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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on July 23, 2025. Claim 1 has been canceled by the applicant. Claims 2-21 are pending.
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 2-8 and 18-21 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”. The claim does not state where the system, processor(s) or non-transitory computer-readable media reside. It can be inferred from the claim language that the system resides on a vehicle 502 as elements 516 and 518 as shown in Fig. 4, as that is where the sensor(s) 506 and machine-learned model(s) 128 reside, and will be interpreted by the examiner as such for purposes of compact prosecution. However, it could also be interpreted that the system resides on a computing device 542 as elements 544 and 546 as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations”. The claim does not state where the system, processor(s) or non-transitory computer-readable media reside. It can be inferred from the claim language that the system resides on a vehicle 502 as elements 516 and 518 as shown in Fig. 4, as that is where the sensor(s) 506 and machine-learned model(s) 128 reside, and will be interpreted by the examiner as such for purposes of compact prosecution. However, it could also be interpreted that the system resides on a computing device 542 as elements 544 and 546 as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19-21 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Nabatchian et al., US 20210347378 A1, teaches a system and method for generating an importance occupancy grid map (OGM) for a vehicle are disclosed. The method includes: receiving a three-dimensional (3D) point cloud; receiving a binary map, the binary map associated with a set of GPS coordinates of the vehicle; receiving information representative of a planned path for the vehicle; and generating an importance OGM based on the 3D point cloud, the binary map, and the planned path for the vehicle using a map generation module.
Heo et al., US 2023/0288568 A1, teaches an embodiment method for classifying objects around a vehicle includes generating a dynamic occupancy grid map including a plurality of cells including point data corresponding to each of a plurality of objects located around the vehicle and velocity vector information of the point data, based on LiDAR data received from a LiDAR sensor of the vehicle and information related to movement of the vehicle, determining a cluster corresponding to each of the plurality of objects on the dynamic occupancy grid map using a clustering technique, and classifying an object corresponding to the cluster into a static object or a dynamic object, based on a region size of the cluster and velocity vector information included in cells belonging to the cluster.
The hypothetical combination of Nabatchian with Heo would still fail to teach the claim limitation of determine, based at least in part on the feature map, whether an object represented in the sensor data is an over-drivable object, an under-drivable object, or a non-drivable object, and determine, based at least in part on the object being one of over-drivable, under-drivable, or non-drivable, whether to include or exclude a representation of the object from an occupancy grid associated with an environment in proximity to a vehicle; receiving, from the machine-learned model and based at least in part on determining to include or exclude the representation of the object, the occupancy grid; receiving a planned trajectory associated with the vehicle; determining, based at least in part on the planned trajectory and the occupancy grid, an action comprising at least one of: a validation operation associated with the planned trajectory, or a corrective action for the vehicle, wherein the corrective action comprises altering the planned trajectory of the vehicle; and controlling, based at least in part on the action, the vehicle in conjunction with the other claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights