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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final in response to application Serial No. 18/846,007. Claim(s) 1-6,10-11,13-15,18,21,25-30 and 36 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 7-9, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 22-24, 31-35, and 37-38 have been cancelled; and claim(s) 1, 6, and 28 have been amended.
Claim(s) 1-6,10-11,13-15, 18,21,25-30 and 36 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1, 6 and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn, however, new rejections have been set forth below. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 15, 25-28, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “fusing the collected data” and then subsequently recites “the data fusion.” It is suggested that applicant amend “the data fusion” to recite “the fusing of the collected data”, to clarify the established antecedent basis. This is also relevant to claims 3 and 30.
Claim 1 first recites “a given area” and then subsequently recites “the area”. To correct antecedent basis, the limitation should likely recite “the given area” for all subsequent recitations. This is also relevant to claims 3, 25, 28 and 30.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "moving platforms", “objects”, “global likelihood functions”, and “orientation”, however, there is recitation of moving platforms, objects, global likelihood functions and “orientation” in parent claim 1 and therefore this limitation should likely recite “the moving platforms”, “the objects”, “the global likelihood functions” and “the orientation”, to clarify the established antecedent basis. There are similar issues with claim 30.
Claim 26 should include “and” after “cameras” (should read “cameras; and”).
Claim 27 should include “and” after “scooters” (should read “scooters; and”).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 28-30 and 36 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 3 recites the limitation "the range resolution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the angular resolution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites in limitation “the data”, however there is recitation of “collected data” and “a data stream” in the preceding claim language, which renders the claim indefinite as these two entities are similar but not the same. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to read “the latency of each data stream transferred from each moving platform.”
Claims 5 and 6 recites in limitations “the relative location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the signals” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “the signals” is referring to in previously presented limitations. For the purpose of examination, this element is interpreted to refer to the previously recited data stream.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the alert”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites in limitation “data”, however there is recitation of “collected data” and “a data stream” in the preceding claim language, and it is unclear whether this recitation of data refers to either of those, or to another form of data.
Claim 15 recite “of the sensor” however previous limitations recite a plurality of sensors. This is a logical inconsistency (singular versus plural) that renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites in limitation “odometry or other sensors” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “or other sensors” in the context of the preceding language “wherein the data stream includes one or more of the following.” A data stream cannot include sensors.
Claim 18 recites the phrase "such as" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites “the fused information,” however there is no recitation of information, or the fusion of information, in the preceding claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the confidence level”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites in limitation “radar” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “radar” is referring previously presented, as the previously recited claims identify automotive radar and radar cyber attacks.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the measurement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the radars”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is no recitation radar in parent claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the different radars”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is no recitation radar (or different radars) in parent claim 1.
Claim 21 recites “the fused information,” however there is no recitation of information, or the fusion of information, in the preceding claims.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the exact time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the propagation loss”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the detection capabilities”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “computerized.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites in limitation “each vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “each vehicle” is referring previously presented. This is the first presentation of “vehicle” in the claims, and therefore it lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the vehicle refers to the moving platforms or objects previously recited in the claims.
Claim 30 recites “the computational cloud.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the vehicle’s path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 29-30 and 36 do not act to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim 28 are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 28-30 and 36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25-30 and 36 are allowed over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Lin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0118183), hereinafter, refer to as “Lin”, teaches system for generating dynamic map information capable of providing environment information. The system comprises multiple vehicle devices, multiple relay hosts, and a cloud server.
McGavran et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0056784), hereinafter, referred to as “McGavran”, teaches a method of operating a vehicle map service. The method can include accessing, by one or more computing devices, vehicle map service data that can include information associated with a geographic area and one or more sensor observations of a vehicle.
While the aforementioned references disclose each of the elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Claim(s) 2-6, 10-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25-27, 29-30 and 36 are allowable based on their dependency of the independent claim(s) 1, and 28 are therefore allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dong (CN111601266B) teaches central cloud performs cooperative control on the edge mobile node and the roadside sensing device according to the fusion sensing data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Flynn J Abby can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
