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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 27, 2026 and July 16, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 18-20, and 22-26 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 12, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 4, 2026, regarding rejections under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole are not taught by Chen, Li, or Brahmi. Specifically, Applicant argues that various limitations of the claims are not taught by the references individually. In particular, Applicant argues that Chen does not teach a simulation based on reverse processed data and original data, Li does not teach a time delay representing a sum of predetermined exposure time and processing time, and Brahmi does not teach obtaining data in a first format using reverse processing.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Chen teaches a simulation for simulating autonomous vehicle sensor data, Li teaches a simulation using reverse processed data, and Brahmi teaches determining a corrected timestamp based on exposure time and processing time.
An updated rejection under U.S.C. 103, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the time delay represents an additional time delay before the first computing device sending the data in the second format to the second computing device,” which should be corrected to “wherein the time delay represents an additional time delay before the first computing device sends the data in the second format to the second computing device.”
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is presented as (Original); however, the claim has been amended to recite “The method of claim [[17]]1,” and the claim should be accordingly presented as (Currently Amended).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the claims recite the same objected to language as Claim 1, and the claims are objected to for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 5, 10-12, 14, 16-22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0169623 A1), hereinafter Chen, in view of Li (Chinese Pub. No. CN110780608A), hereinafter Li, further in view of Brahmi et al. (Brahmi, Mohamed, Kai Schueler, Sayed Bouzouraa, Markus Maurer, Karl-Heinz Siedersberger, and Ulrich Hofmann. "Timestamping and latency analysis for multi-sensor perception systems." In SENSORS, 2013 IEEE, pp. 1-4. IEEE, 2013.), hereinafter Brahmi.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a method for a simulation test (“The present invention relates generally to an apparatus, method, and system for providing real-time data to a hardware-in-the-loop simulator for an automotive vehicle system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0002]).
comprising: retrieving, by a first computing device, data in a first format for a first sensor from a database having sensor data pre-stored therein (“With reference now to FIG. 6, the operation of the simulation data server 18 is shown,” wherein the simulation data server 18 is interpreted as a first computing device. “After initiation of the simulation data server 18 at step 80, step 80 proceeds to step 82 where the CPU 66 controls the network interface 60 under program control to receive the sensor data from the World Wide Web 16.” Receiving sensor data form the World Wide Web is interpreted as comprising retrieving data form a database, wherein the database accessed through the web may have pre-stored sensor data.) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
processing, by the first computing device, the data in the first format to obtain corresponding data in a second format, the second format being a format of data collection of the first sensor (“This data, furthermore, may be received in single packets or groups of packets which are processed simultaneously […] After the data packets are received from the internet at step 82, the CPU 66 stores the sensor data in a cache at step 84.” The data packets comprise sensor data, wherein reconstructing the sensor data from packets is interpreted as processing the data.) (e.g., paragraphs [0036] and [0037]).
transmitting, by the first computing device, the data in the second format to a second computing device and performing, by the second computing device, a simulation test based on the data in the second format (“Step 84 then proceeds to step 86 where the processor 66 sends the sensor data to the local area network 22 […] The operation of the [Hardware in the loop (HIL)] simulation interface 26 is shown. The program first starts at step 110 which then proceeds to step 112. At step 112, the processor 90 controls the network interface 98 to receive sensor data from the simulation data server 18 through the local area network 22.” The HIL simulation interface is interpreted as a second computing device performing a simulation test.) (e.g., paragraphs [0037] and [0040]).
wherein the data in the first format comprise a plurality of data frames in the first format and the corresponding data in the second format comprise a plurality of data frames in the second format (“This data, furthermore, may be received in single packets or groups of packets which are processed simultaneously […] After the data packets are received from the internet at step 82, the CPU 66 stores the sensor data in a cache at step 84.” The data packets are interpreted as a plurality of data frames, wherein sensor data in a first or second format may be transmitted as a plurality of packets in the same way.) (e.g., paragraphs [0036] and [0037]).
and transmitting, by the first computing device, the data in the second format to a second computing device and performing, by the second computing device, a simulation test based on the data in the second format (“Step 84 then proceeds to step 86 where the processor 66 sends the sensor data to the local area network 22 […] The operation of the [Hardware in the loop (HIL)] simulation interface 26 is shown. The program first starts at step 110 which then proceeds to step 112. At step 112, the processor 90 controls the network interface 98 to receive sensor data from the simulation data server 18 through the local area network 22.” The HIL simulation interface is interpreted as a second computing device performing a simulation test.) (e.g., paragraphs [0037] and [0040]).
performing, by the second computing device, the simulation test based on the data in the first format for the second sensor as obtained from the database and the data in the first format for the first sensor as obtained from the reverse processing (“At step 118, the processor 90 executes a mathematical model of the plant under control by the circuit 24 stored in the computer memory using data received from the test vehicle 12 through the local area network 22 as well as data from the circuit 24 under test through the HIL test interface 108.” The data received from the test vehicle may be reverse processed data, and the simulation may be performed using the sensor data received from the Web.) (e.g., paragraph [0042]).
However, Chen does not appear to specifically teach wherein the transmitting the data in the second format to the second computing device comprises: determining a corrected timestamp for each of the data frames in the second which is a sum of a time delay and a triggering timestamp of original data corresponding to the second format; transmitting, by the first computing device, the data in the second format to the second computing device at a predetermined period or frequency based on the corrected timestamp of the data in the second format; wherein the time delay represents an additional time delay before the first computing device sending the data in the second format to the second computing device and the time delay comprises: a sum of predetermined exposure time and predetermined processing time; wherein performing, by the second computing device, a simulation test based on the data in the second format comprises: performing, by the second computing device, reverse processing on the received data in the second format for the first sensor to obtain the corresponding data in the first format; retrieving, by the second computing device, the data in the first format for a second sensor from the database.
On the other hand, Li, which relates similarly as a simulation method and test, does teach transmitting, by the first computing device, the data in the second format to the second computing device at a predetermined period or frequency based on the corrected timestamp of the data in the second format (“the original format data of the time stamp is input to the control device of the driverless car through a corresponding interface for a simulation test. Through the above preset output mode, the execution subject can precisely control the data output frequency.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0061] and [0062]).
wherein performing, by the second computing device, a simulation test based on the data in the second format comprises: performing, by the second computing device, reverse processing on the received data in the second format for the first sensor to obtain the corresponding data in the first format (“For each sensor data in the sensor data set, the field programmable logic gate array is used to convert the sensor data into the original format to obtain the original format data corresponding to the sensor data.” Converting the sensor data into the original format is interpreted as reverse processing.) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
retrieving, by the second computing device, the data in the first format for a second sensor from the database (“For each sensor data in the sensor data set, the field programmable logic gate array is used to convert the sensor data into the original format to obtain the original format data corresponding to the sensor data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
However, neither Chen nor Li teaches wherein the transmitting the data in the second format to the second computing device comprises: determining a corrected timestamp for each of the data frames in the second format which is a sum of a time delay and a triggering timestamp of original data corresponding to the second format [and] wherein the time delay represents an additional time delay before the first computing device sending the data in the second format to the second computing device and the time delay comprises: a sum of predetermined exposure time and predetermined processing time;
On the other hand, Brahmi, which relates similarly to analyzing sensor data for driver assistance systems, does teach wherein the transmitting the data in the second format to the second computing device comprises: determining a corrected timestamp for each of the data frames in the second format which is a sum of a time delay and a triggering timestamp of original data corresponding to the second format (“The real measurement timestamp or true sampling timestamp of sensor data Ai is denoted by tAi and the arrival time at the acquisition framework by t’Ai. Whereby, depending on the sensor, the measurement timestamp corresponds to the begin of the measurement tbegin or [equation (1)] where d denotes the duration of the measurement. The delay [Δ τi, given by equation (2)] is called measurement latency. According to [5] and [3] this is caused by the raw measurement acquisition time [and] pre-processing time.” The measurement timestamp is interpreted as a triggering timestamp.) (e.g., page 1, column 2, paragraph 3 to page 2, column 1, first paragraph).
wherein the time delay represents an additional time delay before the first computing device sending the data in the second format to the second computing device and the time delay comprises: a sum of predetermined exposure time and predetermined processing time (“The real measurement timestamp or true sampling timestamp of sensor data Ai is denoted by tAi and the arrival time at the acquisition framework by t’Ai. Whereby, depending on the sensor, the measurement timestamp corresponds to the begin of the measurement tbegin or [equation (1)] where d denotes the duration of the measurement. The delay [Δ τi, given by equation (2)] is called measurement latency. According to [5] and [3] this is caused by the raw measurement acquisition time [and] pre-processing time.” The raw measurement acquisition time is interpreted as an exposure time.) (e.g., page 1, column 2, paragraph 3 to page 2, column 1, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Chen with Li. Chen teaches a method for providing data to a hardware-in-the-loop simulator. However, Chen does not appear to specifically teach a method wherein the data comprises GNSS sensor data, the data comprises timestamp information, or the data is reverse processed. On the other hand, Li does teach a method wherein the data comprises GNSS sensor data, the data comprises timestamp information, and the data is reverse processed. Both Chen and Li relate to a simulation test method and device for automotive vehicles. Furthermore, while Chen does not specifically disclose using GPS data, Chen does disclose using other real-time sensor data (e.g., Chen; figure 1); one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that other real-time sensor data comprises GPS data, and timestamp information associated with the sensor data could be used to locate a vehicle at a specific time. While Chen does not specifically disclose reverse processing the sensor data after transmission, Chen does disclose acquiring sensor data in packets (e.g., Chen; paragraph [0036]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that reverse processing the packets would have been necessary to acquire the original sensor data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Chen with Li in order to provide an improved automotive simulation and test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Chen in view of Li with Brahmi. Chen in view of Li teaches a method for providing data to a HIL simulator by transmitting data in a second format based on a corrected timestamp. However, the Chen-Li combination does not appear to specifically teach determining a corrected timestamp, wherein the corrected timestamp is a sum of an exposure time and a processing time. On the other hand, Brahmi, which relates similarly to determining correct timestamps for sensor measurements in driver assistance systems, does teach a corrected timestamp based on a time delay that is a sum of a processing time and exposure time. Furthermore, Brahmi discloses that multi-sensor data fusion requires exact measurement timestamps, as measurement deviations between sensors and a ground-truth system may be erroneously interpreted as the sensors having bad accuracy (e.g., Brahmi; page 1, column 1, paragraph 2). As both Chen and Li relate to testing sensors for autonomous vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the timestamp correction of Brahmi in the sensor data simulation of Chen and Li, and the results of the combination would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Chen in view of Li with Brahmi in order to more accurately model data from multiple sensors.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein the processing the data in the first format to obtain the corresponding data in the second format comprises: processing, by the first computing device, the data in the first format in accordance with a network transmission protocol corresponding to a type of the first sensor, to obtain the corresponding data in the second format (Figure 1 discloses transmitting sensor data across a 4G cellphone network and receiving the data in the simulation data server, wherein the transmitting is interpreted as processing the data in the first format according to a network transmission protocol, and the data received by the simulation data server corresponds to a second format.) (e.g., figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 5. Chen further teaches the method wherein the network transmission protocol comprises a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) (“At step 50, the processor packs the sensor data from the various vehicle sensors into data packets with one packet representing the data from a single sensor. Although any conventional type of data packing may be employed, conventionally the data backet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet. An identification byte or bytes follow the start byte to identify the sensor and optionally the number of data bytes associated with that sensor.” The disclosed packet method is interpreted as a TCP.) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
Li further teaches wherein the first sensor comprises a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) sensor (The sensor data is used to characterize the environmental information of the driverless car during driving, including but not limited to […] GPS (Global Positioning System), GPS) data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0043]).
the data in the first format comprises stored GNSS data (“The sensor data may be a sensor data set stored in an execution subject (such as a server in FIG. 1).”) (e.g., paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 10. Li further teaches the method wherein the processing the data in the first format to obtain the corresponding data in the second format comprises: decoding, by the first computing device, the stored GNSS data to form GNSS information data (“For each sensor data in the sensor data set, the field programmable logic gate array is used to convert the sensor data into the original format to obtain the original format data corresponding to the sensor data.” Converting the sensor data, the sensor data comprising the GPS data, is interpreted as decoding the stored GPS data.) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Chen further teaches the method wherein encoding, by the first computing device, the GNSS information data to form one or more GNSS network data packets corresponding to the GNSS sensor (“At step 50, the processor packs the sensor data from the various vehicle sensors into data packets with one packet representing the data from a single sensor. Although any conventional type of data packing may be employed, conventionally the data backet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet. An identification byte or bytes follow the start byte to identify the sensor and optionally the number of data bytes associated with that sensor.” The disclosed method may be used on GPS data.) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
the one or more GNSS network data packets obtained as one or more original GNSS data packets conforming to the TCP (“This data, furthermore, may be received in single packets or groups of packets which are processed simultaneously […] After the data packets are received from the internet at step 82, the CPU 66 stores the sensor data in a cache at step 84.” Receiving packets or groups of packets is interpreted as obtaining packets conforming to a TCP.) (e.g., paragraphs [0036] and [0037]).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein said transmitting the data in the second format to the second computing device comprises: transmitting, by the first computing device, the data in the second format to the second computing device via a simulated data transmission line between the first sensor and the second computing device (“Consequently, the HIL test I/O interface 108 controls all of the input and output to the circuit 24 under test under control of the processor 90. The processor in turn receives sensor data from the local area network 22 through the network interface 98 [...] A step 116, the processor 90 receives data from the circuit 24 under test through the HIL test I/O interface 108. This data may be either input data from the circuit 24 under test or output data to the circuit 24 under test.” The HIL test I/O interface is interpreted as a simulated data transmission line.) (e.g., paragraphs [0039] and [0041]).
and wherein the simulated data transmission line is a network bus between any one of the first sensor and additional first sensors and the second computing device (“The simulation data server 18 includes […] a second network interface 64 which communicates between the bus 62 and the local area network 22 […] The HIL simulation interface 26 also includes an HIL test I/O interface 108 which interconnects the bus 96 with the circuit 24 under test. Consequently, the HIL test I/O interface 108 controls all of the input and output to the circuit 24 under test under control of the processor 90.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0034] and [0039]).
or the simulated data transmission line is a network bus having a median length among a plurality of network buses that are between the respective ones of the first sensor and the additional first sensors and the second computing device (The Examiner notes the use of or, and the prior art provides a network bus, above.)
Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches the method wherein the first sensor is a sensor having a known transmission protocol (“At step 50, the processor packs the sensor data from the various vehicle sensors into data packets with one packet representing the data from a single sensor. Although any conventional type of data packing may be employed, conventionally the data backet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet. An identification byte or bytes follow the start byte to identify the sensor and optionally the number of data bytes associated with that sensor.” The conventional data packing is interpreted as a known transmission protocol.) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
and the second sensor is a sensor having an unknown transmission protocol (“At step 112, the processor 90 controls the network interface 98 to receive sensor data from the simulation data server 18 through the local area network 22.” As the processor controls the network interface, the transmission protocol of the sensor data is interpreted as unknown to the network interface.) (e.g., paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, comprising a program or instructions which, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for simulation test (“Figure 3 discloses the simulation data server 18 with a CPU connected to a memory, wherein the memory is interpreted as comprising program instructions.”) (e.g., figure 3).
The remaining limitations of Claim 19 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen teaches A computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors communicatively connected to the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the one or more processors, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform the method for simulation test (“Figure 3 discloses the simulation data server 18 with a CPU connected to a memory, wherein the memory is interpreted as comprising program instructions.”) (e.g., figure 3).
The remaining limitations of Claim 20 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches The method of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein the time delay is determined based on at least one of exposure time or processing time of the original data corresponding to the data in the second format (The Examiner notes the use of or, and the prior art provides a processing time. “For example, in order to verify the response speed of the control device in the driverless car, the output period of the sensor data can be compressed, and the response speed of the control device can be tested by shortening the response time of the control device.” The output period of the sensor data is interpreted as a time delay, wherein compressing the output period is interpreted as compressing a processing time.) (e.g., paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 22, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches The method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein retrieving data in the first format for the first sensor from the database comprises: receiving, by the first computing device, a data switching instruction which indicates switching from retrieving a first data segment to retrieving a second data segment (“[C]onventionally the data packet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet […] After initiation of the simulation data server 18 at step 80, step 80 proceeds to step 82 where the CPU 66 controls the network interface 60 under program control to receive the sensor data from the World Wide Web 16. This data, furthermore, may be received in single packets or groups of packets which are processed simultaneously.” An end data byte followed by a start data byte for another packet is interpreted as a data switching instruction, wherein the first packet is a first data segment and the second packet is a second data segment.) (e.g., paragraphs [0030] and [0036]).
and retrieving, by the first computing device, the second data segment from a storage location of sensor data in the database in response to the data switching instruction (“the CPU 66 controls the network interface 60 under program control to receive the sensor data from the World Wide Web 16. This data, furthermore, may be received in single packets or groups of packets which are processed simultaneously.” The World Wide Web is interpreted as comprising a database for sensor data.) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 5, and the claim is rejected under U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Li and Brahmi, further in view of IEEE ("IEEE Standards for Information technology—Telecommunications and information exchange between systems—Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements-Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications," in IEEE Std 802.3, 1998 Edition , vol., no., pp.1-1262, 28 Sept. 1998, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.1998.88276.), hereinafter IEEE.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein the retrieving the data in the first format for the first sensor from the database comprises […] retrieving, by the first computing device, the data in the first format according to the data control instruction from a storage location of sensor data in the database (“After initiation of the simulation data server 18 at step 80, step 80 proceeds to step 82 where the CPU 66 controls the network interface 60 under program control to receive the sensor data from the World Wide Web 16.” The World Wide Web is interpreted as comprising a database with a storage location for sensor data.) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
However, neither Chen nor Li nor Brahmi appear to specifically teach the method comprising receiving, by the first computing device, a data control instruction.
On the other hand, IEEE, which provides the 802.3 standard for ethernet, does teach receiving, by the first computing device, a data control instruction (“The [Media access control [MAC] frame structure] clause defines in detail the frame structure for data communication systems using the CSMA/CD_MAC. It defines the syntax and semantics of the various components of the MAC frame.” The MAC frame is interpreted as comprising a data control instruction.) (e.g., page 36, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Chen in view of Li with IEEE. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Chen teaches a method for providing data to a hardware-in-the-loop-simulator. However, Chen does not appear to specifically teach the method for providing data comprising a data control instruction. On the other hand, IEEE does teach a method for data transmission comprising a data control instruction. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a lack of actual combination of the elements into a single prior art reference. Furthermore, Chen discloses the use of a 4G cellphone network (e.g., Chen; figure 1), and IEEE is the 1998 standard for local and metropolitan area networks (e.g., IEEE; page iii, paragraph 1). The standards provided in IEEE were disclosed prior to the widespread adoption of 4G cellphone networks. Thus, the data transmission protocols and methods used in IEEE would have been well known in the art prior to the Applicant’s claimed invention; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods to produce predictable results, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Chen with IEEE in order to comply with well-known standards for network communication.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen in view of Li, Brahmi, and IEEE teaches the method of claim 2. IEEE further teaches the method wherein the data control instruction comprises at least one of a target data name, a target data identity, or a target time period (The examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art provides a target data identity. “Figure 3-1 shows the nine fields of a frame: […] the addresses of the frame's source and destination,” wherein the addresses are interpreted as a target data identity.) (e.g., page 36, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen in view of Li, Brahmi, and IEEE teaches the method of claim 2. IEEE further teaches wherein the data control instruction comprises a start control instruction (“The receiveDataValid signal is the indication to the MAC that the frame reception process should begin,” wherein the receiveDataValid signal is interpreted as a start control instruction.) (e.g., page 59, paragraph 1).
and a pause control instruction (Table 31A-1 discloses a PAUSE control that “Requests that the recipient stop transmitting non-control frames for a period of time indicated by the parameters of this function.”) (e.g., page 1205, table 31A-1).
and the retrieving the data in the first format corresponding to the data control instruction from the storage location of the sensor data in the database comprises: in response to receiving the pause control instruction, pausing, by the first computing device, the retrieving of the data in the first format, and entering a data-not-retrieved state (Table 31A-2 discloses a pause_status, wherein a pause_status of paused “indicates that the PAUSE function is inhibiting transmission of data frames by the MAC client,” wherein the paused state is analogous to a data-not-retrieved state.) (e.g., page 1205, table 31A-2).
and in response to receiving the start control instruction, resuming, by the first computing device, the retrieving of the data in the first format from the storage location of the sensor data in the database, and entering a data-retrieved state (Table 31A-2 discloses a pause_status, wherein a pause_status of not_paused “indicates that the PAUSE function is not inhibiting transmission of data frames by the MAC client,” wherein the not_paused state is analogous to a data-retrieved state.) (e.g., page 1205, table 31A-2).
Regarding Claims 23-25, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2-4, respectively, and the claims are rejected under U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6 and 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Li, Brahmi, and IEEE, further in view of Rahman (Rahman, K. M. "A low complexity image compression algorithm for Bayer color filter array." PhD diss., University of Saskatchewan, 2018.), hereinafter Rahman.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 5. Chen further teaches wherein the first sensor comprises an image capturing device (Figure 1 discloses a real-time stereo camera sensor.) (e.g., figure 1).
However, neither Chen nor Li nor Brahmi appear to specifically teach the method wherein the data in the first format comprises compressed image data, and the network transmission protocol comprises a Gigabit Ethernet based image transmission standard protocol.
On the other hand, Rahman, which relates to image compression using a Bayer filter array, does teach a method wherein the data in the first format comprises compressed image data (“Considering the huge number of image applications, the corresponding raw data requires huge storage capacity. For images to be stored or transmitted, they must be compressed.”) (e.g., page 1 paragraph 1).
However, neither Chen nor Li nor Rahman teaches the method wherein the network transmission protocol comprises a Gigabit Ethernet based image transmission standard protocol.
On the other hand, IEEE, which provides the 802.3 standard for ethernet, does teach the network transmission protocol comprises a Gigabit Ethernet based image transmission standard protocol (“Gigabit Ethernet couples an extended version of the ISO/IEC 8802-3 (CSMA/CD MAC) to a family of 1000 Mb/s Physical layers.”) (e.g., page 893, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Chen in view of Li with Rahman. The claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Chen teaches a method for providing image sensor data to a hardware-in-the-loop simulation. However, Chen does not appear to specifically teach the method wherein the image data comprises compressed image data. On the other hand, Rahman does teach a method wherein the transmitted data is compressed image data. Furthermore, Rahman discloses that image compression reduces the required bandwidth and transmission time for image data, and that Bayer CFA images are a popular low-cost method for decreasing transmission bandwidth (e.g., Rahman; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the image compression method of Rahman to the method of Chen to improve the transmission of image data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the improvement as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Chen with Rahman in order to more efficiently transmit image data across a network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Chen in view of Li and Brahmi with IEEE for the same reasons as in claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Li, Brahmi, Rahman, and IEEE teaches the method of claim 6. Rahman further teaches the method wherein the processing the data in the first format to obtain the corresponding data in the second format comprises: decompressing, by the first computing device, the compressed image data to form image data in a Blue, Green, and Red (BGR) format (Figure 2-1 discloses de-mosaicking a color filter array into an RGB image.) (e.g., page 7, figure 2-1).
and performing, by the first computing device, an image format conversion on the image data in the BGR format to form Bayer image data corresponding to the image capturing device (Figure 2-2 discloses decompressing a transmitted image back into the color filter array.) (e.g., page 8, figure 2-2).
Chen further teaches performing an image format conversion as one or more original image data packets conforming to the image transmission standard protocol (“At step 50, the processor packs the sensor data from the various vehicle sensors into data packets with one packet representing the data from a single sensor. Although any conventional type of data packing may be employed, conventionally the data backet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet. An identification byte or bytes follow the start byte to identify the sensor and optionally the number of data bytes associated with that sensor.”) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Li and Brahmi, further in view of Wasser (Wasser, Leah A. “The Basics of LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging – Remote sensing.” Last modified October 7, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201123014810/https://www.neonscience.org/resources/learning-hub/tutorials/lidar-basics.), hereinafter Wasser.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Li and Brahmi teaches the method of claim 5. Chen further teaches the method wherein the network transmission protocol comprises a User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and a Transmission Control protocol (TCP) (“At step 50, the processor packs the sensor data from the various vehicle sensors into data packets with one packet representing the data from a single sensor. Although any conventional type of data packing may be employed, conventionally the data backet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet. An identification byte or bytes follow the start byte to identify the sensor and optionally the number of data bytes associated with that sensor.” The conventional data packing is interpreted as comprising a UDP or TCP.) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
However, neither Chen nor Li nor Brahmi appear to specifically teach the method wherein the first sensor comprises a lidar, the data in the first format comprises a point cloud data packet group.
On the other hand, Wasser, which relates to the basics of LiDAR, does teach a method wherein the first sensor comprises a lidar (“LiDAR, or light detection ranging (sometimes also referred to as active laser scanning) is one remote sensing method that can be used to map structure including vegetation height, density, and other characteristics across a region.”) (e.g., page 4, paragraph 1).
the data in the first format comprises a point cloud data packet group (“Whether it is collected as discrete points or full waveform, most often LiDAR data are available as discrete points. A collection of discrete return LiDAR points is known as a LiDAR point cloud.”) (e.g., page 10, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Chen in view of Li with Wasser. The claimed invention is considered to be merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Chen teaches a method for providing data to a hardware-in-the-loop simulator comprising a radar sensor. However, Chen does not teach a method comprising a lidar sensor. On the other hand, Wasser does teach a method using lidar. Radar stands for radio detection and ranging, and lidar stands for light detection and ranging. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the lidar of Wasser for the radar of Chen, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the substitution as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to substitute the radar of Chen with the lidar of Wasser in order to provide more accurate detection and ranging.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Li, Brahmi, and Wasser teaches the method of claim 8. Chen further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the processing the data in the first format to obtain the corresponding data in the second format comprises: decomposing, by the first computing device, the point cloud data packet group to form one or more point cloud data packets corresponding to the lidar as one or more original point cloud data packets conforming to the UDP and the TCP (“At step 50, the processor packs the sensor data from the various vehicle sensors into data packets with one packet representing the data from a single sensor. Although any conventional type of data packing may be employed, conventionally the data backet includes a start byte and ending byte for the data packet. An identification byte or bytes follow the start byte to identify the sensor and optionally the number of data bytes associated with that sensor.” The conventional data packing is interpreted as comprising a UDP or TCP, wherein the disclosed method may be used on the point cloud data.) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights