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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 March, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 31 March, 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 17-18 have been amended.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claim language to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are persuasive, therefore all 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the amended limitations. The examiner notes that the independent claims were amended to include language taken from claim 2, and that further amendments not previously found in the claim language were also added. The amendments taken from claim 2 are taught by Wu in view of Liu as argued in the previous Office action, and as the other amendments are new there is no requirement that the previous Office action need have addressed them.
Applicant argues that Liu does not teach controlling physical objects remotely by a server designed for vehicle testing, but the examiner notes that Wu teaches this.
Applicant argues that a gateway server would not provide an API configured to store a test configuration, as this goes beyond gateway processing, and that the prior art does not suggest a test facility wherein a gateway server is separate from a control server, where the gateway server provides an API and can cause test configurations to be stored.
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. A gateway can generally be used to refer to a computer which enables data to flow between networks; a server can refer to a computer that provides data, resources, or services to other computers; and an API may generally refer to a connection between computers or computer programs. Thus, an API would naturally arise in the context of gateways since gateways connect computers, and a gateway server may be understood to include functionality germane to computers (such as storing software or data and communicating with other computers or electronic devices). Storing a test configuration, while not recited in the previous claims, is considered by the examiner to be common. Finally, the examiner does not consider that separating a gateway server from a control server is beyond the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art. Networks of various kinds are widely used, various ways of delineating networks and communicating between networks are common, and both within and between networks, many computer devices including servers may be present. Using a “gateway server” which receives a test configuration and instructs a “control server” to instruct test facility controllers to activate devices is encompassed simply by implementing a test configuration where at least two computers are involved. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that such a setup is possible and in use, would understand why such a set up may be used, would know how to execute such a setup, and could readily expect the results.
The amendments have introduced new grounds for rejection. See the 103 rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 106373416 A) in view of Liu (WO 2018204544 A1) and Hariharan (US 20180129593 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a test facility infrastructure control system (Fig. 1 system architecture 100) for controlling test environment devices (Fig. 1 traffic light 103) located at a road vehicle test facility (Fig. 3A shows a test facility for testing the traffic light recognition time of a vehicle; see ¶48), comprising:
at least one test facility control server that includes at least one processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 1, test server 101; ¶34: “there can be any number of…test servers”); and
a plurality of test environment devices located at the road vehicle test facility, each of the test environment devices being operable to change one or more vehicle traffic or environmental conditions used during the road vehicle testing (Fig. 1, traffic light 103; ¶34: “there can be any number of…traffic lights”);
wherein, when the computer instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one test facility control server is configured to:
send a test environment control message to a specified one of the one or more test environment devices, wherein the test environment control message specifies the test operation or state of the specified test environment device, and wherein the test environment control message causes the specified test environment device to operate according to the test operation or state (¶31: “the test server 101 may send a control instruction for switching the traffic light signal to the traffic light 103”) so as to operate according to a test configuration (¶2: the control instruction is sent as part of an arranged test “for testing the time consumption of traffic light recognition of unmanned vehicles”).
Wu does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
Liu discloses use of and communication between various networks and servers including a roadside traffic control system and including use of a gateway (page 14, lines 3-32: roadside traffic control system 20 can include “one or more network interfaces…and may be able to communicate with one or more remote servers via land network 14. Also, roadside traffic control system 20 can include other network capabilities, such as cellular or other wireless communication capabilities”; page 8, lines 12-24: a wireless carrier system may use a gateway “as well as any other networking components required to connect wireless carrier system 12 with the land network 14 or…with user equipment…Carrier system 12 can implement any suitable communications technology.”). Liu also teaches one or more test environment controllers (page 14, lines 3-32: “roadside traffic control system 20 can include one or more controllers”) communicatively coupled to at least one of the test environment devices (page 14, lines 3-32: the controllers may be “configured to receive, process, and send data to and from traffic signaling device 22”; “numerous roadside traffic control systems may be used and each may include one or more traffic signaling devices 22 or other traffic signaling devices”), and communicatively coupled to a server (page 14, lines 3-32: the controllers may “receive, process, and send data to and from… [connected vehicle-based controller interface device] CVCID 28”; Fig. 1, CVCID 28 is in communication with land network 14 which is in communication with computing facility 16 and municipal facility 18; page 16, lines 13-29: “municipal facility 18 includes…servers”; pages 16, line 30 – page 17, line 10: “computing facility 16 may include…servers”).
Liu teaches use of this functionality to simulate a real-world environment for testing an autonomous vehicle (AV) (Abstract: the invention is directed to “simulating a real roadway environment that can be used for testing of a real…autonomous vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu by including a test facility gateway server that is configured to receive test facility configuration information that specifies a test configuration to be used in carrying out road vehicle testing at the road vehicle test facility, and by communicatively coupling the test facility control server to the test facility gateway server. Doing so would enable one to communicate with the road vehicle test facility remotely, which improves convenience.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu by providing one or more test environment controllers, each of which is communicatively coupled to at least one of the test environment devices, and each of which is communicatively coupled to the at least one test facility control server. Doing so would facilitate communication with and control of the test environment devices by the at least one test environment control server.
Noting the above arguments that the teachings of Liu renders obvious communicating with the test facility control server remotely via a test facility gateway server, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu by configuring the at least one test facility control server to receive a test environment control request from the test facility gateway server, wherein the test environment control request specifies at least one of the test environment devices and includes test environment control instructions that specify a test operation or state of the specified test environment device, and wherein the test environment control instructions are generated by the test facility gateway server based on the test configuration. This process describes steps necessary for setting up a road vehicle test facility according to a test configuration received from another network, so performing these steps would enable the road vehicle test facility to operate as desired.
Noting that the teachings of Liu renders obvious the use of controllers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu by configuring the at least one test facility control server to send a test environment control message to a selected one of the one or more test environment controllers, wherein the test environment control message specifies the test operation or state of the specified test environment device, and wherein the selected test environment controller is configured to, in response to receiving the test environment control message, cause the specified test environment device to operate according to the test operation or state so as to operate according to the test configuration. Doing so would cause the road vehicle test facility to successfully operate according to the test configuration which had been received from another network.
Again, Liu discloses providing a test configuration application programming interface (API) that is used by a test facility user to specify a test configuration (page 20, line 20 – page 21, line 7: “[connected autonomous vehicle]-outbound interface 66 can be an API for the simulator 68…that allows users to apply different driving behavior models for some or all of the vehicles in the simulator 68”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu by setting the test facility gateway server to provide a test configuration API that is used by a client device of a test facility user to specify the test configuration. Doing so would enable a road vehicle test facility user to specify a desired test configuration from a client device in a remote location, making setting up a test more convenient.
Wu in view of Liu does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
Hariharan teaches a cross-platform API test flow synthesizer (Abstract), and teaches that test flows may be created and saved by a user (¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hariharan with the invention of Wu in view of Liu by configuring the test configuration API to cause storing of the test configuration so that the test configuration is able to be later recalled and used in generating a second test environment control request by the test facility gateway server. Doing so would facilitate repeating the same vehicle test in the future.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 would have been obvious for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, especially the arguments involving page 20, line 20 – page 21, line 7 of Liu).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 2. Liu further teaches providing a user interface that is usable by a road vehicle test facility user (page 24, lines 15-18: “user interface 98 can allow end users, system administrators, and other individuals to access the data in the database”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting the client device to include a test configuration client application, wherein the test configuration client application provides a graphical user interface (GUI) that is usable by the road vehicle test facility user for specifying certain properties or portions of the test configuration. As mentioned in claim 2, a client device is provided with an API to facilitate communication between the client device and the test facility gateway. To provide a method for a user to set a test configuration, one would be motivated to provide a test configuration client application with a GUI. Computer applications are common ways of providing a user with interactive software, and GUIs are commonly used to facilitate intuitive user interaction with a computer application.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1. Wu further teaches that at least one of the plurality of test environment devices is a traffic signal (Fig. 1, traffic light 103), and Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches use of a test environment controller (see rejection of claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for at least one of the one or more test environment controllers to be a traffic signal controller, and for the traffic signal to be controllable by the traffic signal controller.
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 4, and further teaches that the test configuration specifies a traffic signal state of the traffic signal (Wu, the test configuration defines the test to be run therefore it specifies the traffic signal state; see ¶31), that the test environment control message specifies the traffic signal state of the traffic signal (Wu, ¶31: “the test server 101 may send a control instruction for switching the traffic light signal to the traffic light 103”), and that, when the traffic signal controller receives the test environment control message, the traffic signal controller causes the traffic signal to operate according to the traffic signal state (Wu, ¶31; presence of traffic controller is rendered obvious as argued in claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1. Wu further teaches that the test facility control server is connected with the test vehicle (¶31: “test server 101 can receive data sent by the unmanned vehicle 102”), but is not specific about how that connection is established.
Liu teaches a roadside unit (RSU) (Fig. 1A, connected vehicle (CV) communications device 26) that is communicatively coupled to a control system (Fig. 1A, computing facility 16) and that is capable of short-range wireless communications (SRWCs) (page 15, lines 17-29: CV communications device 26 “may communicate directly with one or more nearby vehicles, such as via short-range wireless communications (DSRC)”), and wherein the RSU receives vehicle state information from a test vehicle that is being tested at the road vehicle test facility (page 15, lines 17-29: the “CV communications device can be used to receive Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) from one or more [connected vehicles] or [connected autonomous vehicles]”) and sends the vehicle state information to the test facility control system (page 2, lines 19-25: BSMs containing vehicle status information is sent to a computing facility; page 15, lines 17-29: CV communications device 26 receives BSMs from one or more CVs or CAVs, and then sends them to the CVCID 28; Fig. 1A, CV communications device 26 is connected to the CVCID 28, which is connected to the land network 14, which is connected to the computing facility 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by providing the test facility infrastructure control system with a RSU that is communicatively coupled to a test facility control system, wherein the test facility control system includes the at least one test facility control server, and that is capable of SRWCs, wherein the RSU receives vehicle state information from a test vehicle that is being tested at the road vehicle test facility and sends the vehicle state information to the test facility control system. Doing so would enable a road vehicle test facility control server to wirelessly collect data from a test vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 6. Liu further teaches that vehicle state information is sent to a client device of a test facility user (Fig. 7, data collection and analysis system 90; page 23, line 29 – page 24, line 8: data collection and analysis system 90 stores vehicle status information in a database 92) and presented to the test facility user using a human-machine interface (HMI) of the client device (page 23, line 29 – page 24, line 8: data collection and analysis system 90 includes a data visualization engine 96 and user interface 98; page 24, lines 15-18: “the user interface 98 can allow end users…to access the data in the database”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by causing the vehicle state information to be sent to a client device of a test facility user and presented to the test facility user using an HMI of the client device. Doing so would enable a user to conveniently learn the results of a test from a remote location.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1. Liu further teaches recording test facility state information into a database (page 23, line 29 – page 24, line 8: a database stores vehicle information, traffic signal information, information from roadside detectors, and other information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting the test facility gateway server to be part of a test facility gateway, and to set the test facility gateway to record test facility state information into a database. Because the presence of a “gateway server” implies that a “gateway” exists, it would have been obvious to set the test facility gateway server to be part of a test facility gateway, said test facility gateway comprising at least the test facility server. Furthermore, setting the test facility gateway to record test facility state information into a database would be useful for keeping a record for future analysis, troubleshooting, and test reproduction.
