DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/26/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzinger (EP3644148A1) in view of Li et al. (CN111649955A) in view of Dudeck et al. (US20040090117A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wurzinger discloses a method for executing a test drive with at least one test vehicle, comprising: moving wherein the test vehicle is moved by a test driver along a travel route (Paragraph [0002] discloses a method wherein a driver may execute tests on a vehicle. Paragraph [0063] discloses that the test may happen on a road.), wherein a plurality of test cases are stored in a memory unit (Paragraph [0009] discloses a test schedule that is stored in memory and includes a sequence of preconfigured maneuvers that are carried out during a test run. Paragraph [0040] discloses that “test runs” can be carried out. This implies that more than one test can be executed.), and each test case is defined as a sequence of test steps which are to be executed by the test driver while carrying out the test case (Paragraph [0002] discloses that a test driver may perform the maneuvers required for a test run according to the specifications. A test run is substantially the same as a test case as disclosed in instant application. The maneuvers that are needed to execute a test run are substantially the same as the test steps as disclosed in instant application), completing at least one of said stored test cases by the test driver during the test drive (Paragraph [0009] discloses that a driver executes the maneuvers and test procedures. It is understood that the driver may complete such a test drive.).
Wurzinger does not disclose that for each test case, a start condition is defined in dependence of at least one sensor signal of a vehicle sensor of the test vehicle and stored in the memory unit together with the associated test case.
Li et al. discloses a start condition for testing the automatic brake system (ABS) of a vehicle (Paragraph [0002] discloses the inventive concept of this application as being a method for testing the ABS of a vehicle travelling on the road. Paragraph [0019] discloses that the trigger for activating the ABS of the test vehicle is detecting a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger to include the teachings of Li et al. such that a start condition is defined for each test case, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a test system that can determine which tests can be run under the current state of a vehicle.
Li et al. does not disclose that the vehicle’s ABS functions based on inputs from at least one sensor signal of a vehicle sensor of the vehicle.
Dudeck et al. discloses an ABS for a vehicle that functions in response to inputs from sensors (Paragraph [0018] discloses that the ABS is influenced by signals which originate both inside the vehicle, such as traveling speed, and by input from sensor units by means of which the ambient conditions can be detected, for example obstacles on the carriageway. Therefore, the ABS is initiated partially based on information received from sensors of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Dudeck et al. such that for each test case, a start condition is defined in dependence of at least one sensor signal of a vehicle sensor of the test vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a test system that can initiate a test when starting conditions for the test are met in part using inputs from the vehicle’s sensors.
Further regarding claim 1, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses a method wherein each start condition defines a particular vehicle state (Paragraph [0019] of Li et al. discloses that the trigger for activating the ABS of the test vehicle is detecting a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane. A stationary vehicle being in the adjacent lane of the test vehicle can be considered as a state of the vehicle as defined in Specifications of instant application.) recording at least one sensor signal that represents a current vehicle state with at least one vehicle sensor during the test drive wherein the at least one sensor signal is transmitted to a test unit, wherein the test unit reads out the start condition of at least one stored test case from the memory unit, and, during the test drive, the test unit checks whether the vehicle state stored for the read-out start condition and the current vehicle state represented by the recorded sensor signal match (Paragraph [0019] of Li et al. discloses that the start condition for triggering the ABS test is detecting a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane. Therefore, the state of the vehicle that is needed for the test to be triggered is the test vehicle being located near or next to a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane. The system triggers the test when it determines that the state of the vehicle matches the state required for the ABS test to be initiated.).
Further regarding claim 1, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses that if said states match, the test driver completes the test case associated to the read-out start condition, in that said test case is started and the test driver is provided with the test steps defined in the test case for attention, and the test driver performs these test steps (Li et al. discloses in paragraph [0019] that the ABS test starts automatically when the start condition is met. Wurzinger discloses in paragraph [0009] that a test driver is given instructions by the test system via a monitor to execute the maneuvers necessary for conducting a test case. Therefore, we are further modifying Wurzinger, as modified, such that there is an option for the driver to be instructed to conduct the test instead of the test being automatically run when the required conditions for the test are met. This provides two options for running a test. One is to run the test automatically and the other is the test driver conducting the test.).
Regarding claim 2, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the test unit reads out the start conditions of several stored test cases from the memory unit, and the test unit checks, during the test drive, whether any of the vehicle states stored for the read-out start conditions and the current vehicle state represented by the detected sensor signal match, wherein, in the event of a match, the test driver completes the test case associated with this matching start condition, and wherein said test case is started, and the test driver is provided with the test steps defined in this test case for attention, and the test driver performs these test steps (Paragraph [0040] of Wurzinger discloses that the system can be used for preparing, carrying out and post-processing of “test runs”. This system provides test step instructions to a test driver via a terminal that can be used to execute several tests. Paragraph [0009] discloses that a test schedule with a sequence of preconfigured maneuvers are carried out during the test run is stored in a memory of the computing unit. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section for claim 10 of this office action, Li et al. discloses a method whereby the test system monitors state of the vehicle and executes a test as soon as the start condition for a test matches the state of the vehicle. It is understood that Wurzinger as modified by Li et al. can compare state of the vehicle to the starting conditions of several tests and provide instructions to the test driver to start running any of the tests that have start conditions that match the current state of the vehicle. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in claim 2.).
Regarding claim 3, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the case of a match, the test case is automatically started by the test unit, or wherein the test case is proposed to the test driver from the test unit for execution, and the test driver starts the test case (Li et al. discloses in paragraph [0019] that the system triggers the ABS test when it determines that the state of the vehicle matches the state required for the ABS test to be initiated. The test case runs without the need for an operator to be present, and, therefore, is run automatically when the necessary conditions for starting the test are met. Alternatively, we have established in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section for claim 10 of this office action that a test driver can execute the test after the starting conditions are met. Therefore, the test can be executed automatically or by a test driver. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in claim 3.)
Regarding claim 4, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the test unit reads out the start conditions of several stored test cases from the memory unit, and, during the test drive, the test unit determines all test cases whose associated vehicle states stored as a start condition match the current vehicle state represented by the detected sensor signal, wherein all of these matching test cases are proposed to the test driver by the test unit, and one of these test cases is selected and started by the test driver wherein the test driver completes the started test case, wherein the test steps defined in the started test case are provided to the test driver for attention, and the test driver performs these test steps (Paragraph [0040] of Wurzinger discloses that the system can be used for preparing, carrying out and post-processing of “test runs”. Therefore, this system of providing test steps instructions to a test driver via a terminal can be used to execute several tests. Paragraph [0009] discloses that a test schedule with a sequence of preconfigured maneuvers to be carried out during the test run is stored in a memory of the computing unit. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section for claim 1 of this office action, Li et al. discloses a method whereby the test system monitors state of the vehicle and executes a test as soon as the start condition for a test matches the state of the vehicle. It is understood that Wurzinger as modified by Li et al. can compare state of the vehicle to the starting conditions of all tests and choose all of the tests for execution that have start conditions that match the current state of the vehicle. We established in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section for claim 3 that the tests can be performed by a test driver or automatically. Additionally, we have established in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section for claim 1 that test steps for a test can be provided to the test driver by the system. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in claim 4.).
Regarding claim 10, Wurzinger discloses a system for executing a test drive, comprising: at least one test vehicle that is moved by a test driver along a travel route (Paragraph [0002] discloses a system wherein a vehicle is driven by a test driver for the purpose of conducting a test run. Paragraph [0063] discloses that the test may happen on a road.), a memory unit in which a plurality of test cases are stored (Paragraph [0009] discloses a test schedule that is stored in memory and includes a sequence of preconfigured maneuvers that are carried out during a test run. Paragraph [0040] discloses that “test runs” can be carried out. This implies that more than test exists. It is understood that information related to the test cases are stored in a memory unit.), and each test case is defined as a sequence of test steps which the test driver executes when carrying out the test case (Paragraph [0002] discloses that a test driver may perform the maneuvers required for a test run according to the specifications. A test run is substantially the same as a test case as disclosed in instant application. The maneuvers that are needed to execute a test run are substantially the same as the test steps as disclosed in instant application.), and the test driver completes at least one of these said stored test cases (Paragraph [0009] discloses that a driver executes the maneuvers and test procedures. It is understood that the driver may complete such a test drive.).
Wurzinger does not disclose a test system, wherein, a start condition, depending upon at least one sensor signal of a vehicle sensor of the test vehicle, is defined and stored in the memory unit for each test case.
Li et al. discloses a start condition for testing the automatic brake system (ABS) of a vehicle (Paragraph [0002] discloses the inventive concept of this application as being a method for testing the ABS of a vehicle travelling on the road. Paragraph [0019] discloses that the trigger for activating the ABS of the test vehicle is detecting a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger to include the teachings of Li et al. such that a start condition is defined for each test case, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a test system that can determine which tests can be run under the current state of a vehicle.
Li et al. does not disclose that the vehicle’s ABS functions based on inputs from at least one sensor signal of a vehicle sensor of the vehicle.
Dudeck et al. discloses an ABS for a vehicle that functions in response to inputs from sensors (Paragraph [0018] discloses that the ABS is influenced by signals which originate both inside the vehicle, such as traveling speed, and by input from sensor units by means of which the ambient conditions can be detected, for example obstacles on the carriageway. Therefore, the ABS is initiated partially based on information received from sensors of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Dudeck et al. such that for each test case, a start condition is defined in dependence of at least one sensor signal of a vehicle sensor of the test vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a test system that can initiate a test when starting conditions for the test are met in part using inputs from the vehicle’s sensors.
Further regarding claim 10, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses a system wherein each start condition defines a particular vehicle state (Paragraph [0019] of Li et al. discloses that the trigger for activating the ABS of the test vehicle is detecting a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane. A stationary vehicle being in the adjacent lane of the test vehicle can be considered as a state of the vehicle as defined in Specifications of instant application.) wherein, at least one vehicle sensor is provided on the test vehicle, which sensor detects at least one sensor signal, representing a current vehicle state, during the test drive, and a test unit is provided, to which the at least one vehicle sensor transmits the at least one sensor signal, wherein the test unit reads out the start condition of at least one stored test case from the memory unit, and the test unit checks, during the test drive, whether the vehicle state stored for the read-out start condition and the current vehicle state represented by the detected sensor signal match (Paragraph [0019] of Li et al. discloses that the start condition for triggering the ABS test is detecting a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane. Therefore, the state of the vehicle that is needed for the test to be triggered is the test vehicle being located near or next to a stationary vehicle in the adjacent lane. The system triggers the test when it determines that the state of the vehicle matches the state required for the ABS test to be initiated. Dudeck et al. discloses in paragraph [0018] that the ABS is initiated in part based on readings from a vehicle’s sensor. Therefore, at least one sensor exits as part of above test system. It is understood that a signal from the sensor is transmitted to the control or test unit as part of functions discussed above.).
Further regarding claim 10, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses a system, wherein, in the event of a match, the test case assigned to the read-out start condition starts, and the test driver completes this test case, wherein the test steps defined in this test case can be provided to the test driver for attention on a user interface, and the test driver carries out these test steps (Li et al. discloses in paragraph [0019] that the ABS test starts automatically when the start condition is met. Wurzinger discloses in paragraph [0009] that a test driver is given instructions by the test system via a monitor to execute the maneuvers necessary for conducting a test case. Therefore, we are further modifying Wurzinger, as modified, such that there is an option for the driver to be instructed to conduct the test instead of the test being automatically run when the required conditions for the test are met. This provides two options for running a test. One is to run the test automatically and the other is the test driver conducting the test.).
Claim 5 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzinger (EP3644148A1) in view of Li et al. (CN111649955A) in view of Dudeck et al. (US20040090117A1) in view of Hofig et al. (US 20200310938 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wurzinger. As modified, does not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the test unit reads out the start conditions of several stored test cases from the memory unit, and, during the test drive, the test unit determines all test cases whose associated vehicle states stored as a start condition match the current vehicle state represented by the detected sensor signal, wherein the test unit selects and starts one of the matching test cases on the basis of a predetermined prioritization of the test cases, wherein the test driver completes the started test case, and wherein in that the test steps defined in the started test case are displayed to the test driver, and the test driver performs these test steps.
Hofig et al. discloses the test management system that can be applied to testing a vehicle and can run tests in a predetermined order of priority (Paragraph [0027] discloses a risk-based test management system that can be applied to a vehicle. Paragraph [0003] discloses that a risk-based test system is a system wherein the tests can be prioritized based on their risk level such that if a test is more likely to fail the priority of running that test is made to be higher that a test that is less likely to fail. It is understood that such prioritization of tests are predetermined.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Hofig et al. such that the method includes prioritization of tests that are to be executed on the vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of running tests that have higher priority first, and, exposing issues earlier as a result.
Claim 6 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzinger (EP3644148A1) in view of Li et al. (CN111649955A) in view of Dudeck et al. (US20040090117A1) in view of Li et al. (US20180351945A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wurzinger, as modified, does not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein, when carrying out the test drive, a completed test case is deleted after completion or after a predetermined multiple completion from the plurality of test cases in the memory unit.
Li et al. discloses a method for testing a system wherein the system can delete a test after it is completed (Please note that the Li et al. that we are using here for claim 6 is the second Li et al. in the list of references given above for claim 6. Li et al. discloses an electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) and its testing method. Paragraph [0078] discloses that an eSIM can be deleted after completion of the test in order to get prepared for the next test session. It is understood that the test no longer exists once its main object is deleted after the test is completed and that another similar or different test can start when another eSIM is installed to be tested.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Li et al. such that the method includes deletions of tests that have already been executed, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result freeing up memory for other tests that need to be run and for other functions of the vehicle control system.
Claim 7 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzinger (EP3644148A1) in view of Li et al. (CN111649955A) in view of Dudeck et al. (US20040090117A1) in view of Sekine (US20190355189A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wurzinger, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the test unit is arranged in the test vehicle.
Sekine discloses the test system for a vehicle that is installed within the vehicle and accomplishes all functions needed to carry out tests related to the vehicle (Fig. 2 shows the block diagram of the testing system. Paragraph (30) discloses that the different parts of the test system are mounted in the interior of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Sekine such that the test unit is arranged in the test vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a self-sufficient test system.
Claims 8 and 9 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzinger (EP3644148A1) in view of Li et al. (CN111649955A) in view of Dudeck et al. (US20040090117A1) in view of Garg et al. (US10466705B1).
Regarding claim 8, Wurzinger et al., as modified, does not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the test unit is arranged in a test center which is in data connection with the test vehicle.
Garg et al. discloses a cloud-based server that coordinates vehicle test trips (Column 12 lines 55-67 and column 13 lines 1-4 disclose that a computing system located off-board of the vehicle coordinates test trips for a vehicle. It is also disclosed that the off-board system may be a cloud-based server. The Abstract discloses that the system can select a test trip for a vehicle and cause the vehicle to travel in accordance with that test trip. Column 3 lines 18-42 disclose that the server can obtain feedback associated with such a test trip and gather and process test data to help evaluate the performance of the autonomous vehicle and/or its associated fleet. It is understood that the server is in data communication with the vehicle since it causes the vehicle to run a certain test trip and receives data from the vehicle. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in claim 8.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Garg et al. such the tests can be arranged in a test center which is in data connection with the test vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a more powerful system for managing the tests and, as a result, freeing up resources of the vehicle for other important functions.
Regarding claim 9, Wurzinger, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the test unit in the test center is in data connection with at least one further test vehicle for executing a test drive, wherein the at least one further test vehicle is moved along a travel route by a further test driver (We have established in our 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claim 8 that a server that controls execution of tests is in data communication with the subject vehicle. Garg et al. discloses in column 3 lines 18-42 that the server-based test management system can provide for the automatic deployment of test trips to “autonomous vehicles”. Therefore, the server is capable of being in data communication with at least one further test vehicle for executing a test drive. The test vehicles in the case of Garg et al. are autonomous vehicles wherein tests are run automatically without a test driver. We have established in our 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claim 3 that above type of tests can be performed automatically or by a test driver. Therefore, Wurzinger, as modified, can manage test runs on multiple vehicles with at least one of the vehicles being driven by a test driver.).
Claim 11 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzinger (EP3644148A1) in view of Li et al. (CN111649955A) in view of Dudeck et al. (US20040090117A1) in view of Sekine (US20190355189A1) in view of in view of Garg et al. (US10466705B1).
Regarding claim 11, Wurzinger, as modified, does not disclose the system according to claim 10, wherein the test unit is arranged in the test vehicle, or the test unit is arranged in a test center which is in data connection with the test vehicle.
Sekine discloses the test system for a vehicle that is installed within the vehicle and accomplishes all functions needed to carry out tests related to the vehicle (Fig. 2 shows the block diagram of the testing system. Paragraph (30) discloses that the different parts of the test system are mounted in the interior of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Sekine such that the test unit is arranged in the test vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a self-sufficient test system.
Further regarding claim 11, Wurzinger et al., as modified, does not disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein the test unit is arranged in a test center which is in data connection with the test vehicle.
Garg et al. discloses a cloud-based server that coordinates vehicle test trips (Column 12 lines 55-67 and column 13 lines 1-4 disclose that a computing system located off-board of the vehicle coordinates test trips for a vehicle. It is also disclosed that the off-board system may be a cloud-based server. The Abstract discloses that the system can select a test trip for a vehicle and cause the vehicle to travel in accordance with that test trip. Column 3 lines 18-42 disclose that the server can obtain feedback associated with such a test trip and gather and process test data to help evaluate the performance of the autonomous vehicle and/or its associated fleet. It is understood that the server is in data communication with the vehicle since it causes the vehicle to run a certain test trip and receives data from the vehicle. These disclosures are substantially the same as what is disclosed in above segment of claim 11.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Wurzinger, as modified, to include the teachings of Garg et al. such the tests can be arranged in a test center which is in data connection with the test vehicle, as a combination of prior art disclosures, to yield the predictable result of having a more powerful system for managing the tests and, as a result, freeing up resources of the vehicle for other important functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramin Monajemy whose telephone number is (571) 272-2298. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM - 5:00PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/R.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3665C
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665