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
Claim amendments filed 5/7/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections, 101 rejections, and most of the 112(b) rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 2/9/2026. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn. 112(b) rejections regarding the antecedent basis issue and relativity regarding the term “vicinity” are maintained.
Specification amendments filed 5/7/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the specification objections, abstract objections, and some of the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 2/9/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Drawing amendments filed 5/7/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the remainder of the drawing objections, not overcome by the specification amendments, of record detailed in the Office Action dated 2/9/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of 2/9/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 lines 17-18 read "a detected vehicle density within the AOZ, type of vehicle and a role of vehicles operating in the AOZ ;" which appears to be a continuity error and a typographical error and should read "a detected vehicle density within the AOZ, or a type of the one or more autonomous vehicles and a role of the one or more autonomous vehicles operating in the AOZ;" to improve clarity and maintain consistency. Suggested corrections are made in light of ¶ 00031 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in lines 24, 26, 29, and 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since each limitation in lines 21-34 are optional (i.e. only one option needs to be selected), each option must have complete antecedent basis without relying on the other options.
The term “vicinity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” 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. It is unclear how close is considered close enough to be considered in the vicinity of an object. Is this a detectable vicinity around the object (i.e. an area in which a vehicle can physically observe the object)? Is this a set radius around the object (e.g. 10 meters)? Does the vicinity size change depend on the object classification? All this and more are unclear and therefore the term is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, vicinity will be interpreted as a detectable vicinity around the object.
In claim 1, it is unclear the metes and bounds of the terms “type” and “role” as used regarding the vehicle. While object “type” and “role” as used in claims 2 and 15 may be understood as a classification of an object due to support for object classification in the specification, these terms are not as clearly interpreted when used in context of a vehicle. Vehicles are not classified within the disclosure, so the same interpretation cannot be applied. A review of the specification does not appear to provide any further limitations on what a type or role of a vehicle could be. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, a vehicle type will be understood as a vehicle’s make, model, or year and a vehicle role will be understood as a license required to legally operate a specified vehicle (A, B, C, or M). Examiner recommends, amending the claims to remove this limitation or clearly indicate, in remarks, the location in the disclosure that clearly and definitely defines these terms.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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(b) rejections detailed above.
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 at least one of: a detected vehicle density within the AOZ, [or a] type of vehicle[s] and a role of 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 vehicle density or a type and role 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
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 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