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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 17/985,944 entitled "AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE OPERATING STATUS ASSESSMENT" filed on November 13, 2014, with claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, 22, and 24-29 pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 25 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 20 were previously cancelled.
Claims 13, 18, and 23 are newly cancelled.
Claims 27-29 are added and have been examined.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, 22, and 24-29 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 15, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, 22, and 24-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed October 16, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on February 8, 2023, April 30, 2024, January 3, 2025, July 23, 2025, October 7, 2025, January 15, 2026, February 13, 2026, and June 2, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim reads, “with the vehicle based pm the operating status report.” The Examiner interprets the claims as “with the vehicle based on the operating status report.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 25 and 29 are 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.
Claim 25 states, “wherein the malfunction comprises: a difference between an expected output of the software component based on the test input and the first output, or a time taken to generate the first output exceeding a threshold.”
Claim 29 states, “wherein the malfunction comprises: a time, taken to generate the first output by the software component, exceeding a threshold time duration.”
Examiner could not find support for these limitations. The closest mention in the Specification reads, [0101] “determining the operating status of a sensor …. based upon information received from other sensors 120 and comparing the actual output signal from the sensor to the expected output signal. To avoid minor deviations from expected sensor or software operation from being interpreted as a malfunction, a range of values indicating a normal operating status may be allowed for the sensors and software. Thus, a sensor signal within the normal range may be treated as indicating a normal operating status even if the value is slightly different from the expected value.”
However, “normal range” is far broader than a “threshold time” and not specific to a time component. Therefore, Examiner cannot reconcile the Specification and the claimed limitations and the claims are rejected.
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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egnor ("METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR COMPENSATING FOR COMMON FAILURES IN FAIL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS", U.S. Patent Number: US 9195232 B1)in view of Wang ("TEST DEVICE FOR TESTING AUTOMOBILE ELECTRONIC CONTROLLER", Chinese Publication Number: CN201210253Y)
Regarding Claim 1,
Egnor teaches,
A computer-implemented method for remediating a malfunctioning feature of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle,
(Egnor [Abstract] Methods and systems for compensating for common failures in fail operational systems...The controllers may perform cross-checks of each other and may each perform internal self-check...configured to transfer control of the vehicle between the controllers based on detecting a fault.
Egnor [Col 12, Line 28] The vehicle may be autonomous, partially autonomous
Egnor [Col 8, Lines 44-46] sensor fusion algorithm 144 may include an algorithm (or a computer program product storing an algorithm) executable by the computing device)
comprising: receiving, at one or more processors, a signal indicating a request to determine an operating status of an autonomous feature of the vehicle
(Egnor [Claim 4] wherein the safety controller is further configured to: determine a state of operation of the vehicle; and based on the state of operation, perform functions associated with control of operation of the vehicle including vehicle braking.”
Egnor [Col 18, lines 59-66] system 400 may also include one or multiple watchdog 408 components…during normal operation, the system 400 may regularly restart the watchdog 408 components to prevent them from elapsing or “timing out”)
wherein the autonomous feature controls an autonomous operation of one of a steering, a braking, or a throttle of the vehicle, based at least in part on an output of a software component;
(Egnor [Col. 12, lines 29-30] The vehicle may be autonomous, partially autonomous, or controlled completely by the user, for example.
Egnor [Col. 3, lines 27-31] For example, a variety of functions may be executed by the primary controller, such as functions pertaining to the control of operations of the vehicle including vehicle propulsion, braking and steering)
the software component having a first software configuration
(Egnor [Col 15, lines 44-47] A common fault may arise from the controllers within a system all operating based on the same set of logic. For example, an error in the logic may likely cause all the controls to output inaccurately as a result of the error.)
the autonomous operation of the one of the steering, the braking, or the throttle of the vehicle;
(Egnor [Col. 3, lines 27-31] For example, a variety of functions may be executed by the primary controller, such as functions pertaining to the control of operations of the vehicle including vehicle propulsion, braking and steering)
determining, by the one or more processors and based upon the first output, that a software error associated with the software component is a cause of a malfunction of the autonomous feature
(Egnor [Col. 17, lines 36-52] a system may also include a control module configured to transfer control of operation of the vehicle between primary controller and the secondary controller based on the detected fault at one or the primary and the secondary controller. The control module may be further configured to detect a common fault (e.g. simultaneous error) of the primary controller and the secondary controller that causes both the primary controller and the secondary controller to reset and the control module may be configured to responsibly output a common fault signal (e.g., signal or other form of indication). )
providing, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the malfunction is caused by the software error, a computer-executable remediation signal to a processor associated with the vehicle, separate from the one or more processors,
(Egnor [Col 16, lines 11-25] an example system of the vehicle, such as a control unit, controlling operations of the vehicle may provide control to a secondary backup or tertiary backup controller configured as a safety controller (e.g., failsafe controller) as a result of detecting a fault in the primary system of controllers. The safety controller may be configured to protect against certain faults, which may include common faults occurring when multiple controllers sharing redundancy and running the same code. For example, a bug in the code may manifest in all codes at the same time causing controllers to operate incorrectly. The safety controller may be configured to operate using a different code or logic from other controllers. By using a different code, the safety controller may be able to avoid the common bugs or other functional problems that may interrupt the operations of the other controllers.)
wherein: the remediation signal, when executed by the processor associated with the vehicle, causes the processor to change the first software configuration to a second software configuration that remediates the software error
(Egnor [Col 16, lines 11-25] an example system of the vehicle, such as a control unit, controlling operations of the vehicle may provide control to a secondary backup or tertiary backup controller configured as a safety controller (e.g., failsafe controller) as a result of detecting a fault in the primary system of controllers. The safety controller may be configured to protect against certain faults, which may include common faults occurring when multiple controllers sharing redundancy and running the same code. For example, a bug in the code may manifest in all codes at the same time causing controllers to operate incorrectly. The safety controller may be configured to operate using a different code or logic from other controllers. By using a different code, the safety controller may be able to avoid the common bugs or other functional problems that may interrupt the operations of the other controllers)
generating, by the one or more processors, a control signal, wherein: the control signal, when executed by the processor associated with the vehicle, causes the software component to provide a second output, accordance with the second software configuration, to the autonomous feature
(Egnor [Col 16, lines 11-25] The safety controller may be configured to protect against certain faults, which may include common faults occurring when multiple controllers sharing redundancy and running the same code. For example, a bug in the code may manifest in all codes at the same time causing controllers to operate incorrectly. The safety controller may be configured to operate using a different code or logic from other controllers. By using a different code, the safety controller may be able to avoid the common bugs or other functional problems that may interrupt the operations of the other controllers.
Egnor [Col. 16, lines 31-37] If the vehicle is navigating a path of travel, the safety controller may be configured to assume control and apply a braking function to slow down the vehicle. The safety controller may also perform multiple or all functions associated with controlling the vehicle that may have been controlled by the primary controller and/or the secondary controller)
Engor does not teach presenting, by the one or more processors, a test input to the software component; receiving, at the one or more processors, a first output from the software component, wherein the software component generates the first output by simulating, based on the test input;
Wang teaches,
presenting, by the one or more processors, a test input to the software component;
(Wang [claim 8] wherein said test device further includes at least one signal conditioning unit (5) that matches with the interfaces of the automobile electronic controller and the test device and conditions the signal output by the test device in the range acceptable by the electronic controller, as well as conditions the signal output by the electronic controller in the range acceptable by the test device)
receiving, at the one or more processors, a first output from the software component, wherein the software component generates the first output by simulating, based on the test input;
(Wang [page 3] the test device further comprises at least one signal conditioning unit, the signal conditioning unit matching the automobile electronic controller interface of the test device, the test device output signal conditioning is accepted by the electronic controller can range, the range of signal conditioning output by the electronic controller can receive the test device)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the fault testing a vehicle controller of Wang for “a testing device that is used for testing the automobile electronic controller,” (Wang [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fault testing a vehicle controller) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “reduces the actual experiment so as to save test cost…shorten test time, reduce the investment of the engineer. satisfies the requirement of various automobile electronic controller test, overcomes the defect of testing real test bench manually.” Wang [page 3])
Regarding Claim 14,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor teaches,
wherein: the software component is deployed on-board the vehicle
(Egnor [Col 3, Lines 18-35] A vehicle or other entity may include a system or components configured to control functions of the vehicle. ...Within the system, microprocessors or processors, also described herein as controllers, may operate based on logic (e.g., software) in order to execute functions of the vehicle)
and the remediation signal, when executed by the processor, causes at least one of: rebooting of a portion of the software component,
(Egnor [Col 3, lines 42-47] The primary controller and secondary controller may also be configured to reset based on detecting a fault or other error at one of the primary controller and the secondary controller. For example, the controllers may be configured to reset based on detecting the primary controller and/or secondary controller outputting an error)
reinstalling of a portion of the software component, or updating a portion of the software component to a different version.
(Egnor [Col 14, lines 37-39] That way, controllers may execute updated logic, for example, which may allow the removal of errors within the logic.)
Regarding Claim 16,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor teaches,
wherein the autonomous feature is related to at least one of: automatic steering; automatic acceleration; automatic braking; automatic parking; or pedestrian detection
(Egnor [Col. 12, lines 29-30] The vehicle may be autonomous, partially autonomous, or controlled completely by the user, for example.
Egnor [Col. 3, lines 27-31] For example, a variety of functions may be executed by the primary controller, such as functions pertaining to the control of operations of the vehicle including vehicle propulsion, braking and steering.)
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as claim 14.
Regarding Claim 25,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor teaches,
or a time taken to generate the first output exceeding a threshold.
(Egnor [Col 18, Lines 60-67] An example watchdog 408 component (also known as a computer operating properly or COP timer) may exist as an electronic timer that may be used to detect and recover from computer malfunctions. ...may regularly restart the watchdog 408 components to prevent them from elapsing or “timing out”...the watchdog 408 component(s) may elapse and generate a timeout signal. )
Egnor does not teach wherein the malfunction comprises: a difference between an expected output of the software component based on the test input and the first output,
Wang teaches,
wherein the malfunction comprises: a difference between an expected output of the software component based on the test input and the first output.
(Wang [page 3] For example, data loss or corruption, such as the occurrence of a communication system malfunction during transmission of the data, may interfere with performance of the security function. Such an impairment could be, for example, that the safety function is performed at an incorrect time or using incorrectly calculated parameters.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the fault testing a vehicle controller of Wang for “a testing device that is used for testing the automobile electronic controller,” (Wang [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fault testing a vehicle controller) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “reduces the actual experiment so as to save test cost…shorten test time, reduce the investment of the engineer. satisfies the requirement of various automobile electronic controller test, overcomes the defect of testing real test bench manually.” Wang [page 3])
Regarding Claim 26,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor teaches,
the autonomous feature comprises automatic braking, …. corresponding to a situation requiring braking, and the output comprises a signal generated by the software component for providing to a braking system of the vehicle.
(Egnor [Col. 12, lines 29-30] The vehicle may be autonomous, partially autonomous, or controlled completely by the user, for example.
Egnor [Col. 3, lines 27-31] For example, a variety of functions may be executed by the primary controller, such as functions pertaining to the control of operations of the vehicle including vehicle propulsion, braking and steering)
Egnor does not teach the test input comprises simulated sensor input
Wang teaches,
the test input comprises simulated sensor input
(Wang [claim 8] wherein said test device further includes at least one signal conditioning unit (5) that matches with the interfaces of the automobile electronic controller and the test device and conditions the signal output by the test device in the range acceptable by the electronic controller, as well as conditions the signal output by the electronic controller in the range acceptable by the test device)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the fault testing a vehicle controller of Wang for “a testing device that is used for testing the automobile electronic controller,” (Wang [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fault testing a vehicle controller) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “reduces the actual experiment so as to save test cost…shorten test time, reduce the investment of the engineer. satisfies the requirement of various automobile electronic controller test, overcomes the defect of testing real test bench manually.” Wang [page 3])
Regarding Claim 27,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor teaches,
wherein the one of the steering, the braking, or the throttle of the vehicle
(Egnor [Col. 3, lines 27-31] For example, a variety of functions may be executed by the primary controller, such as functions pertaining to the control of operations of the vehicle including vehicle propulsion, braking and steering)
Egnor does not teach is prevented from responding to the first output generated by the software component based on the test input.
Wang teaches,
is prevented from responding to the first output generated by the software component based on the test input.
(Wang [page 2] In order to solve said technical problem, this utility model claims a test device for testing automobile electronic controller, the testing apparatus comprising: a real-time simulator of the object model at least one real-time operation, real time simulator has a plurality of receiving/outputting the 1/0 data signal, various sensor signals of the real time simulator simulating vehicle and receives the executor signals output by the automobile electronic controller, at least one load simulation and error analogue unit; one of the l/0 interface of the load emulation and error simulation unit connected with the real time simulator and simulate all kinds of operating failure load and vehicle on the automobile, wherein the automobile electronic controller is connected with said load simulation and error analogue unit and receives the load emulation and error simulation unit outputs the test signal and outputting the actuator signal to the load emulation and error simulation unit.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the fault testing a vehicle controller of Wang for “a testing device that is used for testing the automobile electronic controller,” (Wang [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fault testing a vehicle controller) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “reduces the actual experiment so as to save test cost…shorten test time, reduce the investment of the engineer. satisfies the requirement of various automobile electronic controller test, overcomes the defect of testing real test bench manually.” Wang [page 3])
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egnor and Wang in view of Billman (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC INSURANCE PREMIUMS”, U.S. Patent Number: 10657597 B1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor teaches,
operating based on outputs of the software component operating in accordance with the second software configuration;
(Egnor [Col 16, lines 11-25] an example system of the vehicle, such as a control unit, controlling operations of the vehicle may provide control to a secondary backup or tertiary backup controller configured as a safety controller (e.g., failsafe controller) as a result of detecting a fault in the primary system of controllers. The safety controller may be configured to protect against certain faults, which may include common faults occurring when multiple controllers sharing redundancy and running the same code. For example, a bug in the code may manifest in all codes at the same time causing controllers to operate incorrectly. The safety controller may be configured to operate using a different code or logic from other controllers. By using a different code, the safety controller may be able to avoid the common bugs or other functional problems that may interrupt the operations of the other controllers)
Egnor does not teach wherein the operating status is a first operating status, the method further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, an operating status report indicating a second operating status of the autonomous feature; transmitting, by the one or more processors and via a network, the operating status report to a server, wherein the server determines, based on the operating status report; an adjustment to a cost associated with an insurance policy associated with the vehicle;
Billman teaches,
wherein the operating status is a first operating status, the method further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, an operating status report indicating a second operating status of the autonomous feature;
(Billman [Col 12, Lines 29-39] Because an intelligent vehicle is able to monitor its own systems, the intelligent vehicle may report impending or existing events. Events may be vehicle-related events, such as low tire pressure, a periodic maintenance interval, or low gas)
transmitting, by the one or more processors and via a network, the operating status report to a server, wherein the server determines, based on the operating status report; an adjustment to a cost associated with an insurance policy associated with the vehicle
(Billman [Col 10, Lines 8-10] insurance premium calculator is configured to receive data, such as vehicle operation data
Billman [Col 3, Lines 11-15] a web server 110, an application server 112, a messaging server 114, a database management server 116, which is used to manage at least an operations database 118, and a file server
Billman [Col 8, Lines 62-65] f. Service Brake Status g. Ignition Cycle h. Safety Belt Status i. Status of Vehicle Air Bag)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles of Billman for “dynamic insurance premiums.” (Billman [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “calculating the insurance premium for an insurance policy that covers the intelligent vehicle based at least in part on the indication of the intelligent vehicle's condition” Billman [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 3,
Egnor, Wang, and Billman teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the cost associated with the insurance policy includes at least one of: a premium, a discount, a surcharge, a rate level, a cost based upon a distance traveled, a cost based upon a vehicle trip, or a cost based upon a duration of vehicle operation.
Billman teaches,
wherein the cost associated with the insurance policy includes at least one of: a premium, a discount, a surcharge, a rate level, a cost based upon a distance traveled, a cost based upon a vehicle trip, or a cost based upon a duration of vehicle operation.
(Billman [Col 11, Lines 34-35] insurance premiums and coverages may be adjusted to reflect the reduced risk
Billman [Col 16, Lines 21-23] “Band 1” is from 0-500 miles per month, “Band 2” is from 500-1000 miles per month, and “Band 3” is from 1000-5000 miles per month
Billman [Col 16, Lines 33-34] policyholder is subject to the cost of 25 miles)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles of Billman for “dynamic insurance premiums.” (Billman [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “calculating the insurance premium for an insurance policy that covers the intelligent vehicle based at least in part on the indication of the intelligent vehicle's condition” Billman [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 4,
Egnor, Wang, and Billman teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach receiving, at the one or more processors, one or more indications of maintenance performed on the vehicle, wherein: the operating status includes the one or more indications of maintenance, and the adjustment to the cost associated with the insurance policy is determined further based upon the received one or more indications of maintenance.
Billman teaches,
receiving, at the one or more processors, one or more indications of maintenance performed on the vehicle, wherein: the operating status includes the one or more indications of maintenance, and the adjustment to the cost associated with the insurance policy is determined further based upon the received one or more indications of maintenance.
(Billman [Col 7, Lines 26-28] The onboard vehicle system 204 may include a transceiver to send and receive information from systems internal and external to the vehicle.
Billman [Col 12, Lines 16-23] Use of maintenance and repair history may be used...maintenance and repair history is maintained at an onboard system in an intelligent vehicle.... the vehicle may be able to log the repair or maintenance activity and report it to the insurance premium calculator
Billman [Col 13, Line 41] thus the premiums are adjusted
Billman [Col 8, Lines 35-37] Vehicle Maintenance Sensors)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles of Billman for “dynamic insurance premiums.” (Billman [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “calculating the insurance premium for an insurance policy that covers the intelligent vehicle based at least in part on the indication of the intelligent vehicle's condition” Billman [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 6,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the signal indicating the request to determine the operating status is automatically generated by an additional processor upon occurrence of an event comprising one or more of: receipt of a command to start the vehicle, receipt of a command to shut off the vehicle, receipt of an indication of a collision involving the vehicle, or receipt of an indication of damage to the vehicle.
Billman teaches,
the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the signal indicating the request to determine the operating status is automatically generated by an additional processor upon occurrence of an event comprising one or more of: receipt of a command to start the vehicle, receipt of a command to shut off the vehicle, receipt of an indication of a collision involving the vehicle, or receipt of an indication of damage to the vehicle.
(Billman [Claim 12] detect when the first occupant is in active control of the driverless vehicle when the first occupant is performing at least one of steering, braking, and accelerating the driverless vehicle and wherein the at least one signal indicative of the first percentage of time
Billman [Col 7, Lines 43-44] the onboard vehicle system 204 may only activate on certain conditions, such as after sensing an accident.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles of Billman for “dynamic insurance premiums.” (Billman [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “calculating the insurance premium for an insurance policy that covers the intelligent vehicle based at least in part on the indication of the intelligent vehicle's condition” Billman [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 8,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach the signal indicating the request to determine the operating status is received from a mobile device or a special-purpose computing device communicatively connected to the vehicle, and a system status module is executed by the one or more processors to determine the test input.
Wang teaches,
to determine the test input.
(Wang [claim 8] wherein said test device further includes at least one signal conditioning unit (5) that matches with the interfaces of the automobile electronic controller and the test device and conditions the signal output by the test device in the range acceptable by the electronic controller, as well as conditions the signal output by the electronic controller in the range acceptable by the test device)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the fault testing a vehicle controller of Wang for “a testing device that is used for testing the automobile electronic controller,” (Wang [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fault testing a vehicle controller) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “reduces the actual experiment so as to save test cost…shorten test time, reduce the investment of the engineer. satisfies the requirement of various automobile electronic controller test, overcomes the defect of testing real test bench manually.” Wang [page 3])
Wang does not teach the signal indicating the request to determine the operating status is received from a mobile device or a special-purpose computing device communicatively connected to the vehicle, and a system status module is executed by the one or more processors.
Billman teaches,
the signal indicating the request to determine the operating status is received from a mobile device or a special-purpose computing device communicatively connected to the vehicle, and a system status module is executed by the one or more processors.
(Billman [Col 9, Lines 33-48] allow a person to configure aspects of the onboard vehicle system 204 operation via the navigation systems interface. Vehicles may have a vehicle control system to control climate settings, entertainment systems, or other features installed in a vehicle. The onboard vehicle system 204 may interface with such a vehicle control system....The internet-based interface may be accessed via a mobile device (e.g., cellular phone or smart phone), a general-purpose computer, a kiosk, or other access device....Using an onboard interface or an network-based interface, the policyholder or other user may configure various aspects of the onboard vehicle system 204 operation, such as how data is sensed, collected, transmitted, received, or used.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles of Billman for “dynamic insurance premiums.” (Billman [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dynamic insurance premiums for autonomous vehicles) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “calculating the insurance premium for an insurance policy that covers the intelligent vehicle based at least in part on the indication of the intelligent vehicle's condition” Billman [Abstract])
Claims 10, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egnor and Wang in view of Lin (“ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM ONBOARD DIAGNOSTIC STRATEGY”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20100095909 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the malfunction is a first malfunction and the remediation signal is a first remediation signal, the method further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that a second malfunction comprises operation of one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle being impaired by environmental factors; and determining, by the one or more processors, a second remediation signal, wherein the second remediation signal, when executed by the processor associated with the vehicle, causes a heating element disposed on the vehicle to activate.
Lin teaches,
wherein the malfunction is a first malfunction and the remediation signal is a first remediation signal, the method further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that a second malfunction comprises operation of one or more sensors disposed on the vehicle being impaired by environmental factors; and determining, by the one or more processors, a second remediation signal,
(Lin [Abstract] If a cooling system fault is detected, the diagnostic logic may activate
Lin [0032] an insufficient amount of estimated heat Z has been added to the engine 14 and/or the predicted coolant temperature has not exceeded TDT by a threshold, the logic advances to error calculation block... calculates an error between the predicted coolant temperature and the actual measured coolant temperature as indicated by temperature sensor 20. The logic next advances to error magnitude query... That predetermined threshold may be calibrated to prevent generation of false positives.
Lin [0036] accomplishing the task of identifying engine cooling system fault conditions utilizing a single temperature sensor
Lin [0037] useful in diagnosing problems with other heat exchangers that utilize ambient air as one of the heat exchange fluids....information likewise could be communicated to the operator and/or logged by the engine controller)
wherein the second remediation signal, when executed by the processor associated with the vehicle, causes a heating element disposed on the vehicle to activate.
(Lin [0017] the same engine system in one application may include a transmission cooler, a fuel heater, a sleeper heater and maybe even a cabin heater...can behave as both a heat sink and a heat source
Lin [0018] compressed air may be cooled to transfer heat
Lin [0021] additional machine heat exchangers 16 that utilize engine cooling fluid to perform their specific tasks.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the heating elements of Lin for “heat exchangers that utilize ambient air as one of the heat exchange fluids.” (Lin [0037]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. heating elements) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “diagnosing problems with other heat exchangers” Lin [0037])
Regarding Claim 11,
Egnor, Wang, and Lin teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 10 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the one or more sensors are impaired by blockage by one or more of: snow, ice, rain, dirt, mud, or condensation.
Lin teaches,
wherein the one or more sensors are impaired by blockage by one or more of: snow, ice, rain, dirt, mud, or condensation.
(Lin [0037] this might be indicative of a heat exchanger failure, such as due to debris blocking the flow of air through the relevant heat exchanger)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the heating elements of Lin for “heat exchangers that utilize ambient air as one of the heat exchange fluids.” (Lin [0037]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. heating elements) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “diagnosing problems with other heat exchangers” Lin [0037])
Regarding Claim 22,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 19 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the malfunction is a first malfunction and the remediation signal is a first remediation signal, and: a second malfunction comprises one or more errors associated with a sensor disposed on the vehicle, and a second remediation signal based on the second malfunction, when executed by the processor, causes at least one of: activating a heating element associated with the sensor, or recalibration of the sensor.
Lin teaches,
wherein the malfunction is a first malfunction and the remediation signal is a first remediation signal, and: a second malfunction comprises one or more errors associated with a sensor disposed on the vehicle, and a second remediation signal based on the second malfunction, when executed by the processor,
(Lin [Abstract] If a cooling system fault is detected, the diagnostic logic may activate
Lin [0032] an insufficient amount of estimated heat Z has been added to the engine 14 and/or the predicted coolant temperature has not exceeded TDT by a threshold, the logic advances to error calculation block... calculates an error between the predicted coolant temperature and the actual measured coolant temperature as indicated by temperature sensor 20. The logic next advances to error magnitude query... That predetermined threshold may be calibrated to prevent generation of false positives.
Lin [0036] accomplishing the task of identifying engine cooling system fault conditions utilizing a single temperature sensor
Lin [0037] useful in diagnosing problems with other heat exchangers that utilize ambient air as one of the heat exchange fluids....information likewise could be communicated to the operator and/or logged by the engine controller)
causes at least one of: activating a heating element associated with the sensor,
(Lin [0017] the same engine system in one application may include a transmission cooler, a fuel heater, a sleeper heater and maybe even a cabin heater...can behave as both a heat sink and a heat source
Lin [0018] compressed air may be cooled to transfer heat
Lin [0021] additional machine heat exchangers 16 that utilize engine cooling fluid to perform their specific tasks.)
or recalibration of the sensor.
(Lin [0024] The magnitude of the drop in temperature from time T1 to time T2 can be calibrated to ensure that a failed thermostat can be accurately distinguished from the cooling curve
Lin [0032] threshold may be calibrated to prevent generation of false positives.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the heating elements of Lin for “heat exchangers that utilize ambient air as one of the heat exchange fluids.” (Lin [0037]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. heating elements) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “diagnosing problems with other heat exchangers” Lin [0037])
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egnor and Wang in view of Erdem (“METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT A SAFETY FUNCTION OF A VEHICLE AND SYSTEM FOR CARRYING OUT THE METHOD”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20150210258 A1).
Regarding Claim 24,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the software error comprises one or more of: a version of the software component being out-of-date, the software component being corrupted, the software component being infected with a virus, or a security issue related to the software component.
Erdem teaches,
wherein the software error comprises one or more of: a version of the software component being out-of-date, the software component being corrupted, the software component being infected with a virus, or a security issue related to the software component.
(Erdem [0008] for example, for data loss or data falsification, for example due to the occurrence of a fault in the communication system during the transmission of the data, to adversely affect the carrying out of the safety function. Such an adverse effect could, for example, involve the safety function being carried out at the wrong time or using incorrectly calculated parameters.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the data verification of Erdem for “safety function is carried out by the functional unit as a function of the control signals.” (Erdem [0010]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. data verification) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to restore a state or operating mode of the vehicle that is as safe as possible or to maintain that state, in order, in this way, to avoid or at least minimize danger to persons and objects as well as personal injury and material damage” Erdem [0005])
Claims 28 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egnor and Wang in view of Breed ("SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE DIAGNOSTICS", U.S. Patent Number: US 7103460 B1).
Regarding Claim 28,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 17 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the signal indicating the request is received at a first time, the operating status is a first operating status, and the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the computer system to: receive an additional signal indicating an additional request to determine a second operating status of the autonomous feature at a second time, after the first time; determine an additional test input to present to the software component;
generate an operating status report indicating the second operating status of the autonomous feature based on an output of the software component in response to the additional test input; and transmit, to a server, the operating status report, wherein the server determines an adjustment to a digital record associated with the vehicle based on the operating status report.
Breed teaches,
wherein the signal indicating the request is received at a first time,
(Breed [Claim 3] wherein the output from the sensors is a signal, the step of determining which sensors provide data about abnormal operation of each component comprising analyzing differences between the signals)
the operating status is a first operating status, and the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the computer system
(Breed [Claim 4] comprises deriving numerical time series data from the signals from the sensors
Breed [Col 5, Line 61 to Col 6, Line 9] the ECU also generates 5-digit ‘diagnostic trouble codes’ (DTCs) that indicate a specific problem with the vehicle.
Breed [Col 5, Lines 61-62] Most ECUs transmit status and diagnostic information)
to: receive an additional signal indicating an additional request to determine a second operating status of the autonomous feature at a second time, after the first time;
(Breed [Col 249, Lines 50-55] standard error checking and correction algorithms are employed. Each device is designed to acknowledge receipt of a communication or the communication will be sent again until such time as receipt thereof by the device is acknowledged.
Breed [Claim 9] whether a component is operating normally or abnormally based on a time series of data from a single sensor or from multiple sensors that contain a pattern indicative of the operating status of the component.)
determine an additional test input to present to the software component;
(Breed [Col 42, Lines 18-21] A number of different objects are tested to obtain the unique patterns... As such, the algorithm is generated, and stored in a computer processor, and which can later be applied
Breed [Col 78, Lines 4-13] An important function that can be performed by the diagnostic system herein is to substantially diagnose the vehicle's own problems... This information can be displayed or reported orally or sent)
generate an operating status report indicating the second operating status of the autonomous feature based on an output of the software component in response to the additional test input;
(Breed [Col 5, Lines 6-7] This system only reports failures after they have occurred
Breed [Col 15, Lines 49-50] Pressure and temperature signals output by the cell are received
Breed [Col 249, Lines 50-55] standard error checking and correction algorithms are employed. Each device is designed to acknowledge receipt of a communication
Breed [Col 8, Lines 34-35] due to software and sensor failures
Breed [Col 116, Lines 11-13] need to have correlation software in order to be able to differentiate the relevant signals)
and transmit, to a server, the operating status report,
(Breed [Col 105, Lines 5-7] the server can ..... received by the vehicle
Breed [Claim 9] whether a component is operating normally or abnormally.... indicative of the operating status of the component. The diagnosis of component operation can be transmitted to a remote location via a telematics link.)
wherein the server determines an adjustment to a digital record associated with the vehicle based on the operating status report.
(Breed [Col 90, Lines 34-40] it is not necessary that a neural network system that is on a vehicle be a static system and some amount of learning can, in some cases, be permitted. Additionally, as the vehicle manufacturer updates the neural networks, the newer version can be downloaded to particular vehicles ...wirelessly via a cellular network or by satellite.
Breed [Col 199, Lines 61-65] software data and programs can be kept updated including all of the software for diagnostic functions, for example, for the vehicle through the internet connection.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the data timings of Breed for “generating the neural network comprising deriving numerical time series data from the signals from the sensors.” (Breed [Claim 28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. data timings) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “time calibration receivers in the field (location measurement units) that can monitor both the wireless-system timing and GPS signals used as a timing reference.” Breed [Col 105, Lines 61-64])
Regarding Claim 29,
Egnor and Wang teach the vehicle malfunction remediation of Claim 17 as described earlier.
Egnor does not teach wherein the malfunction comprises: a time, taken to generate the first output by the software component, exceeding a threshold time duration
Breed teaches,
wherein the malfunction comprises: a time, taken to generate the first output by the software component, exceeding a threshold time duration.
(Breed [Col 118, Lines 59-60] Therefore, burst (request) pulse duration should be not less than 0.6 microseconds
Breed [Col 119, Lines 23-25] it is necessary that the signal has a flat apex with a duration not less than 0.25 microseconds
Breed [Col 119, Liones 37-38] the arrival time of each following echo pulse should be not earlier than 1.0 microsecond
Breed [Col 258, Lines 52-54] Defining a system bandwidth B, a delay time in the sensor should not exceed several microseconds. The duration of a burst should be even less.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle software malfunction remediation of Egnor to incorporate the data timings of Breed for “generating the neural network comprising deriving numerical time series data from the signals from the sensors.” (Breed [Claim 28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. data timings) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle software malfunction remediation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “time calibration receivers in the field (location measurement units) that can monitor both the wireless-system timing and GPS signals used as a timing reference.” Breed [Col 105, Lines 61-64])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on January 15, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The claims recite patent eligible matter as it teaches, "wherein the autonomous feature controls an autonomous operation of one of a steering, a braking, or a throttle of the vehicle" meeting the requirements for MPEP 2106.05(c) - Particular Transformation of a Physical Article.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains lifted.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of new prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ricci (“VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND WARRANTY COMPLIANCE DETECTION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20140310186 A1) proposes vehicle maintenance and warranty compliance detection and communication are disclosed. Specifically, a method to monitor the compliance of a user with vehicle maintenance and operating requirements and vehicle warranty terms is provided. In the event a user is not in compliance with a vehicle maintenance item, vehicle operation condition or warranty term, the system may take a number of actions. In one embodiment, the actions comprise notifying a maintenance provider, an insurance provider and a warranty provider. The system may also maintain a historical user compliance database to enable identification and documentation of user compliance for one or more vehicles.
Augustine (“DETERMINING A PROPERTY OF AN INSURANCE POLICY BASED ON THE LEVEL OF AUTONOMY OF A VEHICLE”, U.S. Patent Number: US 10796369 B1) provides generating vehicle insurance rates based on driver-independent variables and/or driver-dependent variables. Vehicle insurance rates may additionally or alternatively be based on changes in the level of autonomy of vehicles. In some embodiments, a density of vehicles near a target vehicle may be tracked. Vehicle insurance rates may be determined based on the vehicle density. Furthermore, systems and methods are disclosed for analyzing a driver's use of autonomous vehicle features and/or the driver's maintenance of the autonomous vehicle. The driver may also be taught certain driving skills by enabling vehicle teaching features. The driver's response to these teaching features may be monitored, and a reward or recommendation may be generated and provided to the driver based on the driver's response.
Breed (“VEHICULAR RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING MULTIPLE OPTICAL IMAGERS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20160264150 A1) provides a system and method for obtaining information about occupancy of a compartment in a movable object in which at least first and second optical imagers obtain images of a common area of the compartment and spaced apart from one another. Processing circuitry derives information from the images obtained by the imagers. A light source may illuminate the common area of the compartment and be interposed between the imagers. The processing circuitry can include a microprocessor with at least one pattern recognition algorithm and be arranged to determine the distance between the imagers and an object in the common area by locating a specific feature in the common area by first locating the feature in only the image obtained by one imager, then determining the location of the same feature in the image obtained by another imager, and determining the distance of the feature from the imagers by triangulation.
Kopetz (“Device and method for the autonomous control of motor vehicles”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20160033965 A1) provides controlling the braking and/or steering and/or acceleration in a motor vehicle, wherein the device has a number of different sensor components, two diverse sensor fusion components, a man/machine interface component and a preferably intelligent actuator controller component, wherein each of these components constitutes a fault-containment unit and has a TTEthernet communications interface, and wherein all components are connected to a central TTEthernet message distribution unit, and wherein the components communicate with one another exclusively with use of standardised Ethernet messages, and wherein a diagnosis unit for time-correct monitoring of the exchanged messages can be connected to the TTEthernet message distribution unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695 /CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights