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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 11/07/2025. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claim(s) 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 are pending examination. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is improper. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art fails to teach all claim limitations as amended. In particular applicant points towards the “controlling…the plurality of collection devices to continue to perform the data collection,” and “no data exists in a data channel.” Additionally applicant asserts that due to the allowability of the independent claims, the dependent claims are also allowable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. Upon further search and consideration the examiner would reject claims 1, 8, and 15, at least, under 35 USC 103 with a combination of Mou (US PG Pub 2019/0011927) in view of Frazzoli (US PG Pub 2021/0163021).
Regarding applicant’s arguments against Mou, mainly that it recites a “stop-and-continue” work flow, the examiner would point towards the usage of the word “temporarily” in Mou’s teachings. As taught in [0034] and [0093] Mou teaches that in the event of a problem with the sensor it would “temporarily suspend” the usage of the device. Therefore Mou clearly teaches a stop-and-continue workflow. It teaches that in the event of an error detected in a sensor, the system suspends the sensor’s usage and then after a time period resume collection with at least other devices.
With regards to the lack of data in a channel, the examiner would point towards the newly cited teachings of Frazzoli. Looking at [0337], [0344]-[0345], and [0348]-[0349] it is taught that the system can determine that data collected by sensors is “missing.” This would be analogous to the lack of data in a channel. If the system is able to determine that data is missing, the system can determine that the sensor is currently experiencing some kind of error or anomalous condition. As taught in [0349] the determination that a sample is “missing” allows the vehicle to determine that the sensor is abnormally performing. Further in [0341] the usage of this anomalous detection system allows the vehicle to perform various kinds of fixes, including sensors resets/recalibrations and usage of other sensor data. In light of this abnormal performance detection the vehicle can switch to other sensors in order to operate at its most effective level.
The combination of Mou and Frazzoli would render the claims as obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine them as they both relate to the control of vehicle sensor systems and ensure the proper functionality of the sensor. In light of this independent claims 1, 8, and 15 would remain rejected under 35 USC 103. Dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. See the section below titled, “Claim Rejections -35 USC 103,” for detailed mapping and explanation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou (US PG Pub 2019/0011927) in view of Frazzoli (US PG Pub 2021/0163021).
Regarding claim 1, Mou teaches a method, comprising: acquiring environmental data of a current environment in which a vehicle is located; (Fig. 6 and [0068] teach sensing a vehicle current environment)
determining, according to the environmental data, that the current environment meets an environment collection requirement; (Fig. 6 and [0068]-[0069] teach verifying that the environment meets a criteria)
in response to the determining, controlling a plurality of collection devices of the vehicle to perform data collection according to a current production flow of the vehicle, (Fig. 6 and [0071] teach controlling the sensors to collect the appropriate data) wherein the plurality of collection devices correspond to the current production flow; (Fig. 6 and 0068] teach the sensors as being part of the current vehicle process)
controlling the data collection of the plurality of collection devices based on a data collection situation of the plurality of collection devices, (Fig. 6 and [0071] teach controlling the sensors to collect data) wherein controlling the data collection comprises:
in response to determining that the data collection situation of the plurality of collection devices meets a first sub condition, ([0044] teaches the system determining that a sensor is meeting a condition of anomalous) in which plurality of collection devices, ([0092] teaches the collection device is any of the plurality of collection devices) controlling the plurality of collection devices to stop the data collection; ([0091] and [0093] teach that when an anomaly is detected a remedial action be implemented by the system, this includes the temporary suspension of the collection of data)
acquiring a first collection operation guidance corresponding to the first collection device; ([0091]-[0093] teach determining a guidance for a sensor to follow in the event of a first sub-condition) and
controlling, based on the first collection operation guidance, the plurality of collection devices to continue to perform the data collection. ([0093]-[0094] teach controlling the sensors according to the guidance. As taught in [0034] and [0093] the system can “temporarily” suspend the collection of data from one or more devices. The other devices can continue to collect data as determined by the controller)
Mou does not teach no data exists in a data channel.
However, Frazzoli teaches “no data exists in a data channel.” ([0337], [0344]-[0345], and [0348]-[0349] it is taught that the system can determine that data collected by sensors is “missing.” This would be analogous to the lack of data in a channel. Because the system is able to determine that data is present in other sensors, but not the malfunctioning one.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Mou with Frazzoli; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicle sensor systems and ensure the proper functionality of the sensor. As taught in [0349] the determination that a sample is “missing” allows the vehicle to determine that the sensor is abnormally performing. Further in [0341] the usage of this anomalous detection system allows the vehicle to perform various kinds of fixes, including sensors resets/recalibrations and usage of other sensor data. In light of this abnormal performance detection the vehicle can switch to other sensors in order to operate at its most effective level.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 6, Mou teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring configuration information of the vehicle; ([0042]-[0043] teach determining the sensors on a vehicle and where they are) and
determining whether the current environment meets the environment collection requirement based on the configuration information, the current production flow, and the environmental data. ([0043] teaches ensuring a vehicle matches configuration, environmental, and production flows before proceeding)
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 7, Mou teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the current production flow comprises one or more of: vehicle calibration, vehicle sensing device calibration, or vehicle map collection. ([0025] teaches the system as performing a calibration)
Claims 14 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665