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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/215,385, filed June 28, 2023. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on German Patent Application No. DE102022119715.8, filed August 5, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 28, 2023 and August 26, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84, as indicated below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include, at a minimum, the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description and claims: a vehicle 200, an ADAS/ADS system 210 sensors 220, a scenario identification module 300, a simulation module 400, an assessment module 500, a software application 520, an assessment indicator 570, an evaluation module 700, a software application 720, evaluation results 750. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a scenario identification module,” “a simulation module,” “an assessment module,” and “an evaluation module” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Written Description and Drawings, “a scenario identification module,” “a simulation module,” “an assessment module,” and “an evaluation module” comprise computer processor(s) and/o memory unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0194004, to Whiteside et al. (hereinafter Whiteside).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 9, Whiteside discloses a method for objective assessment of the performance of an ADAS/ADS system (210) of a vehicle (200) for a defined driving task in at least one selected scenario (SZL), in particular for testing and training at least one driving function of the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) and/or the automated driving system (ADS), wherein a scenario (SZL) represents a traffic event in a temporal sequence and is defined by a selection of scenario parameters (P1, P2,...,P) and associated scenario parameter values (PV1, PV2,.--,PV) (e.g. see Abstract and para 0001, wherein a method of evaluating a real or simulated trajectory scenarios for an ADS/ADAS mobile robot is provided, the method includes using test oracle to assess parameters captured during the scenarios and modifying an ADS/ADAS stack to mitigate determined issues), comprising: identifying (S10) real-world scenarios (SZr) from data captured in real-time by sensors (220) while traveling on a test path with the vehicle (200) and/or from stored data from a scenario identification module (300); and/or generating (S20) simulated scenarios (SZs) from a simulation module (400) (e.g. see Fig. 1B and para 0002, wherein the test oracle tests both real-world testing S128 (i.e. from sensor data), as well as simulated data from a simulator 202); communicating (S30) the real-world scenarios (SZr) and/or the simulated scenarios (SZs) to an assessment module (500) (e.g. see Fig. 1B, wherein the real-world data and simulator data are transmitted to the test oracle to evaluate performance); calculating (S40) an assessment indicator (570) for at least one real-world scenario (SZri) and/or an assessment indicator (570) for at least one simulated scenario (SZsi) from the assessment module (500), wherein the assessment indicator (570) represents the performance of the ADAS/ADS system (210) for the defined driving task (e.g. see para 0016, wherein assessment parameters are generated by the test oracle based upon evaluation rules); generating (S50) evaluation results (750) from an evaluation module (700), wherein an evaluation result (750) for a real-world scenario (SZri) and/or a simulated scenario (SZsi) includes a mapping between the respectively determined assessment indicator (570) and the scenario parameter value (PVci) of a selected scenario parameter (Pci) of the respective real-world scenario (SZri) and/or the respective simulated scenario (SZsi) (e.g. see at least Fig. 9, wherein based upon the comparison (i.e. mapping) between the test results and rules indications are provided whether the system passes or fails the test for the particular rules/parameter); and calibrating the ADAS/ADS system on the vehicle based on the evaluation results (750) (e.g. see para 0103, wherein based upon the testing an improved stack (i.e. calibration) is formed).
As per claim 2, Whiteside discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the scenario parameter value (PVL) of the selected scenario parameter (PL) of the respective real-world scenario (SZri) and/or the respective simulated scenario (SZsi) is extracted by the evaluation module (500) from the dataset of the real-world scenario (SZri) and/or the simulated scenario (SZsi) (e.g. see Abstract, wherein the assessment parameters are extracted based upon an agent trace).
As per claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 10, Whiteside discloses the features of claims 1 and 9, respectively, and further discloses wherein the assessment indicators (570) are configured as key performance indicators (KPIs) (e.g. see Fig. 9 and para 0044, wherein the assessment parameter, as well as indicator, relates to failure of the system resulting in collision (i.e. a key performance indicator)).
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 11, Whiteside discloses the features of claims 3 and 10, respectively, and further discloses wherein the evaluation results (750) are configured as KPI plots, values of a KPI in each of the KPI plots represent as a function of the parameter values (PVC) of a scenario parameter (P1) for a particular scenario (SZL), and each plot point includes a real-world scenario (SZri) or a specific simulated scenario (SZsi) (e.g. see Figs. 10 and 11).
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Whiteside discloses the features of claims 4 and 10, respectively, and further discloses wherein the KPI plots for variously formed ADAS/ADS systems (210) and/or the KPI plots for various real-world scenarios (SZr) and/or for simulated scenarios (SZs) and real-world scenarios (SZr) for an ADAS/ADS system (210) are compared to one another (e.g. see Figs. 10 and 11).
As per claim 6, Whiteside discloses the features of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the KPI plots are histograms with segments for cluster analysis (e.g. see Figs. 10 and 11).
As per claim 7, Whiteside discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the computational methods and/or algorithms of artificial intelligence are configured as mean values, minimum and maximum values, lookup tables, expected value models, linear regression methods, Gaussian processes, fast Fourier transforms, integral and differential calculations, Markov methods, probability methods, Monte Carlo methods, temporal difference learning, extended Kalman filters, radial basis functions, data fields, convergent neural networks, deep neural networks, recurrent neural networks, and/or folded neural networks (e.g. see at least Figs. 9-11 and para 0131).
As per claim 8, Whiteside discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a scenario parameter (PL) comprises a physical variable, a chemical variable, a torque, a speed, a voltage, a current strength, a speed, an acceleration, a lurch, a braking value, a direction, an angle, a radius, a location, a number, a movable object such as a motor vehicle, a person or a cyclist, a stationary object such as a building or tree, a road configuration such as a highway, a road sign, a traffic light, a tunnel, a roundabout, a turn-off lane, a traffic volume, a topographical structure such as an incline, a time, a temperature, a precipitation value, a weather condition and/or a time of year (e.g. see at least para 0131).
As per claim 13, Whiteside discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses a computer program product (1000) comprising an executable program code (1050) configured to execute the method of claim 1 (e.g. see at least para 0001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B