DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 3/6/2026.
Claim 18 is new & Claims 6 & 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 15 are amended.
Claim 18 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8-9, 12 and 15 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190050520 A1 by Alvarez; Ignacio et al., in view of US PGPUB No. US 20110288841 A1 by Larsson1; Johan et al..
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, in view of Larsson, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200001888 A1 by PRETSCH; Christian et al.
This action is made Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view amendment art considered, however in view new grounds of rejection, the rejection incorporates applicant’s concerns.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically new claim 18 recite:
18. (New) The server of claim 1, wherein:the plurality of simulation data models further comprises a third simulation data model that is another vehicle simulation model for simulating an ego vehicle;the at least one first interface is configured to convert data between one or more data formats of the plurality of simulation data models and a data format of the first core simulator, wherein a data format of the first simulation data model is different from a data format of the third simulation data model, and the data format of the first core simulator is different from the data formats of the first simulation data model and the third simulation data model, such that the at least one first interface is configured to convert data of the first simulation data model from the data format of the first simulation data model to the data format of the first core simulator and to convert data of the third simulation data model from the data format of the third simulation data model to the data format of the first core simulator
Specification in general discusses data format conversion between first/second model to core model and common messaging formats in ¶[0037], [0053], [0058], [0061], [0067] & [0072]. Also see Fig.4:
PNG
media_image1.png
605
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no third simulation data model here or in the rest of the disclosure. This is therefore new matter.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 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) 1, 2, 5, 8-9, 12 and 15 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190050520 A1 by Alvarez; Ignacio et al., in view of US PGPUB No. US 20110288841 A1 by Larsson2; Johan et al..
Regarding Claims 1, 8 & 15 (Updated 5/15/2026)
Alvarez teaches (Claim 1) A server (Alvarez : [0056], [0060] & Fig.7) for providing an autonomous driving simulation architecture for testing an application (Alvarez: [0026]) , the server comprising/ (Claim 8). A method for providing an autonomous driving simulation architecture for testing an application, the method (Alvarez: [0026] & Fig.6) / (Claim 15). A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Alvarez: Fig.7 elements 704, 706, 716), storing instructions executable by at least one processor to perform a method (Alvarez: [0026] & Fig.6)comprising:
a storage storing a plurality of simulation data models (Alvarez: [0059]-[0060] & Fig.7; simulation models in [0015]-[0016], [0028]) ;
at least one processor (Alvarez : [0056][0058][0059] Fig.7 element 702) configured to execute instructions to implement:
at least one first interface to integrate the plurality of simulation data models with a first core simulator that runs an autonomous driving simulation for testing the application (Alvarez: [0016] showing various vehicle physics models model integrated to control interfaces; Fig.2 element 230; Fig.6 step 608-610) ;
a common interface to selectively connect the first core simulator to a client device providing the application (Alvarez: [0033]-[0034] showing interface as driving directive unit controlling the simulated vehicle; Fig.6 step 605 ), wherein the common interface is configured to receive a command from the client device, the command being input by a user to selectively control a first switch (Alvarez: [0029] "... The simulation engine 200 may receive user input, such as through an IO connected device 205 (e.g., a keyboard) via the IO controller 210, to change values in the vehicle performance fingerprint and alter the construction of the simulated vehicle constructed by the simulation construction unit 225. For example, after performing simulations with the simulated vehicle, a testing engineer may wish to determine the effects of altering the specifications for the simulated vehicle. This may be done to assist in determining what alterations may be made to the vehicle so that is may handle and perform better....") ; and the first switch, wherein the first switch is configured to selectively disconnect a first simulation data model responsive to the command input by the user (Alvarez: [0029]-[0030] as above) , among the plurality of simulation data models, from the first core simulator (Alvarez: [0028] shows different version being switched over time), wherein the first switch disconnects the first simulation data model by switching from the first simulation data model to ,
Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein: the first switch disconnects the first simulation dummy model.
Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of simulation data models comprises the first simulation data model, the first dummy model, a second simulation data model, and a second dummy model, wherein the first simulation data model and the first dummy model are vehicle simulation models for simulating one or more ego vehicles, and the second simulation data model and the second dummy model are sensor simulation models for simulating one or more sensors of the one or more ego vehicles, and wherein the first switch is configured to selectively disconnect the first simulation data model by switching to the first dummy model such that: (a) the first simulation data model is selectively connectable to the first core simulator together with the second simulation data model while the first dummy model is disconnected, and (b) the first dummy model is selectively connectable to the first core simulator together with the second simulation data model while the first simulation data model is disconnected.
Larsson teaches wherein the plurality of simulation data models comprises the first simulation data model, the first dummy model (Larsson: Fig.3 & [0054]-[0069], specifically Vehicle models 136, which may have high fidelity model (as first simulation model) and low fidelity model (as first dummy model); [0063]) , a second simulation data model, and a second dummy model (Larsson: Fig.3 & [0054]-[0069], specifically sensor models 126, which may have high fidelity model (as second simulation model) and low fidelity model (as second dummy model); [0063]),
wherein the first simulation data model and the first dummy model are vehicle simulation models for simulating one or more ego vehicles (Larsson: Fig.3 & [0054]-[0069], specifically Vehicle models 136, or , which may have high fidelity model (as first simulation model) and low fidelity model (as first dummy model); [0063]), and the second simulation data model and the second dummy model are sensor simulation models for simulating one or more sensors of the one or more ego vehicles (Larsson: Fig.3 & [0054]-[0069], specifically sensor models 126, trans models 134, actuation models 130, CAN models 128 which may have high fidelity model (as second simulation model) and low fidelity model (as second dummy model); [0063]), and
wherein the first switch is configured to selectively disconnect the first simulation data model by switching to the first dummy model (Larsson : Fig. 3 element Plant Model Selecting Module 90 & [0054][0063] [0118] "... [0118] At 820, updates performed at 810 and 818 are saved. At 822, the plant model selecting module 90 may select a plant model fidelity level based on a received user input signal....") such that: (a) the first simulation data model is selectively connectable to the first core simulator together with the second simulation data model while the first dummy model is disconnected (Larsson: [0063] high fidelity model) , and (b) the first dummy model is selectively connectable to the first core simulator together with the second simulation data model while the first simulation data model is disconnected (Larsson: [0063] low fidelity model) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Larsson to Alvarez to select a plant model fidelity level based on a received user input signal (Larsson: [0063][0118]). Further motivation to combine would have been that Larsson and Alvarez are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of simulating autonomous vehicle behavior (Larsson: Abstract; Alvarez: Fig.6 flow 608).
Regarding Claims 2 & 9 (Updated 5/15/2026)
Larsson teaches wherein the switching from the first simulation data model to a first dummy model, integrates the first dummy model with the first core simulator via the at least one first interface (Larsson: See Fig.12 [0092]-0093] for plant (vehicle/sensor model) fidelity selection interface; See [0131] "... The above-described embodiments allow control module algorithm models to be integrated into a vehicle simulation model such that a user can selectively execute auto generated code for a SIL block. The embodiments provide user selectable plant model fidelity levels. Driving cycles are selectable with GUI control. Algorithm model development is facilitated via generation of SIL blocks and/or corresponding bypass switches. ..."Fig.2 [0051] interface as graphical user interface (GUI) to accept inputs, such as selection to which model to simulate, Larsson Claim 8 "... activating user inputs (i) received by SIL block of the vehicle simulation model and (ii) displayed on a graphical user interface; selecting a pre-defined signal set; and selecting a vehicle recorded signal set, wherein the simulation control module executes the one of the first simulation model and the second simulation model based on the selected set of inputs....";).; and wherein the first dummy model is of lower accuracy than the first simulation data model (Larsson: [0063]) .
Regarding Claims 5 & 12 (Updated 5/15/2026)
Larsson teaches The server of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to implement a second switch to selectively switch between a second simulation data model (Larsson: Fig.12 fidelity selection; Fig.9 showing plurality of switches part of bypass switching module 98) , among the plurality of simulation data models, and a second dummy model, for integration with the first core simulator ( (Larsson: Fig.3 shows plurality of sensor models which are also selectable based on fidelity [0063]; Fig.12 [0092]-[0093] "... The first fidelity level may simulate a simplified transmission fork actuation system relative to that simulated using the second fidelity level....")
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, in view of Larsson, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200001888 A1 by PRETSCH; Christian et al.
Regarding Claims 3 & 10 (Updated 5/15/2026)
Teachings of Alvarez & Larsson are shown in the parent claim 1.
Alvarez & Larsson does not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to implement at least one second interface to connect one or more of the plurality of simulation data models with a second core simulator.
Pretsch teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to implement at least one second interface to connect one or more of the plurality of simulation data models with a second core simulator (Pretsch: [0016] showing plurality of sensor models, [0017]-[0023] showing common interfaces and [0024] showing sensor models (second core simulator) are housed with vehicle model (first simulator)), wherein the first core simulator is configured for a software in the loop simulation (Pretsch : [0023] sensor model – [0004] "... or this purpose, the procedure has in the meantime been adopted of also using a mathematical model to model and simulate the series-control device, that is to say the control device hardware or at least the software which is close to the hardware. Such a control device can be simulated at varying levels physical detail...."; [0017] "... Raw format of the static environmental data is a data description of the static surroundings which is not adapted to the simulation surroundings of the simulator (software) or to the equipment level of the simulator and its computing units (hardware)....") and the second core simulator is configured for a hardware in the loop simulation (Pretsch: [0049] "... As a result, the desired simulation is in many cases only made possible, for example, if the simulation is based on speed requirements, in the case of classic HIL simulations this is the requirement for a real time simulation....") .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Pretsch to Alvarez to distribute the various sensor models/vehicle model to reduce the data exchange load across common interface (Pretsch: [0016]-[0024], [0049], [0051]). Further motivation to combine would have been that Pretsch and Alvarez are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of vehicle/sensor model simulation (Pretsch: [0051]; Alvarez: Abstract; Fig.6 flow 608).
Regarding Claims 4 & 11
Pretsch & Alvarez teaches The server of claim 3/10, wherein the common interface selectively connects the first core simulator or the second core simulator to the client device (Pretsch: Fig.8 element 17 showing the common interface connecting first (12a)/second(4a/4b) core simulator to client device 16 & Alvarez: shows the server client implementation). Motivation to combine Pretsch & Alvarez is incorporated from the parent claim.
Regarding Claims 6 & 13 (Cancelled).
Regarding Claims 7 & 14 (Updated 5/15/2026) & Claim 18 (New)
Pretsch & Alvarez both teaches The server of claim 1/8, wherein the at least one first interface is configured to convert data between one or more data formats of the plurality of simulation data models and a data format of the first core simulator (Alvarez: [0024], [0039]; Pretsch: [0016]-[0023]) . Larsson teaches wherein a data format of the first simulation data model is different from a data format of the second simulation data model, and the data format of the first core simulator is different from the data formats of the first simulation data model and the second simulation data model, such that the at least one first interface is configured to convert data of the first simulation data model from the data format of the first simulation data model to the data format of the first core simulator and to convert data of the second simulation data model from the data format of the second simulation data model to the data format of the first core simulator (Larsson: [0065]"... The source code based library 110 includes models (or model sets 121) that are generated based on source code and/or hand code. The source code and/or hand code is converted to model-based code that can be loaded in a model-based environment. The models and corresponding blocks may be viewed in a simulation environment as models generated using model-based software. The models may include .xml files 123, .dll and .lib files 125 and .zip files 127...."); [0080]-[0086], where each of the first (vehicle model) and second (sensor model at least) model are identified in Fig.3).
Motivation to combine Pretsch & Larson & Alvarez is incorporated from the parent claim.
Claim 18 recites a third simulation model, which also communicates in the similar first core simulation format. This is simply Duplication of Parts (In re Harza, MPEP 2144.01) and is obvious in view that at least Larsson Fig.3 teaches plurality of each type of models (vehicle models, Sensor models, trans models, actuator model, CAN models, engine models (emphasis on work models)).
Regarding Claim 16
Pretsch teaches The server of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to test a perception application (Pretsch : [0009] perception application as sensor model) and to not test a vehicle simulation model, wherein the first data model is the vehicle simulation model (Pretsch: [0051] "... In the illustrated exemplary embodiment, the vehicle models 12 and the sensor models 13 are calculated independently of one another on different computing units 4...") .
Regarding Claim 17 (New)
Pretsch teaches The server of claim 16, wherein the perception application simulates a camera (Pretsch: [0040]) , the vehicle simulation model simulates an engine, and the selectively disconnect a first simulation data model responsive to the command input by the user causes the engine to not be simulated (Pretsch: [0051] "... In the illustrated exemplary embodiment, the vehicle models 12 and the sensor models 13 are calculated independently of one another on different computing units 4..." a first simulation data model is the vehicle model).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Friday, May 15, 2026
1 Larsson identified in PE2E Search string L56.
2 Larsson identified in PE2E Search string L56.
Prosecution Insights