teaches machine operator feedback correlation.
Jhuang (US11804080) teaches inspecting and scoring vehicle transportation.
Van Beek (US20220161815) teaches relevant computing systems enabling autonomous vehicles.
Brooks (US10875537) teaches identifying when a situational awareness of a vehicle is inconsistent with a surrounding environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID RUBEN PEDERSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9696. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 07:00 -16:00 Eastern.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/DAVID RUBEN PEDERSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights