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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claim amendments filed 7/14/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 7/14/2026. These/this rejections and objections have/has been withdrawn.
The amendment filed 7/14/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the correlation condition is automatically and dynamically adjusted by the object location correlating entity based on one or more of: … an operational function performed by one or more vehicles operating in the AOZ” (emphasis added) and “a threshold distance” (emphasis added) as detailed in claim 1. See the 112(a) rejection below for more details.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Examiner notes that a vehicle category or vehicle class, as amended into claim 1, are not considered new matter in light of at least ¶ 0005 of the disclosure wherein example vehicle types are gives as being “heavy-duty vehicles, such as semi-trailer vehicles and trucks as well as other types of vehicles such as cars and vehicular machines such as agricultural and mining vehicular machines”. These vehicles are well known in the art to have different classes (e.g. cars are considered class C vehicles requiring a class C license to operate and a semi-truck are class A vehicles requiring a class A license to operate). Further, these are well known as categorically different vehicles (e.g. goods transportation vehicles and mining vehicles). This implies that the amendment changing “type” to “vehicle category or vehicle class” was supported in the original disclosure at the time of filing.
Claim Interpretation
“AOZ” is being interpreted and hereinafter is meant to mean an “autonomous operating zone”.
“ADS” is being interpreted and hereinafter is meant to mean an “automated driving system”.
“A number” is interpreted as meaning “one or more” in light of at least summary paragraph 0007: “a number of one or more autonomous vehicles”. Here, it is clear that the number must, at minimum, be one if the total quantity of vehicles, at minimum, is one.
“Type” and “role” as used in claims 2 and 15 are interpreted as a classification of an object.
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 recites 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 recites 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:
In claim 4, the "remote system" in the limitation "remote system configured to receive reports from vehicles operating in the AOZ" invokes 112(f) as system is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the reception of reports.
In claim 23, the "remote system" in the limitation "a remote system configured to monitor an AOZ" invokes 112(f) as system is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the monitoring of an AOZ.
In claim 25, the "control system" in the limitation "control system is configured, responsive to the ADS detecting an object, to: generate object position information" invokes 112(f) as "system" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the generation of position information.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the remote system, a review of the drawings (Figure 2) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
310
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That is, the remote system will be understood as comprising processors, memory, and a data storage. The object data shown above is understood as being stored in one of the memory or data storage.
Regarding the control system, review of the specification (paragraph 0049) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"Another, sixth aspect of the disclosed technology comprises a control system or circuitry for a vehicle having an automated driving system, ADS, the control system or circuitry comprising memory, one or more processors or processing circuitry, and computer-program code which, when loaded from memory and executed by the one or more processors causes the control system to implement a method according the first aspect or any disclosed embodiments and/or of any other method disclosed herein."
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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/them 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(s) recite(s) 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim amendments filed 7/14/2026 recite the following new matter: “the correlation condition is automatically and dynamically adjusted by the object location correlating entity based on one or more of: … an operational function performed by one or more vehicles operating in the AOZ”. The disclosure does not provide any details regarding changing a correlation condition based on a vehicle’s operational function. Instead, it merely states changing the condition based on the vehicle role (see the Office Action dated 5/21/2026 as to why a role is indefinite). A vehicle role does not appear to at least suggest an operational function of a vehicle when no examples or further articulation on the limitation is provided. Therefore, it appears that the applicant did not have possession of the amended claimed invention at the time of filing.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim amendments filed 7/14/2026 recite the following new matter: “a threshold distance”. No threshold distances are mentioned within the specification. Further, no details regarding distance at all are mentioned within the disclosure. This amendment is meant to replace the term “vicinity” with definite terminology. Vicinity is only exemplified in ¶ 0052: “The advanced driving system, ADS 22, comprises suitably configured sensing, perception, and decision subsystems 24, 26, 28 so that the vehicle can detect objects in its vicinity, using, for example, line of sight techniques based on depth perception as well as radar and the like.” A line of sight does not imply or suggest a threshold distance. Therefore, it appears that the applicant did not have possession of the amended claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-25 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 112(a) rejections detailed above. Examiner recommends canceling the “operational function” limitation detailed above and amended the threshold distance limitation detailed above to instead recite a “line of sight” as supported in the disclosure in order to overcome these rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitation “the correlation condition is automatically and dynamically adjusted by the object location correlating entity based on one or more of: a detected vehicle density within the AOZ, a vehicle category or vehicle class of one or more autonomous vehicles operating in the AOZ, or an operational function performed by one or more vehicles operating in the AOZ” appears to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record. Similar prior art, Suzuki JP2021114094A (hereinafter Suzuki) and Mercep et al US 20210063165 A1 (hereinafter Mercep) do not teach an automatically and dynamically adjusted correlation condition. Instead, Suzuki teaches matching objects with mapped features according to a predetermined condition (¶ 0028), and Mercep teaches matching objects to mapped landmarks based on a predetermined percent of matches (¶ 0052). Both of these fail to teach an automatically and dynamically adjusted correlation condition, let alone one based on a detected density, classification, category, or function of vehicles in an area. Korjus et al. US 20210397187 A1 (hereinafter Korjus) teaches automatically and dynamically adjusting an object detection threshold based on traffic density (¶ 0021). However, since Korjus’s threshold is an object detection threshold, an attempt to combine Korjus with Mercep or Suzuki or any other prior art of record to obtain the claimed invention would fundamentally change the core operating function of the threshold of Korjus such that such a combination would require improper hindsight reasoning. Therefore, the claimed invention appears to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record. Examiner understands the applicant may have different reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights