DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” as being anticipated by COSTEA (US 2023/0095410 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, COSTEA teaches one or more processors ([0063]) comprising:
processing circuitry ([0063]-[0065]) to:
generate, based at least on ultrasonic data obtained using one or more ultrasonic sensors of a machine ([0057]; [0063]), a representation associated with one or more objects in an environment of the machine ([0021]-[0022]);
determine, using one or more neural networks ([0023]; [0052]; [0065]) and based at least on the representation ([0023]), information associated with the one or more objects ([0064]); and
cause, based at least on the information ([0068]), the machine to perform one or more parking, control, or navigation operations ([0068]-[0069]).
Referring to Claim 2, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the generation of the representation ([0021]) comprises:
determining, based at least on the ultrasonic data ([0057]), one or more locations associated with the one or more objects ([0011]; [0064]); and
generating the representation ([0021]; [0025]) to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more objects ([0022]).
Referring to Claim 3, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the generation of the representation comprises:
determining, based at least on the ultrasonic data ([0057]; [0063]), one or more distances to the one or more objects ([0064]); and
generating the representation ([0025]) to indicate the one or more distances to the one or more objects ([0021]-[0022]).
Referring to Claim 4, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the representation includes an image of an environment ([0021]-[0022]) at least partially surrounding the machine ([0019]; [0022]) and indicating one or more locations ([0022]) associated with the one or more objects ([0022]-[0023]).
Referring to Claim 5, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
generate, based at least on second ultrasonic data obtained using the one or more ultrasonic sensors of the machine ([0047]-[0050]; [0057]), a second representation associated with the one or more objects ([0021]-[0026]; [0047]-[0050]),
wherein the information associated with the one or more objects is further determined based at least on the second representation ([0052]; [0064]-[0065]).
Referring to Claim 6, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
align, based at least on a motion of the machine ([0048]-[0050]), the representation with respect to the second representation ([0050]); and
generate, based at least on the representation being aligned with respect to the second representation ([0050]-[0052]), a third representation associated with the one or more objects ([0050]-[0052]),
wherein the information is determined using the one or more neural networks ([0052]; [0065]) and based at least on the third representation ([0052]).
Referring to Claim 7, COSTEA teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the information includes at least one of:
a height map associated with the one or more objects;
an occupancy map associated with the one or more objects ([0021]-[0022]);
a distance map associated with the one or more objects; or
one or more indications of one or more locations associated with the one or more objects.
Referring to Claim 8, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
generate, based at least on the information ([0025]-[0026]), an occupancy map ([0021]-[0022]; [0026]) associated with the environment at least partially surrounding the machine ([0021]-[0022]; [0057]),
wherein the machine is caused to perform the one or more parking, control, or navigation operations ([0068]-[0069]) based at least on the occupancy map ([0022]-[0023]; [0027]; [0043]-[0046]).
Referring to Claim 9, COSTEA teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine ([0010]; [0068]-[0069]);
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine ([0063]-[0065]);
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content;
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Claim 10 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a method for the one or more processors of Claim 1; and further comprising: a representation associated with a sensory field represented by the ultrasonic data (COSTEA’ [0021]-[0022]; [0057]). Therefore Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 7 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 8 above.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a system of Claim 1; and further comprising: one or more central processing units (CPUs) (COSTEA’ [0073]); one or more graphics processing units (GPUs) (COSTEA’ [0073]); one or more hardware accelerators (COSTEA’ [0073]); one or more ultrasonic sensors (COSTEA’ [0057]); and one or more other sensors (COSTEA’ [0057]). Therefore Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Referring to Claim 19, COSTEA teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the information includes one or more locations associated with one or more objects, and the one or more locations associated with the one or more objects are determined, at least, by:
determining, based at least on the ultrasonic data, one or more distances associated with the one or more objects ([0021]-[0022]; [0064]); and
determining the one or more locations based at least on the one or more distances ([0011]; [0040]; [0042]; [0064]).
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 9 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights