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 the Claims
Claims 1-5 of US application 17/490,132 filed 09/30/2021 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 12/05/2023.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 01/05/2024. Claim 1 was amended. Examiner filed a final rejection on 02/14/2024.
Applicant filed proposed after-final amendments on 04/02/2024. Claim 1was amended. The after-final amendments were not entered.
Applicant filed an RCE on 05/13/2024. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-5 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 05/23/2024.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 08/02/2024. Claim 1 was amended. Examiner filed a final rejection on 11/04/2024.
Applicant filed an RCE on 01/27/2025. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-5 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 05/19/2025.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 07/07/2025. Claim 1 was amended and claims 6-7 were newly added. Claims 1-7 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2025 with respect to Partridge et al. (US 20200250363 A1) in view of Benedetto et al. (US11794109B2) and in further view of Kim et al. (KR20210045022A) have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge et al. (US 20200250363 A1) in view of Benedetto et al. (US11794109B2), hereinafter referred to as Partridge and Benedetto respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Partridge discloses A service management device that manages a service delivered in a predetermined area (“An autonomous vehicle simulator according to the present disclosure may include a container-based testing architecture in which a user may provide a container of the portion of an autonomous vehicle or sensor software stack, such as a portion of a control system or perception system (e.g., one or more sensors or sensor controllers), that the user would like to test and validate, in combination with a container of other aspects of the test (e.g., other portion of the control system, the roadway, the environment, other aspects of the vehicle, etc.) provided by third parties, that are publicly-available, or otherwise provided by the testing software.” [0016]), the service management device comprising:
an operator interface including a display that displays information for an operator and receiving an input from the operator, the information comprising a dashboard displaying autonomous robot status information in real time and a simulation interface (“To view information from the computing system environment 1100, a monitor 1140 or other type of display device may also be connected to bus 1106 via an interface, such as via video adapter 1132.” [0108]);
and one or more processors configured to perform a plurality of simulations of the service delivered by a plurality of autonomous robots in the predetermined area and to display a result of the plurality of simulations on the display (“To view information from the computing system environment 1100, a monitor 1140 or other type of display device may also be connected to bus 1106 via an interface, such as via video adapter 1132.” [0063]),
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
display, on the display, a simulation setting screen used by the operator to specify a simulation condition for each of the plurality of simulations, wherein each of the plurality of simulations simulates a plurality of autonomous robots performing the service, the service comprising a delivery service (”The method 300 may further include, at block 304, designating performance characteristics of the test vehicle. Performance characteristics may include, for example, acceleration along one or more vectors, turning radius, braking power or braking deceleration rate in one or more weather conditions, and the like.” [0067]);
receive the simulation conditions specified by the operator through the operator interface for each of the plurality of simulations and perform the simulations in accordance with the specified simulation condition (“the Designer 102 comprises an interface through which the details of desired autonomous vehicle simulations are received from a user, the Director 104 performs the desired simulations, and the Analyzer 106 presents the results of the simulations to the user.” [0019] and “one or more of the following features may be parameterized: (i) the quantity, placement, and/or software and hardware settings of one or more sensors; (ii) aspects of the control programming of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., response strategies to particular stimuli or events); (iii) features of the vehicle itself (e.g., dimensions, weight, engine parameters, gearbox parameters, tires, acceleration and turning performance, color, etc.); (iv) weather; (v) vehicle traffic presence, quantity, vehicle type, and/or behavior; (vi) pedestrian traffic presence, quantity, and/or behavior; (vii) traffic light timing; (viii) one or more aspects of the road network (e.g., number of lanes for a particular stretch of road, width of a parking aisle, lane markings, parking space markings, etc.); (ix) time of day; and/or other features of the scenario or ego vehicle. For a parameterized feature, the user may provide a set of fixed values or define a range of values over which simulations are desired. For example, the user may choose to parameterize precipitation only, and may define a range of rainfall or snowfall rates. The user instead may choose to parameterize precipitation and placement of a specific radar sensor, and may define a set of positions on the ego vehicle for the radar sensor as well as the range of rainfall or snowfall rates. Any number and combination of features may be parameterized for simulation.” [0026]);
and the simulation condition at least includes an ON/OFF state of a regulation that is imposed on a plurality of the autonomous robot used for delivering the delivery service in the predetermined area and the concurrently displayed simulation results at least include a delay occurrence rate of the delivery service for each of the plurality of simulations (“a second plurality of simulations comprising a respective simulation for each of the second plurality of values; determining, for each of the second plurality of respective simulations, whether the simulation passed or failed the pass/fail condition; and outputting, to the user, a result of the second plurality of respective simulations.” [0116] and “In an embodiment of the first aspect, the variable parameter comprises: a latency of the sensor; an environmental error respective of the sensor; a hardware error respective of the sensor; a hardware setting of the sensor; a position-based or arrangement-based error of the sensor; or a firmware setting of the sensor.” [0114]));
wherein the service management device further comprises a communication interface, and the service management device controls a plurality of autonomous robots via the communication interface based on a selected one the simulation results, the simulations having been performed according to the specified simulation condition (“the method 300 may further include, at block 308, designating a control logic for the test vehicle. Designating a control logic may include receiving a user selection of a known or commercially-available control logic, in some embodiments. In other embodiments, designating a control logic may include receiving a user-proprietary control logic, or a user-proprietary portion of a control logic. In some embodiments, designating a control logic may include creating a randomized control logic (or one or more aspects thereof) within a set of safe boundaries. In some embodiments, designating a control logic for the vehicle may include providing a user with a list of potential ego vehicle behaviors, and allowing the user to select from those behaviors (e.g., follow distance, maximum speed).” [0070])
Partridge does not explicitly disclose display concurrently on the display at least two respective simulation results for at least two different simulation conditions
However, Benedetto does teach display concurrently on the display at least two respective simulation results for at least two different simulation conditions (“The method further includes capturing a plurality of second snapshots of a second plurality of rendered images generated in association with execution of a second instance of the video game in association with a second user playing the video game. The method further includes displaying a timeline showing progress of the first user and the second user playing the video game, the timeline displayed simultaneously with a currently rendered image generated from execution of the first instance.” [Col.3 ln 1-15]). Both Partridge and Benedetto teach simulations Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle systems for deployment on public roadways. However, Benedetto explicitly teaches displaying concurrently on the display at least two respective simulation results for at least two different simulation conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simulations of Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle system of Partridge to also include displaying concurrently on the display at least two respective simulation results for at least two different simulation conditions (With regarding to this reasoning, see at least [Benedetto, Col.3 ln 1-40]).
Regarding claim 3, Partridge discloses The service management device according to claim 1, wherein the simulation condition further includes at least one of a number, a type, and a performance of the autonomous robot ( “ The vehicle details may include, for example, the type, number, location, and/or performance of sensors on the vehicle.” [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Partridge discloses The service management device according to claim 1, wherein the simulation condition further includes at least one of time, day, season, and weather( “The method 500 may further include, at block 508, designating one or more environmental aspects of the scenario. Environmental aspects may include, for example, precipitation type and quantity or rate, time of day, time of year, sun or moon position, cloud cover, temperature, street pavement type (e.g., concrete, brick, dirt, etc.) and features (e.g., tar snakes, potholes, speed bumps, etc.), road marking quality, and the like. ” see at least [0079]).
Regarding claim 7, Partridge discloses The service management device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of simulations simulates a plurality of autonomous robots performing the delivery service, and each simulation result includes a set of the delay occurrence rate of the delivery service performed by the plurality of autonomous robots and the ON/OFF state of the regulation imposed on the plurality of autonomous robots (“a second plurality of simulations comprising a respective simulation for each of the second plurality of values; determining, for each of the second plurality of respective simulations, whether the simulation passed or failed the pass/fail condition; and outputting, to the user, a result of the second plurality of respective simulations.” [0116] and “In an embodiment of the first aspect, the variable parameter comprises: a latency of the sensor; an environmental error respective of the sensor; a hardware error respective of the sensor; a hardware setting of the sensor; a position-based or arrangement-based error of the sensor; or a firmware setting of the sensor.” [0114]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge in view of Benedetto and in further view of Nonaka et al. (EP2806324A1), hereinafter referred to as Partridge, Benedetto and Nonaka respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Partridge in view of Benedetto discloses The service management device according to claim 1,
Partridge in view of Benedetto does not explicitly disclose teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display concurrently on the display at least three different simulation conditions.
However, Nonaka does teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display concurrently on the display at least three different simulation conditions (“The present system has a system configuration as illustrated in FIGs. 1 and 2, performs processing as illustrated in FIGs. 3, 9, and 10, and provides GUI screens as illustrated in FIGs. 4, 12, 13, and others.” [0017]). Both Partridge in view of Benedetto teach simulations Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle systems for deployment on public roadways. However, Nonaka teaches the one or more processors are further configured to display concurrently on the display at least three different simulation conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simulations of Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle system of Partridge in view of Benedetto to also include the one or more processors are further configured to display concurrently on the display at least three different simulation conditions, as in Nonaka with a reasonable degree of success (With regarding to this reasoning, see at least [Nonaka, 0017]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge in view of Benedetto, and in further view of Kim et al. (US20210114218A1) hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Partridge in view of Benedetto discloses The service management device according to claim 1,
wherein ON/OFF of the regulation imposed on the autonomous robot includes at least one of: whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to travel on a vehicular road( “The method 500 may include, at block 502, designating a test scene (which may also be referred to herein as a scene). Designating the test scene may include, for example, creating or selecting a network of one or more roads, sidewalks, parking spaces, and other pathways for one or more vehicles and pedestrians” See at least [0072]); whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to travel on a pedestrian road ( “Designating the test scene may include, for example, creating or selecting a network of one or more roads, sidewalks, parking spaces, and other pathways for one or more vehicles and pedestrians.” See at least [0072])
whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to travel on a vehicular road (“in combination with a container of other aspects of the test (e.g., other portion of the control system, the roadway, the environment, other aspects of the vehicle, etc.)” [0016]);
whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to travel on a pedestrian road (“other static details of the virtual environment in which the simulations will take place, and dynamic actors in the scene, including pedestrian and vehicle traffic.” [0021]);
Partridge in view of Benedetto does not explicitly disclose and whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to take a pedestrian elevator.
However, Kim does teach and whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to take a pedestrian elevator. ( Kim teaches “FIG. 17 illustrates a method of controlling the robot in the use of an elevator” see at least [00164] and “A case where at least part of the robot 100 is included in the personal area 150 associated with the user 140 and the robot 100 has to travel along with the user 140 may be where the robot 100 gets on the same elevator 1700 as the user 140 or gets off the elevator 1700 with the user 140, for example. In this case, the robot 100 may be controlled to get on the elevator 1700 after all users get off the elevator 1700, before getting on the elevator 1700.” See at least [00166]). Partridge in view of Benedetto and Kim teach simulations of Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle systems for deployment on public roadways. However, Partridge in view of Benedetto does not explicitly disclose whether to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to take a pedestrian elevator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simulations of Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle system of Partridge in view of Benedetto to also add to prohibit or allow the autonomous robot to take a pedestrian elevator, as in Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and convenience by providing the vehicle operating with valuable information about the vehicle’s surroundings and limitations (With regarding to this reasoning, see at least [Partridge, 0015] and [Kim, 0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Partridge in view of Benedetto discloses The service management device according to claim 1, wherein plural types of services are delivered in the predetermined area,
Partridge in view of Benedetto does not explicitly disclose the simulation condition further includes ON/OFF of each of the plural types of services.
However, Kim does teach the simulation condition further includes ON/OFF of each of the plural types of services. (Kim teaches “The service operation module 440 may include a function for controlling a service provided by the robot 100 within the building 130. For example, the robot control system 120 or a service provider that operates the building 130 may provide an integrated development environment (IDE) for a service (e.g., cloud service) provided to a user or a producer of the robot 100 by the robot control system 120………… As a detailed example, assuming that the robot 100 provides a service for delivering, to the location of a user, a thing (e.g., food and drink or parcel goods) requested by the user, the robot control system 120 may control the robot 100 to move to the location of the user by controlling indoor autonomous driving of the robot 100, and may transmit, to the robot 100, a related instruction so that the robot 100 delivers the thing to the user when arriving at an object location and provides a series of services.” See at least[0089]). Both Partridge in view of Benedetto and Kim teach simulations of Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle systems for deployment on public roadways. However, Kim explicitly teaches the simulation condition further includes ON/OFF of each of the plural types of services.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simulations of Autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicle system of Partridge in view of Benedetto to also add an option to choose from a list of available services, as in Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and convenience by providing the vehicle operating with valuable information about the vehicle’s surroundings and available services (With regarding to this reasoning, see at least [Kim, 0003]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
AHMED ALKIRSHExaminer, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights