DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim limitation “at least one processing unit….” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 16 and 17 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (WO 2022/205158 A1 will be further referred to as Wei).
Regarding claim 1: Wei discloses a method for enabling active learning for object classification in visual perception tasks in a vehicle that is configured to provide at least partial driving automation based on the object classification (paragraphs 0033, 0050, and 0057), the method comprising:
determining, using an object classifier, for one or more data points within automotive sensor data, an object class out of a plurality of object classes, the object class corresponding to an object type encounterable in a driving environment of the vehicle (i.e. objects are segmented into categories);
determining, for each of the one or more data points within the automotive sensor data, an uncertainty value based on a plurality of class probabilities and a confusion matrix, wherein: the uncertainty value is indicative of an uncertainty of an object class determination (paragraphs 0067, 0069, 0070, 0077, 0079, and 0093),
each of the class probabilities is indicative, for each of the one or more data points, of a probability of each data point being indicative of a corresponding object class (paragraphs 0053-0056), and the confusion matrix is indicative, for each object class of the plurality of object classes, of a probability of the object classifier determining, for a given object class, each of the plurality of object classes (paragraph 0077 and 0090);
determining an overall uncertainty of the automotive sensor data based on the uncertainty values of the one or more data points (paragraph 0067);
determining whether the overall uncertainty exceeds an overall uncertainty threshold, and providing the automotive sensor data to an oracle if the overall uncertainty exceeds the overall uncertainty threshold (paragraph 0096); and
receiving, from the oracle, an object annotation of the automotive sensor data (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein the overall uncertainty threshold corresponds to a sum of an average overall uncertainty and at least one standard deviation of the average overall uncertainty (paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 3: The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of class probabilities corresponds to a plurality of activation values of an output layer of the object classifier (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 4: The method according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of class probabilities corresponds to a plurality of activation values of an output layer of the object classifier (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 14: The method according to claim 1, wherein the oracle is a cloud-based object classification service (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 15: The method according to claim 1, wherein: the oracle is a user of the vehicle, and providing the automotive sensor data to the oracle includes displaying, on a display of the vehicle, the automotive sensor data (paragraphs 0004 and 0038-0044).
Regarding claim 16: Wei et al. discloses an automotive control apparatus (paragraph 0004 comprising: at least one processing unit; and a memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and configured to store machine- readable instructions, wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the at least one processing unit (paragraphs 0038-0045) to:
determine, using an object classifier, for one or more data points within automotive sensor data, an object class out of a plurality of object classes, each object class corresponding to an object type encounterable in a driving environment of the vehicle (see claim 1);
determine, for each of the one or more data points within the automotive sensor data, an uncertainty value based on a plurality of class probabilities and a confusion matrix (see claim 1), wherein:
each uncertainty value is indicative of an uncertainty of an object class determination, each class probability is indicative, for each of the one or more data points, of a probability of each data point being indicative of a corresponding object class (see claim 1), and
the confusion matrix is indicative, for each object class of the plurality of object classes, of a probability of the object classifier determining, for a given object class, each of the object classes of the plurality of object classes (see claim 1);
determine an overall uncertainty of the automotive sensor data based on the uncertainty values of the one or more data points (see claim 1);
determine whether the overall uncertainty exceeds an overall uncertainty threshold, and provide the automotive sensor data to an oracle if the overall uncertainty exceeds the overall uncertainty threshold (see claim 1); and
receive, from the oracle, an object annotation of the automotive sensor data (see claim1).
Regarding claim 17: The automotive control apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the overall uncertainty threshold corresponds to a sum of an average overall uncertainty and at least one standard deviation of the average overall uncertainty (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 18: A vehicle comprising the automotive control apparatus according to claim 16 (paragraph 0004, i.e. autonomous driving= inside a vehicle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
A.) Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (WO 2022/205158 A1 will be further referred to as Wei) and further in view of Xie, M. et al. ("Dirichlet-Based Uncertainty Calibration for Active Domain Adaptation", Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2023, February 27, 2023, pp. 1-22, XP091447442 (22 pages)).
Regarding claim 5: Wei et al. does not teach “wherein the plurality of class probabilities corresponds to concentration parameters of a Dirichlet distribution.” Xie teaches the feature of “wherein the plurality of class probabilities corresponds to concentration parameters of a Dirichlet distribution” (Xie et al.; page 2 paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Xie et al. to the disclosure of Wei et al. since they are analogous in the field of system training for object identification/prediction. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Xie et al. into the system of Wei et al. in order to have a more accurate object identification system.
Regarding claim 6: Wei et al. does not teach “wherein the plurality of class probabilities corresponds to concentration parameters of a Dirichlet distribution.” Xie teaches the feature of “wherein the plurality of class probabilities corresponds to concentration parameters of a Dirichlet distribution” (Xie et al.; page 2 paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Xie et al. to the disclosure of Wei et al. since they are analogous in the field of system training for object identification/prediction. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Xie et al. into the system of Wei et al. in order to have a more accurate object identification system.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 7-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights