DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 05/17/2023. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted 07/31/2023 and 03/19/2024 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claims 1-7 and 14-15, it appears that “the second testing unit” should be changed to “the at least one second testing unit.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“at least one second testing unit that tests the performance of the vehicle by a method different from that of the first testing unit” (claims 1 and 14-15)
“an outdoor testing unit that causes the vehicle to run on a public road and evaluates the performance of the vehicle” (claim 2)
“a test condition determination device that determines test conditions for the first testing unit and another second testing unit based on a test result of the outdoor testing unit” (claim 2)
“a simulation unit that evaluates the performance of the vehicle by simulation” (claim 3)
“a test condition determination device that determines a test condition of the first testing unit based on the test result of the second testing unit” (claim 4)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (¶¶ 13, 30, and 32: “the second testing unit 5 may include only one of the simulation unit 6 and the outdoor testing unit 7 and may include a plurality of the simulation units 6 and a plurality of the outdoor testing units 7,” where “The simulation unit 6 includes a calculation device, that is, a central processing unit (CPU), and a storage device, that is, a memory that stores calculation contents, program information, and the like” and “The outdoor testing unit 7 includes a position detection unit 452, an environmental information acquisition unit 454, and a vehicle information acquisition unit 456.” Additionally, ¶ 15: “The test condition determination device 50 includes a calculation device, that is, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device, that is, a memory that stores calculation contents, program information, and the like.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6-7:
There is no antecedent basis for “the test conditions” recited in each of claims 6-7, which leads to indefiniteness. For examination purposes, claims 6-7 are interpreted as if they were each dependent upon claim 2, which provides antecedent basis for the test conditions. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 14-15:
In line 8 of claim 14, it is unclear whether “a test condition” refers to “a test condition of a test executed in a first testing unit,” “a test condition of a test executed in at least one second testing unit,” or neither. Similarly, in line 13 of claim 15, it is unclear whether “a test condition” refers to “a test condition of a test executed in a first testing unit,” “a test condition of a test executed in at least one second testing unit,” or neither. For examination purposes, claims 14-15 are interpreted as if the ambiguous test condition referred to the “test condition of a test executed in at least one second testing unit.” Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed to “A vehicle performance evaluation program.” Consistent with ¶¶ 24-25 of the instant specification, this program appears to solely comprise software elements; none of the elements of claim 15 appear to be physical components. MPEP 2106.03(I) states that “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as… a computer program per se (often referred to as ‘software per se’) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.” Accordingly, the vehicle performance evaluation program is considered software per se, which is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner respectfully suggests amending claim 15 to positively recite a computer for executing processing of the vehicle performance evaluation program (as supported by ¶¶ 14 and 24-25 of the instant specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harmon (US 2019/0113416 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Harmon discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle performance evaluation system comprising: a first testing unit that tests performance of a vehicle.” (Harmon ¶¶ 32-33 disclose a test facility 200 that includes equipment for testing performance of a vehicle.)
“at least one second testing unit that tests the performance of the vehicle by a method different from that of the first testing unit.” (Harmon ¶¶ 45-47 disclose “a method 500 for replicating field failures or truck performance in a test facility,” where “In step 520, the on-road data are collected. The on-road data may be related to the truck failure or specific performance in the field. The conditions relevant to the failure/performance (e.g., air temperature, precipitation, intensity of the wind, direction of the wind, road incline, etc.) may be obtained and recorded. In some embodiments, a timeline of the environmental conditions may be recorded as the vehicle operates in the field.”)
“and a data processing device that subjects a test result of the first testing unit and a test result of the second testing unit to alignment processing based on a test condition including a weather condition and outputs an evaluation thereof.” (Harmon ¶ 40: “coefficients (terms, parameters) A to C in the frame 60 may be adjusted to generate the load curve corresponding to the use conditions in the field. For example, the coefficient C may be changed to account for the differences in the density of air (causing differences in the drag force) and/or the coefficient B may be changed to account for the differences in the roughness of the road, or different tires, or different outside temperature (causing different pressure and rolling resistance of the tire), or overinflating/underinflating the tires (causing differences in the rolling resistance). The coefficient A may be changed to account for different ambient temperatures, because even when the SAE standards account for low temperature, only one adjustment is given for a range of conditions, therefore not accounting for a range of conditions that the vehicle may experience in the field.”)
“wherein the first testing unit includes an environment reproduction mechanism that reproduces an environment around a vehicle to be tested.” (Harmon ¶ 33: “In some embodiments, the test facility 200 may also include a source of air to blow air 20 at prescribed velocity and/or temperature (if the source of air is capable of climate-controlling the air) to approximate real use conditions of the tractor 10.”)
“a running condition reproduction mechanism that moves relative to the vehicle to be tested and reproduces a running state of the vehicle.” (Harmon ¶ 32 discloses that “As the tractor engine rotates the wheels 12 in the clockwise (CW) direction, the dynamometers 30 provide the counter-torque in the counterclockwise (CCW) direction to balance the torque of the tractor engine.”)
“and a building that covers the environment reproduction mechanism and the running condition reproduction mechanism and has an indoor space around the vehicle.” (Harmon ¶ 32: “The tractor 10 (also referred to as ‘test vehicle’) can be tested in a climactic wind tunnel (test facility) 200.”)
Regarding claim 4:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Harmon also discloses the system “further comprising a test condition determination device that determines a test condition of the first testing unit based on the test result of the second testing unit.” (Harmon ¶ 44: “a timeline of the environmental conditions may be recorded as the vehicle operates in the field. The timeline may include outside temperature, air pressure, road elevation, precipitation, etc. When an equivalent vehicle is tested in a test facility, the timeline may be replicated by adjusting, for example, A, B and C coefficients for the dynamometers.”)
Regarding claim 10:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Harmon further discloses “wherein the environment reproduction mechanism reproduces at least one of a rainfall amount, a snowfall amount, and a fog.” (Harmon ¶¶ 43-44: “the field conditions applicable to the tractor that experienced failure or had a specific on-road performance can be obtained from the meteorological reports, local weather stations, estimates based on the altitude, or estimates based on the historical data. In some embodiments, these field conditions may be communicated to the test facility 200 in real time, for example over the internet and/or wirelessly. In some embodiments, a timeline of the environmental conditions may be recorded as the vehicle operates in the field. The timeline may include outside temperature, air pressure, road elevation, precipitation, etc. When an equivalent vehicle is tested in a test facility, the timeline may be replicated by adjusting, for example, A, B and C coefficients for the dynamometers.” This at least teaches the environment reproduction mechanism reproducing a rainfall amount or a snowfall amount as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 10, consistent with the specification, the environment reproduction mechanism reproducing “at least one of a rainfall amount, a snowfall amount, and a fog” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “rainfall amount” or “snowfall amount” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 11:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Harmon further discloses “wherein the environment reproduction mechanism reproduces at least one of a state of a running road surface and a brightness around the vehicle.” (Harmon ¶ 40: “coefficients (terms, parameters) A to C in the frame 60 may be adjusted to generate the load curve corresponding to the use conditions in the field. For example, the coefficient C may be changed to account for the differences in the density of air (causing differences in the drag force) and/or the coefficient B may be changed to account for the differences in the roughness of the road, or different tires, or different outside temperature (causing different pressure and rolling resistance of the tire), or overinflating/underinflating the tires (causing differences in the rolling resistance).” This at least teaches to reproduce “a state of a running road surface” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 11, consistent with the specification, the environment reproduction mechanism reproducing “at least one of a state of a running road surface and a brightness around the vehicle” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “state of a running road surface” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 14:
Harmon discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle performance evaluation method comprising: a step of acquiring a test condition of a test executed in a first testing unit and performance of a vehicle as a test result.” (Harmon ¶¶ 32-33 disclose a test facility 200 that includes equipment for obtaining a test result indicative of vehicle performance.)
“a step of acquiring a test condition of a test executed in at least one second testing unit that tests the performance of the vehicle by a method different from that of the first testing unit and the performance of the vehicle as a test result.” (Harmon ¶¶ 45-47 disclose “a method 500 for replicating field failures or truck performance in a test facility,” where “In step 520, the on-road data are collected. The on-road data may be related to the truck failure or specific performance in the field. The conditions relevant to the failure/performance (e.g., air temperature, precipitation, intensity of the wind, direction of the wind, road incline, etc.) may be obtained and recorded. In some embodiments, a timeline of the environmental conditions may be recorded as the vehicle operates in the field.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 14 are disclosed by Harmon using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 15:
Harmon discloses “A vehicle performance evaluation program.” (Harmon ¶ 50: “Many embodiments of the technology described above may take the form of computer-executable or controller-executable instructions, including routines executed by a programmable computer or controller. … The technology can be embodied in a special-purpose computer, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), controller or data processor that is specifically programmed, configured or constructed to perform one or more of the computer-executable instructions described above.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are disclosed by Harmon using the same rationale applied to claim 14 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tone et al. (US 2022/0326349 A1), hereinafter Tone.
Regarding claim 1:
Tone discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle performance evaluation system comprising: a first testing unit that tests performance of a vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 24: “The vehicle 8 to be tested is a vehicle to be tested in the vehicle performance testing system 10 and the vehicle performance testing device 12.”)
“at least one second testing unit that tests the performance of the vehicle by a method different from that of the first testing unit.” (Tone ¶ 28: “The testing platform 22 changes the orientation of the vehicle 8 to be tested by lifting, lowering, tilting, and turning the stage surface 111 so as to reproduce an orientation with respect to a road surface at the time of turning right or left, cornering, climbing a slope, descending a slope, starting movement, or stopping movement.” Also, Tone ¶ 5 discloses that it is known in the art to perform vehicle testing under various road surface conditions in an actual driving environment.)
“and a data processing device that subjects a test result of the first testing unit and a test result of the second testing unit to alignment processing based on a test condition including a weather condition and outputs an evaluation thereof.” (Tone ¶¶ 48-49: “vehicle performance testing system 10 can reproduce testing conditions of each time point by adjusting a surrounding environment inside the building 30 and adjusting the position of a target object in the surrounding of the vehicle 8 to be tested, calculate a testing state of a next time point by acquiring operation information of the vehicle 8 to be tested in a state as reproduced, and reproduce an environment in the surrounding of the vehicle 8 to be tested by operating each device. In addition, it is possible to remove the influence of weather outside the building 30 and an environment by reproducing testing conditions inside the building 30 as in the present embodiment and to perform a high-reproducibility test. Accordingly, it is possible to preferably perform comparative investigation.”)
“wherein the first testing unit includes an environment reproduction mechanism that reproduces an environment around a vehicle to be tested, a running condition reproduction mechanism that moves relative to the vehicle to be tested and reproduces a running state of the vehicle, and a building that covers the environment reproduction mechanism and the running condition reproduction mechanism and has an indoor space around the vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 7: “a vehicle performance testing device including … an environment reproduction mechanism that reproduces an environment in a surrounding of the vehicle to be tested, a running condition reproduction mechanism that moves relative to the vehicle to be tested and reproduces a running state of the vehicle to be tested, and a building that covers the testing platform, the running condition reproduction mechanism, and the environment reproduction mechanism such that a surrounding of the testing platform becomes an indoor space.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone further discloses “wherein the second testing unit includes a simulation unit that evaluates the performance of the vehicle by simulation.” (Tone ¶ 5 discloses that it is known in the art to use simulations during vehicle testing.)
Regarding claim 4:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone also discloses the system “further comprising a test condition determination device that determines a test condition of the first testing unit based on the test result of the second testing unit.” (Tone ¶ 37: “The calculation unit 330 calculates adjustment conditions such as the amount of movement of a testing platform 410, a road infrastructure 430, and a target object 440 based on the result of the scenario program 311 or the operation information acquisition device 14.”)
Regarding claim 8:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone further discloses “wherein the running condition reproduction mechanism moves a target object that moves with respect to the vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 30: “the running condition reproduction mechanism 28 moves a target object that moves relatively in a case where a condition that the vehicle 8 to be tested runs is set.”)
Regarding claim 9:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone also discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the first testing unit includes a testing platform on which the vehicle is mounted and capable of changing an orientation and a direction of the vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 7 discloses “a testing platform on which a vehicle to be tested is mounted and at which an orientation of the vehicle to be tested and a direction in which the vehicle to be tested faces are changeable.”)
“and the running condition reproduction mechanism includes a vehicle that moves relative to the testing platform and a movement mechanism that is installed in a vicinity of a running road surface and moves a structure relative to the testing platform.” (Tone ¶ 32: “The target objects 140 are various kinds of objects that move relative to the vehicle 8 to be tested. The target objects 140 include a nearby vehicle 141 and a human-shaped model 142. The target objects 140 are movable with respect to the road infrastructure 130. The target objects 140 are disposed on the road infrastructure 130 and are moved on the road surfaces based on testing conditions.”)
Regarding claim 10:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone further discloses “wherein the environment reproduction mechanism reproduces at least one of a rainfall amount, a snowfall amount, and a fog.” (Tone ¶ 52: “environment reproduction mechanism 26 reproduces at least one of the amount of rainfall, the amount of snowfall, and fog.”)
Regarding claim 11:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone further discloses “wherein the environment reproduction mechanism reproduces at least one of a state of a running road surface and a brightness around the vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 29: “The sunlight facility 104 illuminates the testing region to reproduce a daytime environment. The sunlight facility 104 may irradiate a vehicle to be tested with light at a predetermined illuminance to reproduce the sun.” Also, Tone ¶ 31: “the road infrastructure 130 may be provided with various road surfaces for a test such as a road surface that is a reproduction of a sandy place and an unpaved road surface. The road infrastructure 130 has a temperature adjustment function 133 inside the road surface 131 and can achieve a state where the road surface 131 is frozen or a state where the road surface is heated.”)
Regarding claim 12:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone further discloses “wherein the environment reproduction mechanism reduces a reflected wave of a sensor transmitted by the vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 29: “The electromagnetic noise generation facility 110 generates an electromagnetic noise in the surrounding of the testing region. As a result, it is possible to create a testing environment in which a component that hinders the detection performed by the sensors is generated.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Tone discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Tone further discloses “wherein the performance of the vehicle is a driving assistance function of the vehicle.” (Tone ¶ 54: “the vehicle performance testing system 10 can check how autonomous driving or driver-assistance works under testing conditions by supplying acquired sensor information to a program for autonomous driving or driver-assistance.”)
Regarding claim 14:
Tone discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle performance evaluation method comprising: a step of acquiring a test condition of a test executed in a first testing unit and performance of a vehicle as a test result.” (Tone ¶¶ 41-42: “the vehicle performance testing system 10 acquires operation information which is the result of recognition and determination performed by the vehicle 8 to be tested under the testing conditions (step S24). The vehicle performance testing system 10 calculates a next testing state based on the acquired operation information, outputs the conditions and scenario conditions related to the testing platform 22, the environment reproduction mechanism 26, and the running condition reproduction mechanism 28, and outputs the vehicle orientation information 18 to the testing platform 22 and the vehicle 8 to be tested (step 25).”)
“a step of acquiring a test condition of a test executed in at least one second testing unit that tests the performance of the vehicle by a method different from that of the first testing unit and the performance of the vehicle as a test result.” (Tone ¶ 28: “The testing platform 22 changes the orientation of the vehicle 8 to be tested by lifting, lowering, tilting, and turning the stage surface 111 so as to reproduce an orientation with respect to a road surface at the time of turning right or left, cornering, climbing a slope, descending a slope, starting movement, or stopping movement.” Also, Tone ¶ 5 discloses that it is known in the art to perform vehicle testing under various road surface conditions in an actual driving environment.)
The remaining limitations of claim 14 are disclosed by Tone using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 15:
Tone discloses “A vehicle performance evaluation program.” (Tone ¶ 36: “The control device 16 includes a recording unit 310, an input unit 320, a calculation unit 330, and an output unit 340. The recording unit 310 stores various kinds of data and a scenario program 311 is recorded therein. In the scenario program 311, vehicle running conditions, testing conditions to be reproduced by the environment reproduction mechanism 26, and information about transitions of an object in the surrounding of the vehicle running, which are to be reproduced by the running condition reproduction mechanism 28, are stored corresponding to a time axis.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are disclosed by Tone using the same rationale applied to claim 14 above, mutatis mutandis.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zecha et al. (US 2014/0014473 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zecha.
Regarding claim 2:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” and Harmon further discloses “wherein the second testing unit includes an outdoor testing unit that causes the vehicle to run on a public road and evaluates the performance of the vehicle, and the vehicle performance evaluation system further comprises a test condition determination device that determines test conditions for the first testing unit … based on a test result of the outdoor testing unit.” (Harmon ¶¶ 47-48: “In step 520, the on-road data are collected. The on-road data may be related to the truck failure or specific performance in the field. The conditions relevant to the failure/performance (e.g., air temperature, precipitation, intensity of the wind, direction of the wind, road incline, etc.) may be obtained and recorded. In some embodiments, a timeline of the environmental conditions may be recorded as the vehicle operates in the field. In step 530, a vehicle comparable to the one used in the field is tested in a test facility.”)
Harmon does not explicitly disclose to determine test conditions for “another second testing unit based on a test result of the outdoor testing unit.” However, Zecha does teach this limitation. (Zecha ¶ 26: “A locating system may be, e.g., a system that determines the exact position of the target object by means of GPS and, e.g., transmits the information on the position thereof to the test vehicle and/or stores said information for the purpose of the documentation or reproduction of test procedures.” Further, Zecha ¶ 34: “a plurality of different driving situations occurring, e.g., on public highways can be simulated or reproduced, and the test vehicle can approach the target object from all directions, i.e., it is possible to simulate both cross traffic and parallel traffic as well as frontal collisions, side-on collisions and rear-end collisions.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Harmon by determining conditions for additional testing as is taught by Zecha with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Zecha ¶¶ 32 and 34 teach that this allows for the additional testing to be conducted in a realistic manner.
Regarding claim 3:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” but does Harmon not specifically disclose “wherein the second testing unit includes a simulation unit that evaluates the performance of the vehicle by simulation.” However, Zecha does teach this limitation. (Zecha ¶ 32: “driving situations are simulated on a public highway, e.g., on a public highway that is closed to traffic in order to carry out tests thereon, wherein a realization of the above-described inventive device with mobile fastening devices is preferably used, wherein an advantage consists in the fact that a simulation carried out on a public highway facilitates--in contrast to a simulation carried out at a test area--the simulation of a plurality of different driving situations, wherein it is furthermore possible to carry out said simulation in a realistic manner.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Harmon by testing performance of the vehicle using a simulation as taught by Zecha with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Zecha ¶ 6 teaches that this allows for realistic testing that is as non-destructive as possible.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Harmon and Zecha teaches “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim [2],” and Harmon further teaches “wherein based on the test result of the first testing unit and the test result of the second testing unit, the data processing device uses one condition of the test conditions as a parameter to estimate a change in the performance of the vehicle with respect to the parameter and calculate a performance line.” (Harmon ¶ 1: “The test is repeated in the opposite direction to cancel the influence of the road incline, headwind and/or tailwind, and the cycle is repeated several times to come up with the average coastdown results. The resulting load curve (also referred to as ‘road-load equation,’ ‘road-load curve,’ ‘load-vs-speed curve’ or ‘load curve’) is expressed as a polynomial having the vehicle's velocity as the variable.”)
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon in view of Zecha as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 103674571 A), hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Harmon and Zecha teaches “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 2,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the test condition determination device calculates a test condition for interpolating or extrapolating a test condition of the second testing unit, and the calculated test condition for interpolating or extrapolating is used as a test condition to be executed in the first testing unit.” However, Li does teach these limitations. (Li ¶ 7 discloses “a method for collecting and compiling load spectra of automotive transmission systems for indoor bench testing that reasonably reproduces the operating conditions of automotive transmission systems.” Also, Li ¶ 54: “in order to shorten development time and testing costs, load time history can only be measured within a relatively short period of time, and then extrapolation is used to obtain full-lifetime load spectrum prediction. A suitable extrapolation method can accurately estimate the overall sample load, obtain an equivalent fatigue damage load spectrum, and estimate large loads that were not measured during the actual road spectrum acquisition process. The time-domain method is used to extrapolate the load spectrum after the rainflow method compression.” This at least teaches to calculate a test condition for extrapolating a test condition of the second testing unit that is used as a test condition to be executed in the first testing unit as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 5, consistent with the specification, calculating “a test condition for interpolating or extrapolating a test condition of the second testing unit” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “extrapolating” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Harmon and Zecha by extrapolating a test condition of the second testing unit to be used as a test condition for the first testing unit as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Li ¶ 54 teaches that provides a way “to shorten development time and testing costs” while providing an accurate estimation of a test condition.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Harmon and Zecha teaches “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim [2],” but does not specifically teach “wherein based on the test result of the first testing unit and the test result of the second testing unit, the data processing device estimates the performance of the vehicle in a situation where the test conditions are different and uses a result of the estimation as a test result of the test condition.” However, Li does teach this limitation. (Li ¶ 54: “in order to shorten development time and testing costs, load time history can only be measured within a relatively short period of time, and then extrapolation is used to obtain full-lifetime load spectrum prediction. A suitable extrapolation method can accurately estimate the overall sample load, obtain an equivalent fatigue damage load spectrum, and estimate large loads that were not measured during the actual road spectrum acquisition process. The time-domain method is used to extrapolate the load spectrum after the rainflow method compression.” Also, Li ¶ 35 disclose the use of “a redefined sampling rate and spline interpolation method to process the random load.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Harmon and Zecha by using interpolation and extrapolation for untested conditions as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Li ¶ 54 teaches that provides a way “to shorten development time and testing costs” while providing an accurate estimation of a test condition.
Claims 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Birkemeyer et al. (EP 3 620 770 A1), hereinafter referred to as Birkemeyer.
Regarding claim 8:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the running condition reproduction mechanism moves a target object that moves with respect to the vehicle.” However, Birkemeyer does teach this limitation. (Birkemeyer ¶¶ 52-53: “Any objects of different shapes and sizes can be moved in front of the test specimen as obstacles, namely at least one environmental simulation device 40A, 40B. With regard to a vehicle as test object 5, such a real environment is in particular a road with, for example, curbs and/or animals or people walking around and/or other vehicles and/or plants standing on the side, etc.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Harmon by moving objects with respect to the test vehicle as taught by Birkemeyer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Birkemeyer ¶¶ 82-83 teach that “This can be helpful, for example, to test a parking maneuver for a vehicle as test object,” and that “This allows for even more realistic tests to be carried out, so that even better results can be achieved, especially for vehicles, than in the previous examples.”
Regarding claim 9:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, Birkemeyer does teach these limitations:
“wherein the first testing unit includes a testing platform on which the vehicle is mounted and capable of changing an orientation and a direction of the vehicle.” (Birkemeyer ¶ 9 discloses a test bench comprising a test field for positioning of the test vehicle, and Birkemeyer ¶ 82 discloses that “the test object 5 is movable during test operation.”)
“and the running condition reproduction mechanism includes a vehicle that moves relative to the testing platform and a movement mechanism that is installed in a vicinity of a running road surface and moves a structure relative to the testing platform.” (Birkemeyer ¶¶ 52-53: “Any objects of different shapes and sizes can be moved in front of the test specimen as obstacles, namely at least one environmental simulation device 40A, 40B. With regard to a vehicle as test object 5, such a real environment is in particular a road with, for example, curbs and/or animals or people walking around and/or other vehicles and/or plants standing on the side, etc. Thus, at least one environment simulation device 40A, 40B is required in the case that the test object 5 is a vehicle, for example a curb or an animal dummy or a human dummy or a vehicle dummy or a plant, etc.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Harmon by incorporating a testing platform that can move the vehicle and by allowing objects to be moved relative to the testing platform as is taught by Birkemeyer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Birkemeyer ¶¶ 82-83 teach that “This can be helpful, for example, to test a parking maneuver for a vehicle as test object,” and that “This allows for even more realistic tests to be carried out, so that even better results can be achieved, especially for vehicles, than in the previous examples.”
Regarding claim 13:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the performance of the vehicle is a driving assistance function of the vehicle.” However, Birkemeyer does teach this limitation. (Birkemeyer ¶ 69: “If the test object 5 is a vehicle, the environmental simulation system 2 can be used to validate vehicle functions in near-production or production condition. This allows for an evaluation of the overall system, including the installation position of the sensors 50, the design of the test object 5, software, etc., and of the following individual systems and their combinations: Park Distance Control (PDC), Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Maneuvering Brake Assist, Emergency Brake Assist, Night Vision Assist, Blind Spot Detection (BSD), Pedestrian Protection, Parking Assist, Autonomous Driving, or other systems that detect the vehicle's surroundings.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Harmon by testing performance of a driving assistance function as taught by Birkemeyer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Birkemeyer ¶ 12 teaches that with this modification, “the operation of technical systems or machines, such as manufacturing plants and/or vehicles, becomes safer and more reliable.”
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardy (US 2022/0003525 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
Harmon discloses “The vehicle performance evaluation system according to claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the environment reproduction mechanism reduces a reflected wave of a sensor transmitted by the vehicle.” However, Hardy does teach this limitation. (Hardy ¶ 20: “At an initialization step 102, a test vehicle, which may be designed for either manned or unmanned operation, may be operated in an anechoic chamber, that is, an electromagnetically insulated chamber that absorbs electromagnetic radiation, thereby reducing reflection waves, while also reducing the presence of external electromagnetic radiation.” Also, Hardy ¶ 1: “The present invention relates to surveillance systems for monitoring unmanned or manned aerial, land, or sea vehicles.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Harmon by incorporating a test chamber that reduces reflection waves of a vehicle sensor as taught by Hardy with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Hardy ¶¶ 2-3 teach that this modification can help to ensure that the vehicle sensor can adequately detect other objects in a variety of weather conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith et al. (US 10,852,721 B1) col. 3 ll. 52-67 disclose an autonomous vehicle simulation testing system and method in which “one or more real objects (e.g., vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, lamp posts, trees, benches, curbs, etc.) can be placed within the testing environment to test the autonomous vehicle's ability to perceive these objects and appropriately plan its motion with respect to such objects ,” where “As used herein, the term “real” when used in reference to one or more objects refers to object (e.g., other vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) that are actually/physically present within the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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 un