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 .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claim 1 as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement filed 07/21/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a blank Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) is considered a noncomplying IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is 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.
In claim 1, the recitation, “determining a scene representation…”, “determining an initial dataset…..”, “determining a set of underrepresented feature…..”. “determining a text-based prompt…….”, prompting a generative model…..”, training a controller….”, renders it indefinite , since it is not clear who is performing these operations.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piemonte et al. ( USP 2024/0185539) in view of Gado et al. ( USP 2025/0384280) in view of Hui et al. ( USP 2026/0120397) in view of Arnicar et al. ( 2024/0183684).
As Per Claim 1, Piemonte et al. (Piemonte) teaches, a method, (via an AR system included in a vehicle) comprising: determining a scene representation of a real-world scene; ( [0048]) determining an initial dataset comprising measurements of the real-world scene; determining a set of underrepresented features in the initial dataset; and for an underrepresented feature of the set of underrepresented features: ([0048-0052], [0070-0096], Figs. 1-6).
However, Piemonte does not explicitly teach, determining a text-based prompt based on the underrepresented feature; prompting a generative model to generate a set of synthetic videos based on the scene representation and the text-based prompt; and
training a controller based on the set of synthetic videos, wherein the trained controller controls operation of an autonomous vehicle (AV) within the real-world scene.
In an analogous art, Gado et al. (Gado) teaches, training data generation for large language model fine-tuning and/or benchmarking, wherein, determining a text-based prompt based on the underrepresented feature; prompting a generative model to generate a set of synthetic videos based on the scene representation and the text-based prompt; (via data builder system 101, domain data 104, configuration file 108 etc., creating training data and training model, [0035-0046], [0131]-[0138], Figs. 1,3,4,8 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piemonte and Gado before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Piemonte, to include the teachings ( data builder system101, domain data 104, configuration file 108 etc.) of Gado and configure with the system of Piemonte in order to generate synthetic video based on scene representation and text based prompt. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, generating training data and training model.
However, Piemonte in view of Gado does not explicitly etach, training a controller based on the set of synthetic videos, wherein the trained controller controls operation of an autonomous vehicle (AV) within the real-world scene.
In an analogous art, Hui et al. ( Hui) teaches, generating and employing computer vision models of a structural environment, wherein, training a controller based on the set of synthetic videos,( via training a model generation platform based on synthetic video data , [0035-0037], [0039-0040], Figs. 1,2).
In an analogous art, Arnicar et al. ( Arnicar) teaches, wherein the trained controller controls operation of an autonomous vehicle (AV) within the real-world scene ( via a computing device 126, using ground truth data and training the autonomous vehicle controller of vehicle 102, ([0020], [0039], [0060], [0071], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piemonte and Gado and Hui and Arnicar before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Piemonte, to include the teachings (computer vision model training) of Hui and (computing device using ground truth data ) of Arnicar and configure with the system of Piemonte in order to training the autonomous vehicle controller based on synthetic video and ground truth data for the operational control of the autonomous vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights