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 Amendment
The amendment filed November 14, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the amended independent claim 1 can no longer be rejected as obvious in view of Szelest, Kim, and Oishi, either alone or in combination.
In this office action, Ryu is cited to reject the amended feature: when an event occurs that causes a free capacity of the one or more storage devices to be less than a threshold value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szelest et al. (US 20220234588 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 20220092723 A) and Oishi et al. (JP 2020046728 A), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Szelest discloses:
An automated driving system comprising: processing circuitry configured to perform automated driving control of a vehicle in accordance with a control parameter; and one or more storage devices, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute {[0090]: computer technology, relating to testing and validation of Advance Driving Assistant Systems (ADAS) and autonomous driving applications. Driving control with a control parameter is implied by ADAS and autonomous driving applications. Storage devices are implied by computer technology}:
storing log data related to the automated driving control in the one or more storage devices while performing the automated driving control {[0013]: a system for assessing progress of a data recording campaign performed to collect sensor data which has been recorded by a sensor data recorder mounted on a vehicle while the vehicle is being driven, the sensor data for use in testing an advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) of the vehicle}.
Szelest does not disclose:
[1] when an event occurs that causes a free capacity of the one or more storage devices to be less than a threshold value
[2] adjusting the control parameter to restrict traveling of the vehicle.
[1] Ryu teaches that an event causes a free capacity of storage to be less than threshold in paragraph [0014] of the English translation: by performing the step of storing the image captured as an event image from the time when the shock is detected. [0034]: the event video is deleted sequentially due to insufficient storage space. It is implied that the free capacity of the storage caused to be less a threshold by an event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the insufficient storage capacity causation feature of Ryu with the described invention of Szelest in order to alert that remaining storage capacity is less than sufficient to log data for an autonomous driving task.
[2] Oishi teaches adjusting the control parameter to restrict traveling of the vehicle in the abstract of the English translation: evaluate a tendency of a driving operation including an inter-vehicle distance when a vehicle being an evaluation object stops without storing a large amount of operation data… When the inter-vehicle distance at the stop time is equal to or less than a threshold Lmin, warning is output. Examiner notes that keeping inter-vehicle distance larger than a threshold implies adjusting the control parameter to restrict traveling of the vehicle. That is, the inter-vehicle distance is the control parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the control parameter adjusting feature of Oishi with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to limit the amount of operation data to be stored.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Oishi teaches: wherein the control parameter includes a parameter that defines an upper limit of an acceleration or a steering angular acceleration of the vehicle, and the adjusting the control parameter includes decreasing the upper limit depending on the free capacity {[0057]: sudden acceleration/ deceleration, abrupt steering. It is implied that sudden acceleration and steering mean higher upper limit of an acceleration or a steering angular acceleration so that driving scenarios become complex and data amount to be stored increases}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the upper limits of the acceleration and steering angular acceleration feature of Oishi with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to not to be out of storage space before a driving task ends.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Oishi teaches: wherein the control parameter includes a parameter that defines a maximum vehicle speed of the vehicle, and the adjusting the control parameter includes decreasing the maximum vehicle speed depending on the free capacity {[0057]: excessive speed, excessive engine RPM, and following distance when stopped. Excessive speed means higher maximum vehicle speed. It is implied that higher maximum vehicle speed results in more complex driving scenarios and increase of data amount to be stored}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the maximum vehicle speed feature of Oishi with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to not to be out of storage space before a driving task ends.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Oishi teaches: wherein the control parameter includes a parameter that defines an inter-vehicle distance in the automated driving control, and the adjusting the control parameter includes increasing the inter-vehicle distance depending on the free capacity {abstract. It is implied that when the inter-vehicle distance decreases, driving scenarios become complex and data amount to be stored increases, and therefore the inter-vehicle distance should be increased when the remaining free capacity is small}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inter-vehicle distance feature of Oishi with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to not to be out of storage space before a driving task ends.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, Szelest discloses: wherein the event is, in the automated driving control, at least one of a control to avoid an object, to operate a collision avoidance system, to overtake a preceding vehicle, or perform a lane change {[0041]: front collision warning}.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szelest in view of Ryu and Oishi and in further view of Blau (US 20190225232 A1).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, modified Szelest does not teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute: performing a recognition process based on a predetermined rule group by inputting a sensor detection information obtained via a sensor into a model.
Blau teaches a recognition process with a model based on rule in paragraph [0006]: a machine-learned model trained to receive input data including vehicle data…The vehicle data can be based at least in part on one or more states of an autonomous vehicle; [0022]: rules based techniques and/or using a machine-learned model; [0024]: sensors that generate output based on the state of the physical environment inside the vehicle and/or external to the vehicle; [0050]: the vehicle computing system can include a machine-learned model… receive sensor data from one or more sensors associated with an autonomous vehicle; [0147}: prediction model can be based at least in part on the predicted interaction outcomes determined using a rules-based model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor detection recognition model feature of Blau with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to utilize machine learning in sensor data analysis.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, Blau teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute: receiving a recognition result information output from the model or generated based on the output from the model; and performing a planning process by inputting the recognition result information into the model {[0006]: the operations can include generating, based at least in part on the output from the machine-learned model… predictions}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the planning based on model output feature of Blau with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to utilize machine learning model in autonomous driving planning.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Blau teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute: performing a recognition process based on a machine learning model by inputting a sensor detection information obtained via a sensor into a model {[0006], [0050]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the planning based on sensor detection information recognition model feature of Blau with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to utilize machine learning model in autonomous driving planning.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7, Blau teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute: receiving a recognition result information output from the model or generated based on the output from the model; and performing a planning process by inputting the recognition result information into the model {[0006], [0147]: machine-learned object detection and prediction model to detect and/or predict… a first object (e.g., the vehicle 108) and one or more second objects (e.g., objects external to the vehicle 108); and/or the associated predicted interactions… data for the machine-learned object detection and prediction model can be based at least in part on the predicted interaction outcomes determined using a rules-based model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recognition and planning features of Blau with the described invention of modified Szelest in order to utilize machine learning model in autonomous driving planning.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661