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches that at least one of the plurality of test environment devices is a traffic control device that is retrofitted with an internet of things (IoT) device so as to enable the retrofitted traffic control device to be remotely controllable by the test facility infrastructure control system (see rejection of claim 4, noting that the controller of claim 4 is an IoT device because it includes the componentry to enable network connectivity between the traffic control device and the test facility control server).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1. Liu further teaches introducing a virtual test-anomaly object that is used to introduce anomalous conditions into the road vehicle test facility (page 24, lines 20-26: CAV or CV testing scenarios are “designed and implemented using the simulation system 60”; page 24, lines 27-30: in one scenario, a “simulated virtual pedestrian appears at the moving direction of the vehicle. The testing CAV should be able to detect the sudden appearance of the object and make a full stop to avoid the virtual pedestrian.”). Further note that Liu teaches that introducing physical objects to test a vehicle’s response to expected scenarios can be useful (pg. 1, lines 19-22: “The presence of other types of objects and obstructions, including pedestrians, would also desirably be included to enable testing of the vehicle in the variety of scenarios that the vehicle may reasonably be expected to encounter.” See also Response to Arguments.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting at least one of the plurality of test devices to be a test-anomaly device that is used to introduce anomalous conditions into the road vehicle test facility. Doing so would enable the invention of Wu to test the timeliness of response of an AV when introduced to an unexpected signal such as a pedestrian crossing its path.
Regarding claim 12, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach that the test-anomaly device is a robotic dummy that is deployable to a portion of a road within the road vehicle test facility. However, Liu teaches introducing a virtual pedestrian (see rejection of claim 11). Furthermore, Wu teaches that the purpose of its invention is to improve the recognition function of a vehicle by testing its recognition time (Wu, ¶5: “in prior art, when improving the recognition function of unmanned vehicles, the focus is usually on the accuracy of recognition, and no testing of the [timeliness] is involved.” ¶7: “the purpose of this application is to propose a method and device for testing the [timeliness] of traffic light recognition of unmanned vehicles”). In light of both the purpose of Wu’s invention and the teachings of Liu, then, it would have been obvious to set the test-anomaly device recited in claim 11 to be a robotic dummy. By doing so, one could test the recognition time of a vehicle when confronted with a pedestrian to improve its recognition function. Alternatively, one could also test a vehicle’s traffic light recognition time in the presence of a pedestrian to improve a vehicle’s recognition function when confronted with multiple signals.
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15. However, it would have been obvious for the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan to set at least one of the plurality of test environment devices to be a schedule-based test environment device that operates according to a predetermined or specified schedule that is specified at least in part by the test configuration. Wu teaches use of a traffic light (Fig. 1, traffic light 103); traffic lights commonly operate according to a schedule, and it would have been obvious for the invention of Wu to follow common practice. Furthermore, since the test configuration sets a desired test, it would have been obvious for the test configuration to specify at least in part a predetermined or specified schedule by which the traffic device operates, to test the AV in a common setting in which traffic lights operate according to a schedule.
Regarding claim 16, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1. Liu further teaches the use of an event-based test environment device that operates in response to detection of a trigger (page 16, lines 13-29: a traffic signaling control system 19 may generate traffic control data that is sent to “traffic signaling devices such as pedestrian cross-walk lights”; crosswalk lights are event-based).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Liu with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting at least one of the plurality of test environment devices to be an event-based test environment device that operates in response to detection of a trigger that is specified at least in part by the test configuration. Doing so would enable one to set up a configuration to test AV recognition time for an event-based signaling device such as a crosswalk signal.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations recited in claim 17 are rejected for the same reasons as those given in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 106373416 A) in view of Liu (WO 2018204544 A1) and Hariharan (US 20180129593 A1), and further in view of Elmasri (“Fundamentals of Database Systems,” 6th edition, Pearson, published April 9, 2010, ISBN 0136086209).
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cause the test facility state information to be received at the test facility gateway from the at least one test facility control server, since the test facility control server is connected to the test facility gateway via the test facility gateway server (see the rejection of claim 1) and is able to obtain test facility state information (Wu, Fig. 1: the test server 101 is communicatively connected to the traffic light 103 and the unmanned vehicle 102).
In light of the preceding argument, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan still does not teach that the database is a distributed key store that stores key-value pairs.
Elmasri teaches that distributed databases offer improved ease and flexibility, increased reliability and availability, and easier expansion (Section 25.1.5, p. 882). Elmasri also teaches file organization based on hashing, a method which can provide fast access to records (Section 17.8, ¶1, p. 606; hashing generates key value pairs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Elmasri with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting the database to be a distributed key store that stores key-value pairs in order to take advantage of a flexible, reliable and more easily expandable database with a file organization system that may provide faster access to records.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 106373416 A) in view of Liu et al (WO 2018204544 A1) and Hariharan (US 20180129593 A1), and further in view of Xiong (CN 103207090 A).
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13. Xiong teaches a system for testing the performance of unmanned vehicles in realistic simulated environments (¶2). As part of this test, Xiong teaches an environmental control device that is operable to change an environmental factor or condition of the road vehicle test facility (¶29: artificial fog, rain, and snow can be created to accurately simulate complex real environments regardless of season).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Xiong with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting at least one of the plurality of test environment devices to be an environmental control device that is operable to change an environmental factor or condition of the road vehicle test facility. Doing so would enable one to test the recognition time of an AV in a variety of controlled realistic environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 14, Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan and Xiong teaches the system of claim 13. Xiong further teaches a streetlight that provides ambient lighting to a portion of a road vehicle test facility (¶141: a streetlight, operable as a backlight or forward light, provides lighting conditions for a driverless vehicle during a road test) to test a driverless vehicle under different lighting conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Xiong with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by setting the environmental control device to be a streetlight that provides ambient lighting to a portion of the road vehicle test facility, in order to test the recognition time of an AV under realistic ambient lighting conditions.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 106373416 A) in view of Liu et al (WO 2018204544 A1) and Hariharan (US 20180129593 A1), and further in view of Pearson (US 20040145497 A1).
Regarding claim 18, many of the limitations of claim 18 are found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. The following will address limitations not found in claim 1.
Claim 18 recites that the test configuration is “user-requested.” This is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 18 further recites that “the user-requested test configuration specifies retrofit environment device functionality to be performed by a first test environment device during the road vehicle testing, wherein a first retrofit test environment controller is used to control the first test environment device so as to cause the retrofit environment device functionality to be performed by the first test environment device.” This limitation is rendered obvious in light of claims 10 and 4, which argues that Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan would be motivated to retrofit the traffic light 103 of Wu with a controller in order to remotely control the traffic light (see rejection of claim 10). With this in mind, the “first test environment device” is the traffic light, the “first retrofit test environment controller” is the controller, and the “retrofit environment device functionality” is any function caused to be performed on the traffic light.
Claim 18 further limits the “retrofit environment device functionality” to be “functionality that is not provided as a part of the first retrofit test environment controller’s manufacture.” That is, the first test environment device is being caused to perform a function not part of its manufacture.
The above limitation is not disclosed by Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan.
Pearson discloses a traffic control system having an interactive emergency vehicle warning (Abstract). A tricolor traffic light’s yellow signal is actuated to a second operational mode to display an icon of an emergency situation such as an approaching emergency vehicle (Abstract; see also ¶2 and Fig. 5 illustrating a pattern displayed to drivers). The traffic light may be retrofitted with the warning indicator apparatus (¶38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pearson with the invention of Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan by modifying the first test environment device with the warning indicator apparatus of Pearson, including a first retrofit test environment controller, and to cause the first test environment device to perform retrofit environment device functionality that is not provided as a part of the first test environment device’s manufacture. Doing so would enable one to test the AV’s response time to a traffic light when it operates outside of its typical functions to indicate an approaching emergency vehicle.
The remaining language of claim 18 recites performing the limitations of claim 1 with the first test environment device and the first retrofit test environment controller, generating a test environment control message based on the first test environment device and causing the first test environment device to operate according to the retrofit environment device functionality. These limitations would have been obvious in order to cause the test facility infrastructure control system to operate as outlined in claim 1 using the retrofitted test environment device taught by Wu in view of Liu and Hariharan and Pearson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights