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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 29th, 2025. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on May 29th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to EP24179291.0 dated May 31st, 2024.
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.
Claims 6-8 are 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 6 recites the limitation "the corresponding environmental parameter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the current capability of the ADS". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art examination, Examiner is interpreting “the current capability of the ADS” to be the same as “a capability of the ADS” mentioned in claim 1 on which it depends. Claim 8 is additionally rejected due to its dependence on claim 7.
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 (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)(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, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-20210223788 (hereinafter, “Garcia”).
Regarding claim 1 Garcia discloses a computer-implemented method for dynamically adapting an Operational Design Domain (ODD) for an Automated Driving System (ADS) of a vehicle (see at least [abstract]; “a system, method and processor readable medium for identifying an operational design domain (ODD) for operation of an autonomous driving system (ADS)”), the method comprising:
obtaining a driving task to be executed by the ADS (see at least [0071]; “The system 400 of FIG. 4A begins with the data generator 404 receiving proposed condition space data 402. The proposed condition space data 402 is data that is representative of a proposed condition space. The proposed condition space is a multi-dimensional space defined by a range or set of proposed conditions under which the ADS 170 may operate. In some embodiments, the proposed condition space includes geographic conditions such as locations (e.g. specific roadways, roadway segments, or map boundaries), terrain type, or road repair conditions. The locations may comprise a proposed map, which may comprise an initial map boundary. In some other embodiments, the proposed condition space may also include map features, as described below,” driving in the proposed condition space with the ADS corresponds to Applicant’s driving task);
decomposing the obtained driving task into a plurality of driving sub-tasks (see at least [0076]; “Once the geographic dataset 406 has been generated, the performance of the ADS 170 is evaluated by an ADS evaluator 408 using the geographic dataset 406, as described in greater details below. The evaluation of the geographic dataset 406 by the ADS evaluator 408 results in a calculation of an ADS risk metric per roadway segment in the proposed map under each combination of conditions (such as environment conditions, vehicle status conditions, and/or driver conditions), shown as the ADS risk per condition 410 output by the ADS evaluator 408,” the proposed condition space is separated into roadway segments which can be evaluated by the ADS evaluator);
executing a risk calculation for each driving sub-task (see at least [0076]; “Once the geographic dataset 406 has been generated, the performance of the ADS 170 is evaluated by an ADS evaluator 408 using the geographic dataset 406, as described in greater details below. The evaluation of the geographic dataset 406 by the ADS evaluator 408 results in a calculation of an ADS risk metric per roadway segment in the proposed map under each combination of conditions (such as environment conditions, vehicle status conditions, and/or driver conditions), shown as the ADS risk per condition 410 output by the ADS evaluator 408,” the proposed condition space is separated into roadway segments which can be evaluated by the ADS evaluator) to evaluate whether the ADS is capable of executing each driving sub-task in view of an acceptable risk value for each driving sub-task based on a capability of the ADS and information about an environmental context surrounding each driving sub-task (see at least [0013]; “the present disclosure the ODD may be defined with respect to objective and systematic measures of risk based on the capabilities of the ADS,” and [0076]; “risk comparator 412 compares a risk threshold 411 to the ADS risk for each roadway segment and identifies an ODD 414 based on which roadway segments satisfy the comparison, and under what conditions. The risk threshold 411 may be defined in terms of risk tolerance, such as by a monetary (or some other) value, as described in greater detail below. The portions of the proposed condition space (e.g. the roadway segments within the proposed map, within a defined range of conditions) that have ADS risk 410 below the risk threshold 411 define a bounded-risk portion of the proposed condition space.”);
defining an ODD for the ADS for the obtained driving task based on the executed risk calculation so to control an availability of the ADS for execution of each driving sub-task of the plurality of driving sub-tasks (see at least [0013]; “the present disclosure the ODD may be defined with respect to objective and systematic measures of risk based on the capabilities of the ADS,” and [0017]; “the present disclosure may enable an ADS to operate within a defined ODD” and [0068]; “The total risk is then compared with the pre-set risk threshold, and those roadway segments which have risk less than the threshold under a sub-range of the range of environmental conditions are identified and updated into the ODD with each roadway segment's corresponding sub-range of environmental conditions identified,” the ADS only operates within the defined ODD which is set based on the risk calculations);
controlling the ADS of the vehicle in accordance with the defined ODD for execution of the obtained driving task (see at least [0017]; “The present disclosure may enable an ADS to operate within a defined ODD”); and
continuously repeating the risk calculation for any remaining driving sub-tasks not yet executed (see at least [0076]; “Once the geographic dataset 406 has been generated, the performance of the ADS 170 is evaluated by an ADS evaluator 408 using the geographic dataset 406, as described in greater details below. The evaluation of the geographic dataset 406 by the ADS evaluator 408 results in a calculation of an ADS risk metric per roadway segment in the proposed map under each combination of conditions (such as environment conditions, vehicle status conditions, and/or driver conditions), shown as the ADS risk per condition 410 output by the ADS evaluator 408,” the proposed condition space is separated into roadway segments which are each evaluated by the ADS evaluator, the roadway segments correspond to driving sub-tasks).
Regarding claim 9 Garcia discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Garcia discloses wherein the obtained driving task comprises maneuvering the vehicle from a first location to a second location (see at least [0071]; “The system 400 of FIG. 4A begins with the data generator 404 receiving proposed condition space data 402. The proposed condition space data 402 is data that is representative of a proposed condition space. The proposed condition space is a multi-dimensional space defined by a range or set of proposed conditions under which the ADS 170 may operate. In some embodiments, the proposed condition space includes geographic conditions such as locations (e.g. specific roadways, roadway segments, or map boundaries), terrain type, or road repair conditions. The locations may comprise a proposed map, which may comprise an initial map boundary. In some other embodiments, the proposed condition space may also include map features, as described below,” driving in the proposed condition space with the ADS corresponds to Applicant’s driving task), and wherein decomposing the obtained driving task into a plurality of driving sub-tasks comprises dividing a distance between the first location and the second location into a plurality of connected segments, and wherein each driving sub-task defines a maneuvering of the vehicle from a start to an end of a specific segment (see at least [0071]; “The system 400 of FIG. 4A begins with the data generator 404 receiving proposed condition space data 402. The proposed condition space data 402 is data that is representative of a proposed condition space. The proposed condition space is a multi-dimensional space defined by a range or set of proposed conditions under which the ADS 170 may operate. In some embodiments, the proposed condition space includes geographic conditions such as locations (e.g. specific roadways, roadway segments, or map boundaries), terrain type, or road repair conditions. The locations may comprise a proposed map, which may comprise an initial map boundary. In some other embodiments, the proposed condition space may also include map features, as described below,” it would be obvious for the road segment to have a start and an end).
Regarding claim 10 Garcia discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Garcia discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see at least [abstract]; “a system, method and processor readable medium for identifying an operational design domain (ODD) for operation of an autonomous driving system (ADS)”).
Regarding claim 11 Garcia discloses an apparatus for dynamically adapting an Operational Design Domain (ODD) for an Automated Driving System (ADS) of a vehicle (see at least [abstract]; “a system, method and processor readable medium for identifying an operational design domain (ODD) for operation of an autonomous driving system (ADS)”), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including program code, the at least one memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to (see at least [0125]; “The coding of software for carrying out the above described methods described is within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art having regard to the present disclosure. Machine-readable code executable by one or more processors of one or more respective devices to perform the above-described method may be stored in a machine-readable medium such as the memory of the data manager. The terms "software" and "firmware" are interchangeable within the present disclosure and comprise any computer program stored in memory for execution by a processor, comprising Random Access Memory (RAM) memory, Read Only Memory (ROM) memory, EPROM memory, electrically EPROM (EEPROM) memory, and non-volatile RAM (NVRAM) memory. The above memory types are examples only, and are thus not limiting as to the types of memory usable for storage of a computer program.”), during run- time:
obtain a driving task to be executed by the ADS (see at least [0071]; “The system 400 of FIG. 4A begins with the data generator 404 receiving proposed condition space data 402. The proposed condition space data 402 is data that is representative of a proposed condition space. The proposed condition space is a multi-dimensional space defined by a range or set of proposed conditions under which the ADS 170 may operate. In some embodiments, the proposed condition space includes geographic conditions such as locations (e.g. specific roadways, roadway segments, or map boundaries), terrain type, or road repair conditions. The locations may comprise a proposed map, which may comprise an initial map boundary. In some other embodiments, the proposed condition space may also include map features, as described below,” driving in the proposed condition space with the ADS corresponds to Applicant’s driving task);
decompose the obtained driving task into a plurality of driving sub-tasks (see at least [0076]; “Once the geographic dataset 406 has been generated, the performance of the ADS 170 is evaluated by an ADS evaluator 408 using the geographic dataset 406, as described in greater details below. The evaluation of the geographic dataset 406 by the ADS evaluator 408 results in a calculation of an ADS risk metric per roadway segment in the proposed map under each combination of conditions (such as environment conditions, vehicle status conditions, and/or driver conditions), shown as the ADS risk per condition 410 output by the ADS evaluator 408,” the proposed condition space is separated into roadway segments which can be evaluated by the ADS evaluator);
execute a risk calculation for each driving sub-task (see at least [0076]; “Once the geographic dataset 406 has been generated, the performance of the ADS 170 is evaluated by an ADS evaluator 408 using the geographic dataset 406, as described in greater details below. The evaluation of the geographic dataset 406 by the ADS evaluator 408 results in a calculation of an ADS risk metric per roadway segment in the proposed map under each combination of conditions (such as environment conditions, vehicle status conditions, and/or driver conditions), shown as the ADS risk per condition 410 output by the ADS evaluator 408,” the proposed condition space is separated into roadway segments which can be evaluated by the ADS evaluator) to evaluate whether the ADS is capable of executing each driving sub-task in view of an acceptable risk value for each driving sub-task based on a capability of the ADS and information about an environmental context surrounding each driving sub-task (see at least [0013]; “the present disclosure the ODD may be defined with respect to objective and systematic measures of risk based on the capabilities of the ADS,” and [0076]; “risk comparator 412 compares a risk threshold 411 to the ADS risk for each roadway segment and identifies an ODD 414 based on which roadway segments satisfy the comparison, and under what conditions. The risk threshold 411 may be defined in terms of risk tolerance, such as by a monetary (or some other) value, as described in greater detail below. The portions of the proposed condition space (e.g. the roadway segments within the proposed map, within a defined range of conditions) that have ADS risk 410 below the risk threshold 411 define a bounded-risk portion of the proposed condition space.”);
define an ODD for the ADS for the obtained driving task based on the executed risk calculation so to control an availability of the ADS for execution of each driving sub-task of the plurality of driving sub-tasks (see at least [0013]; “the present disclosure the ODD may be defined with respect to objective and systematic measures of risk based on the capabilities of the ADS,” and [0017]; “the present disclosure may enable an ADS to operate within a defined ODD” and [0068]; “The total risk is then compared with the pre-set risk threshold, and those roadway segments which have risk less than the threshold under a sub-range of the range of environmental conditions are identified and updated into the ODD with each roadway segment's corresponding sub-range of environmental conditions identified,” the ADS only operates within the defined ODD which is set based on the risk calculations);
control the ADS of the vehicle in accordance with the defined ODD for execution of the obtained driving task (see at least [0017]; “The present disclosure may enable an ADS to operate within a defined ODD”); and
continuously repeat the risk calculation for any remaining driving sub-tasks not yet executed (see at least [0076]; “Once the geographic dataset 406 has been generated, the performance of the ADS 170 is evaluated by an ADS evaluator 408 using the geographic dataset 406, as described in greater details below. The evaluation of the geographic dataset 406 by the ADS evaluator 408 results in a calculation of an ADS risk metric per roadway segment in the proposed map under each combination of conditions (such as environment conditions, vehicle status conditions, and/or driver conditions), shown as the ADS risk per condition 410 output by the ADS evaluator 408,” the proposed condition space is separated into roadway segments which are each evaluated by the ADS evaluator, the roadway segments correspond to driving sub-tasks).
Regarding claim 14 Garcia discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Garcia discloses a vehicle comprising an apparatus according to claim 11 (see at least [0001-0002]; “The present disclosure relates to autonomous vehicles, and in particular, to a system, device and method for identifying and updating the Operational Design Domain (ODD) of an autonomous vehicle”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20210316765 (hereinafter, “Harda”).
Regarding claim 5 Garcia discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Garcia does not disclose further comprising:
continuously evaluating if there is need for pre-cautionary actions to be performed by the ADS while the ADS is autonomously controlling the vehicle for executing a driving tub-task;
in response to identifying a need for pre-cautionary actions to be performed by the ADS:
executing one or more pre-cautionary actions using the ADS while the ADS is autonomously controlling the vehicle for executing a driving tub-task.
Harda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
continuously evaluating if there is need for pre-cautionary actions to be performed by the ADS while the ADS is autonomously controlling the vehicle for executing a driving tub-task (see at least [0027-0028]; “a machine-initiated request may for example be based on sensor data indicative of the exit from the ODD associated with the ADS feature. In more detail, it may be detected, by means of one or more sensors, that the vehicle is about to exit the ODD that the currently active ADS feature is configured for and whereupon a machine-initiated hand-over request is initiated. This may be referred to as an "ODD-exit". In more detail, as the situation is today, the vehicle may not hand over control to the driver (not even partial control) unless it is confirmed by the driver. Thus, a "machine-initiated" hand-over may be interpreted as a two-step action where the vehicle requests the driver to request manual control of the vehicle. Another example of an ODD exit event may be a signal generated by an algorithm configured to limit an exposure rate to one or more dynamic parameters of a scenario (e.g., intersections. Jaywalkers, snow, ice, traffic lights, etc.) rather than eliminating the exposure to these dynamics completely. Further, the method 100 comprises providing 102 partial control of the vehicle to the driver in order to enable manual driver operation of the vehicle upon obtaining 101 the request or based on the obtained 101 request. The partial control comprises (at least) access to steering, acceleration, and braking of the vehicle while the PCS module imposes 103 a second set of pre-cautionary constraints of the plurality of pre-cautionary constraints for the driver while the driver has partial control of the vehicle.”);
in response to identifying a need for pre-cautionary actions to be performed by the ADS:
executing one or more pre-cautionary actions using the ADS while the ADS is autonomously controlling the vehicle for executing a driving tub-task (see at least [0028]; “Further, the method 100 comprises providing 102 partial control of the vehicle to the driver in order to enable manual driver operation of the vehicle upon obtaining 101 the request or based on the obtained 101 request. The partial control comprises (at least) access to steering, acceleration, and braking of the vehicle while the PCS module imposes 103 a second set of pre-cautionary constraints of the plurality of pre-cautionary constraints for the driver while the driver has partial control of the vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of dynamically adapting an operational design domain of Garcia with the pre-cautionary actions of Harda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring an operator is prepared to retake control when automation is ended (see at least Harda; [0005]).
Regarding claim 6 Garcia in view of Harda renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Harda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein evaluating if there is need for pre-cautionary actions comprises checking: if any ADS component or function has a degraded operational capability in comparison to the capability of the ADS used for the risk calculation, and/or if any environmental parameter has changed in comparison to the corresponding environmental parameter of the environmental context used for the risk calculation (see at least [0004]; “Accordingly, at least for the time being, when an Automated Driving System (ADS) feature recognizes an upcoming road or traffic scenario where the feature might have a limited performance, the feature will then ask the occupant (i.e., driver) to take over control of the vehicle. This may also be triggered by one or more sensors or other subsystems of the vehicle detecting a performance degradation or an outright failure of the ADS feature wherefore a handover request (hand-over) to the driver may be initiated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of dynamically adapting an operational design domain of Garcia with the pre-cautionary actions of Harda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring an operator is prepared to retake control when automation is ended (see at least Harda; [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 12-13 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. Claims 7 and 8 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 12 contain a limitation of a risk calculation, wherein the risk calculation comprises comparing risks of sub-tasks of the driving task to acceptable risk values, and in response to determining the sub-task dies not exceed an acceptable risk value, accepting the sub-task for control of an autonomous vehicle. Additionally, If the acceptable risk value is exceeded, checking to see if the sub-task can be modified in some way, and if it can be modified comparing the modified sub-task risk to the acceptable risk value to determine whether the sub-task is now acceptable, if the modified sub-task is not acceptable or the sub-task is not modifiable, rejecting the task for autonomous control. These claim limitations together with claim 1, renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Claim 7 contains a limitation of wherein the risk calculation comprises executing a hierarchical multi-level risk calculation in order to evaluate whether the ADS is capable of executing each driving sub-task. Furthermore, each level in the hierarchical multi-level risk calculation is defined based on a change rate of environmental parameters of the environmental context surrounding the sub-task. These claim limitations together with claim 1, renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record is US-20210223788 (hereinafter, “Garcia”) in view of US-20220194385 (hereinafter, “Geissler”), which discloses many of the required limitations.
Garcia discloses a system and method for identifying an operational design domain for operation of an autonomous driving system. Garcia obtains a proposed condition space within which an ADS may operate; the condition space is divided into roadway segments. The individual roadway segments of Garcia are analyzed to determine the level of risk associated with each individual segment; the risk level is determined based on whether the ADS is capable of operating in said area and further considers the conditions under which the ADS would be operating in within the roadway segment. The operational design domain is defined as the areas in which the risk threshold remains below the acceptable risk threshold. Garcia does not disclose performing analysis on whether the roadway segment can be modified and performing a further risk calculation on the modified segment to further determine the operational design domain, and is silent with regards to the risk assessment completed for the ADS being a hierarchical multi-level risk assessment.
Geissler discloses a method of determining an operational design domain compliance assessment of the vehicle based on an integrated risk assessment. Geissler includes an ODD monitor which can inform the ADS to indicate the ODD compliance status of the vehicle. The ADS in response to the ODD not being in compliance one or more actions can be taken. The action taken can be something such as a handover in which the vehicle transitions to manual control of the vehicle, or maintaining automated control but altering the ADS. Geissler does not disclose performing a risk assessment modifying the ADS and is silent with regards to the risk assessment completed for the ADS being a hierarchical multi-level risk assessment. Additionally, the risk assessment of Geissler is not done on sub-tasks of the vehicle driving as described by applicant but, on the driving, as the whole.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Garcia and Geissler, in such a way so as to yield the risk assessment and overall operational design domain executed by the Applicant as described in claim 2. Therefore, claims 2 and 12 contain allowable subject matter and further claims 3-4 and 13 on which depend on the claims contain allowable subject matter.
Both Garcia and Geissler are silent with regards to the risk assessment completed for the ADS being a hierarchical multi-level risk assessment wherein each level is defined based on a change rate of environmental parameters surrounding the vehicle. It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art in such a way to yield the clam limitations of claim 7. Therefore claim 7 contains allowable subject matter and further claim 8, which depends upon claim 7.
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.
US-20230078779 teaches an operational envelope detector that is configured to determine whether the system is operating within it’s ODD or whether a remedial action is appropriate to adjust the ODD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/23/26
Prosecution Insights