DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s request for continued examination and argument/remarks filed on 08/21/ 2026 and 08/28/2026, claims 1-4, 7, 9-10 and 15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Amendment to drawings 5 and 9 is acknowledged and entered to the record. The amendment facilities reference number orientation in the same direction as the drawings and no new matters had been added.
This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify the limitation “… adapting the received portion of the shared machine-learning operating conditions model based on the real-time sensor measurement data ….” (added remark). 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 metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. For instance, it is unknown the type of adaptation the “portion of the shared machine-learning operating conditions model” has and how it is implemented within the claimed invention. The specification discloses (i) adapting a shared operating condition model to a vehicle-specific operating condition model (pub. par. 72), (i) using adaptive multi-source data fusion and online learning for a dynamic road friction prediction (pub. par. 80), (iii) adapt a general model to a specific operating condition of a vehicle (pub. par. 83) or other. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify the limitation “… adapting the received portion of the shared machine-learning operating conditions model based on the real-time sensor measurement data ….” (added remark). 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 metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. For instance, it is unknown the type of adaptation the “portion of the shared machine-learning operating conditions model” has and how it is implemented within the claimed invention. The specification discloses (i) adapting a shared operating condition model to a vehicle-specific operating condition model (pub. par. 72), (i) using adaptive multi-source data fusion and online learning for a dynamic road friction prediction (pub. par. 80), (iii) adapt a general model to a specific operating condition of a vehicle (pub. par. 83) or other. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 9-10 and 15 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ request for continued examination to consider an information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/28/2026. The specific claim limitations as cited on the amendment of the claims filed on 06/08/2026 and per amendment of the claims via Examiner's Amendment mailed on 07/14/2026 are not being taught not suggested by the reference(s) cited on the IDS: as a whole, either alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
