CTNF 19/101,929 CTNF 76050 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment Examiner notes the submission of a preliminary amendment at the time of filing of the application 2/7/2025. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the legalistic language “wherein”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15, 17-21 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. The third paragraph of claim 1 is confusing “matching the first environment sensing result to obtain a mutual sensing result”, what two things are being “matched” and what things are “mutual” with each other? Examiner will interpret this phrase as shown in the art rejection below. The second paragraph of claim 14 is confusing “receiving a matching request”, what two things are being “matched”? Examiner will interpret this phrase as shown in the art rejection below. The third and fourth paragraphs of claim 17 are confusing. The use of “matching” and “mutual”, what two things are being “matched” and what two things are “mutual” with each other? Examiner will interpret this phrase as shown in the art rejection below. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 17 recites the limitation " the first vehicle " in line 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 12, 18 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grace et al (US2021/0304607) . An autonomous driving sensing method (0001, 0029), performed by a first vehicle (0110 “Example 1 provides a collaborative perception system for a first vehicle”, “AV 1 ”), and comprising: acquiring external environmental information (0069 “CS 1 is a value indicative of an environment surrounding AV 1 , while CS 2 is a value indicative of an environment surrounding AV 2 ”), and generating at least one first environment sensing result (“complexity score”) according to the environmental information, wherein the environmental information is a road condition where the first vehicle is located (“CS 1 is a value indicative of an environment surrounding AV 1 ”); matching the first environment sensing result to obtain a mutual sensing result, wherein the mutual sensing result (figures 6 & 7, 0071 1 st sentence, 0110, claim 1) is obtained by mutual sensing of the first vehicle and a target vehicle (AV 2 ); filtering the mutual sensing result to obtain a comprehensive sensing result (fig. 9 & “complexity score” interaction between AV 1 /CS 1 and AV 2 /CS 2, “collaborative perception” and Abstract); and correcting the first environment sensing result (0073 “step 910… changing the original driving strategies of AV 1 and/or AV 2 …would result in safer behavior of AV 1 and/or AV 2 .”, 0085 “step 1014 may include changing the original driving strategy of AV 1 , resulting in safer behavior of AV 1 ”, ) according to the comprehensive sensing result (fig. 9 show adjusting of vehicle sensor readings when there is a CS mismatch). Claim 12 Grace discloses the autonomous driving sensing method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing auxiliary prediction on a state value of the first vehicle according to the comprehensive sensing result, to obtain a predicted output value as the state value of the first vehicle, wherein the state value is a driving state parameter of the first vehicle (0042 1 st two sentences, 00071 “one or more predictions regarding the environment surrounding the AV”, 0118). Claim 18 Grace discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer-executable program thereon, wherein the computer-executable program is configured to cause a computer to execute the autonomous driving sensing method according to claim 1 (0020 “a computer program…in one or more computer-readable medium(s), preferably non-transitory, having computer-readable program code”, 0136) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 14 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grace et al (US2021/0304607) . An autonomous driving sensing method (0001, 0029), performed by a data platform (0013 “data processing system”), and comprising: receiving a matching request, a first environment sensing result (0069 “CS 1 is a value indicative of an environment surrounding AV 1 , while CS 2 is a value indicative of an environment surrounding AV 2 ”) and first vehicle information (CS 1 ), which are sent by a first vehicle (AV 1 ); and querying a second environment sensing result (AV 2 & CS 2 ) matching the first environment sensing result (“complexity score”) and the first vehicle information, according to the matching request, the first environment sensing result (CS 1 ) and the first vehicle information (AV 1 ), wherein the first environment sensing result is generated by the first vehicle according to external environmental information, the first vehicle information is vehicle information of the first vehicle (0080 “AV 1 , capable of obtaining information indicative of an environment surrounding AV 1 ”, 0083 “AV 1 providing a request to the X identified in the step 1008 to provide to AV 1 information indicative of an environment surrounding AV 1 ”), and the second environment sensing result is generated by a target vehicle (figures 6 & 7, 0071 1 st sentence, 0110, claim 1) according to the external environmental information . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 5-6 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al (US2021/0304607) in view of CN 111666871 A . Grace discloses the autonomous driving sensing method (0018, “mobile sensing unit 710 ”) of claim 1. Grace does not disclose training several first environment sensing results to obtain a sensing model; and performing pruning compression on the sensing model to obtain a compressed sensing model and model parameters of the compressed sensing model. CN111666871A discloses an autonomous vehicle (0005) with training of first environment sensing results to obtain a sensing model; and performing pruning compression on the sensing model to obtain a compressed sensing model (0021, 0092) and model parameters of the compressed sensing model. At the time the invention was made it would have been known to one of ordinary skill to use the compression modeling and pruning of CN111666871A to operate the autonomous driving method of Grace. A motivation for this would be to streamline the method of Grace with a faster control system. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law framework of rationale A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claim 5 Grace discloses the autonomous driving sensing method according to claim 2, wherein the environmental information comprises at least one of image data (0033 3 rd & 5 th sentences), first point cloud data and second point cloud data, the image data is captured by a camera (“camera 210”), the first point cloud data is detected by a laser radar, and the second point cloud data is detected by a millimeter wave radar. Claim 6 CN111666871A discloses the autonomous driving sensing method according to claim 5, wherein generating the at least one first environment sensing result according to the environmental information comprises: performing target detection and recognition on the environmental information according to the model parameters, to obtain the first environment sensing result (0006 “target detection and tracking methods based on traditional machine learning”, 0021) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al (US2021/0304607) . A controller (“vehicle management system 140 ”), comprising a memory (“memory elements 1204 ”), a processor (“processor 1202 ”), and a computer program (0137) stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the following operations: acquiring external environmental information (0019 “ “complexity scores,” indicative of their respective environments”), and generating at least one first environment sensing result (CS 1 ) according to the environmental information, wherein the environmental information is a road condition (figures 6, 7 & 8) where the first vehicle is located; matching the first environment sensing result to obtain a mutual sensing result, wherein the mutual sensing result is obtained by mutual sensing of the first vehicle (AV 1 ) and a target vehicle (AV 2 ); filtering the mutual sensing result to obtain a comprehensive sensing result (Abstract 1 st sentence, fig. 1 11a-n, figures 6-8); and correcting the first environment sensing result according to the comprehensive sensing result (“collaborative perception”). Grace does not specify that the controller comprises the memory, processor and a computer program. At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to design a controller that comprises various computer elated components. A motivation for this consolidation of components would be to enable quicker maintenance. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al (US2021/0304607) in view of CN 111666871 A . Grace does not disclose training several first environment sensing results to obtain a sensing model; and performing pruning compression on the sensing model to obtain a compressed sensing model and model parameters of the compressed sensing model. CN111666871A discloses an autonomous vehicle (0005) with training of first environment sensing results to obtain a sensing model; and performing pruning compression on the sensing model to obtain a compressed sensing model (0021, 0092) and model parameters of the compressed sensing model. At the time the invention was made it would have been known to one of ordinary skill to use the compression modeling and pruning of CN111666871A to operate the autonomous driving method of Grace. A motivation for this would be to streamline the method of Grace with a faster control system. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law framework of rationale A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3-4, 7-11, 13, 15, 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP. 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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. MICHAEL C. ZARROLI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3658B /MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 . Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 12 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 13 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/101,929 Page 14 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights