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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/12/2025 is being entered. Claims 10-24 are pending. Claims 10-13 and 22-24 are amended. The amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 10-24. The amendment overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 10-11 and 14-24 and the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 12-13. However, after further consideration, claims 10-11 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claims 10-11 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelkar et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0042017 A1) hereinafter Kelkar.
Regarding claim 10, Kelkar discloses a system for increasing a degree of automation of a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle,
wherein the driver assistance system [see Paragraph 0078 - discusses that the subordinate vehicle includes the same components of a host vehicle (principle vehicle), see Paragraph 0075 — discusses that the host vehicle includes autonomous driving systems, driver-assists systems, acc systems - the subordinate vehicle includes autonomous driving systems, driver-assists systems, acc systems] includes at least one first sensor [see Paragraphs 0060-0061 - discusses that a subordinate vehicle has at least one sensor], at least one first computing unit [see Paragraph 0078 - discusses that the subordinate vehicle includes the same components of a host vehicle (principle vehicle), see Paragraphs 0066 and see Paragraph 0075 — discusses that the host vehicle (subordinate vehicle) includes computing devices], and at least one actuator as components [see Paragraph 0078 - discusses that the subordinate vehicle includes the same components of a host vehicle (principle vehicle), see Paragraph 0125 -— discusses adjusting the speed of the host vehicle, see Paragraph 0187 — discusses a vehicle system of the host vehicle controls the host vehicle — in order to perform adjustments of an autonomous vehicle, actuator(s) would be required, therefore subordinate vehicle has actuators in order to perform controls/adjustments], the degree of automation of the driver assistance system places safety requirements on the at least one sensor [see Paragraph 0095 — discusses performing a compatibility check on sensors of the vehicles to make sure the sensors have a field of view], the at least one computing unit [see Paragraph 0088 — discusses determining whether a vehicles software is up to date to increase functionality of the level/degree of autonomy, see Paragraph 0095 — discusses performing a compatibility check on the system of the vehicle(s)], and the at least one actuator [see Paragraph 0088 — discusses reducing functionality (level of autonomy is reduced) of a vehicle when there is an accident, see Paragraph 0089 — discusses that the damage occurs to the control module -— reducing autonomy levels would cause an SAE level to drop resulting in less actuators on the vehicle being controlled, therefore the safety requirements are placed on the actuators], wherein a higher degree of automation places higher requirements than a lower degree of automation [see Paragraph 0151], the components of the driver assistance system are configured to meet safety requirements up to a specified degree [see Paragraph 0088 — discusses changing the level of autonomy by decreasing/increasing functionality when component(s) are faulty/updated, see Paragraph 0095 — discusses a compatibility check determines whether the vehicles systems/sensors are met for cooperative automation (vehicles can drive safely together)], by which the degree of automation to be achieved by the driver assistance system is limited [see Paragraphs 0092-0093 — discusses determining whether the host vehicle and other vehicle have a predetermined differential autonomy to allow the vehicles to share autonomy], the system is configured to:
identify a road user in the surroundings of the motor vehicle [see Paragraph 0094 - discusses a road user (principle vehicle) broadcast messages, see Paragraph 0085 - discusses that the broadcast message from the principal vehicle includes a vehicle identifier, a motor vehicle (subordinate vehicle) identifies the broadcasting principle vehicle using a unique identifier of the vehicle identifier, see Paragraph 0091 - discusses that broadcasting is performed when the subordinate vehicle is sensed within the environment],
establish that the road user comprises at least one second sensor [see Paragraph 0105 — discusses that sensor capabilities (includes type of sensor) are included in the broadcasting message from the principle vehicle to the subordinate vehicle, the broadcasting message that is sent from principle vehicle to subordinate vehicle indicates level of autonomy (of the software of the computing unit), the subordinate vehicle receives the principle vehicles broadcast message and determines the type of sensor during a compatibility check] and at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0080 - discusses that the vehicles (e.g. principle vehicle 106 and subordinate vehicle 108) in Figure 1 are equipped for computer communication (see Paragraph 0032 - discusses that computer communication refers to communication between at least two computing devices and occurs over at least a wireless network), and see Paragraph 0115 - discusses that cooperative position is a physical arrangement that facilitates cooperative automation by facilitating computer communication - a first computing unit establishes connection with a second computing unit in order to perform cooperative automation, see Paragraph 0092 - discusses a compatibility check is performed at the motor vehicle; the autonomy level of the road user is determined (see Paragraph 0105 - broadcast message from road user includes autonomy level), when the vehicles have a predetermined differential autonomy (based on a determination of software in each of the computing devices), then cooperative positioning is performed – when the compatibility check is performed it is determined that a second computing device exists because there is communication and the software of a computing device is checked against another software of another computing device],
check whether the driver assistance system meets the safety requirements of the higher degree of automation upon use of the at least one second sensor [see Paragraph 0095 - discusses after receiving the broadcast message from the principle vehicle, the subordinate vehicle determines the compatibility check (determines that an amount of sensors (of the principle vehicle) have a predetermined field of view (safety requirement)) of the sensor/system requirements for cooperative automation/perception, see Paragraphs 0104-0105 - discusses that the broadcast message from the principle vehicle includes sensor capability (e.g., number of sensors, sensor range, type of sensors, etc.)] and the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0048, Paragraphs 0092-0095, see Paragraphs 0104-1015 - discusses that the subordinate vehicle and the principle vehicle are operating on a roadway (see Figure 1 below), the vehicles are determined to be each autonomous based on the compatibility check, the compatibility check involves determining whether a differential predetermined level of autonomy exists between the vehicles and that a requisite number of sensors have a predetermined field of view (safety requirements) - in Figure 1 below, the principle vehicle is driving along the roadway (the second computing unit is performing the SAE Level of driving - being used) and the subordinate vehicle (the first computing unit is performing the SAE Level of driving - being used) is also driving along the roadway, the principle vehicle transmits a broadcast message indicating the autonomy level to the subordinate vehicle, the subordinate vehicle (the driving assistance system includes the first computing unit) performs the compatibility check that determines whether the differential predetermined level of autonomy exists], and
PNG
media_image1.png
278
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kelkar
increase the degree of automation of the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle to the higher degree of automation by using the at least one second sensor and the at least one second computing unit if the driver assistance system meets the safety requirements of the higher degree of automation upon use of the at least one second sensor and the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0095 — discusses determining that principle vehicles sensors (second sensors) have a requisite number of sensors with a predetermined field of view (meet safety requirements for cooperative automation) during the compatibility check at the subordinate vehicle, see Paragraph 0115 - discusses the cooperative automation between the subordinate vehicle and the principle vehicle is determined based on the number of sensors of the principle vehicle, see Paragraph 0184- 0188 — discusses the subordinate vehicle using the sensors of the principle vehicle and subordinate vehicle to determine a sensor map and controlling the principle vehicle and subordinate vehicle based on a behavior plan (cooperative automation) determined using the sensor map — the degree of automation of the subordinate vehicle is increased to control the vehicles in the cooperative automation when using the sensor map when a principle vehicle has a requisite number of sensors (second sensors) and a higher predetermined level of autonomy (the software in the second computing unit)].
Regarding claim 11, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein a driver assistance system of the road user comprises the at least one second sensor and the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0075 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes a driver assistance system (the computing device 202, the sensors 206, and vehicle systems 204), see Paragraph 0075 — discusses that the host (principle) vehicle includes autonomous driving systems, driver-assists systems, acc systems], the driver assistance system of the road user is configured to control the road user in an automated manner [see Paragraphs 0124-0125 - discusses generating plans to control the principle vehicles position using a behavior planning module], and the system is configured to specify to the driver assistance system of the road user to control the road user in an automated manner such that the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle can use the at least one second sensor and the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraphs 0184-0189 - discusses the subordinate vehicle using the principle vehicles sensor data (sensor map determined based on second sensor) and autonomy level (increased decision making based on the second computing unit) to make decisions for the subordinate vehicle and principle vehicle].
Regarding claim 14, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user comprises at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0101 – discusses the road user performs a compatibility check (this is done at a computing device aboard the road user), and see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0075 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes the computing device 202], and the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle is configured to use the at least one second computing unit as a redundant computing path to a computing path on the at least one first computing unit [see Paragraphs 0096-0097 and 0099 - discusses that the second computing unit of the principle vehicles determines whether the vehicle paths are the same/compatible using information from the subordinate vehicle, the principle vehicle broadcast messages (see Paragraph 0090 - discusses broadcast message includes planned route information) for a compatibility check (of the planned route) at the subordinate vehicle, see Paragraph 0101 - discusses entering shared autonomy (principle vehicle driving along the same route controlling the subordinate vehicle) after a successful compatibility check of the broadcast message].
Regarding claim 15, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user comprises at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0101 – discusses the road user performs a compatibility check (this is done at a computing device aboard the road user), and see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0075 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes the computing device 202], and the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle is configured to use the at least one second computing unit as a redundant computing path to a computing path on the at least one first computing unit [see Paragraphs 0096-0097 and 0099 - discusses that the second computing unit of the principle vehicles determines whether the vehicle paths are the same/compatible using information from the subordinate vehicle, the principle vehicle broadcast messages (see Paragraph 0090 - discusses broadcast message includes planned route information) for a compatibility check (of the planned route) at the subordinate vehicle, see Paragraph 0101 - discusses entering shared autonomy (principle vehicle driving along the same route controlling the subordinate vehicle) after a successful compatibility check of the broadcast message].
Regarding claim 16, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user comprises at least one second sensor [see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0076 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes sensors 206], and the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle is configured to use the at least one second sensor as a sensor diverse from the at least one first sensor [see Paragraphs 0184-0187 - discusses that subordinate vehicles is controlled by the principle vehicle based on the sensor map determined by the sensors on each of the principle vehicle and second vehicle, see Paragraphs 0064 - discusses that the sensors of each vehicle are of different types and/or different configurations - the subordinate vehicle uses a different type of sensor/configuration (second sensor from the principle vehicle) in the sensor map when performing cooperative perception].
Regarding claim 17, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user comprises at least one second sensor [see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0076 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes sensors 206], and the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle is configured to use the at least one second sensor as a sensor diverse from the at least one first sensor [see Paragraphs 0184-0187 - discusses that subordinate vehicles is controlled by the principle vehicle based on the sensor map determined by the sensors on each of the principle vehicle and second vehicle, see Paragraphs 0064 - discusses that the sensors of each vehicle are of different types and/or different configurations - the subordinate vehicle uses a different type of sensor/configuration (second sensor from the principle vehicle) in the sensor map when performing cooperative perception].
Regarding claim 18, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user comprises at least one second sensor [see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0076 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes sensors 206], and the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle is configured to use the at least one second sensor as an additional perspective of the surroundings of the motor vehicle [see Paragraph 0178 and 1085-1087- discusses cooperative perception between a subordinate vehicle and a principal vehicle, the subordinate vehicle provides sensor data, a sensor map is determined based on the second sensor and the first sensor, vehicle control for the subordinate vehicle is based on the sensor map (second sensor data from the second sensor of the principle vehicle), see Figure 1 below - depicts the sensors of each vehicle having different perspectives].
PNG
media_image1.png
278
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kelkar
Regarding claim 19, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user comprises at least one second sensor [see Paragraphs 0066-0068 and 0076 - discusses that the principal vehicle includes sensors 206], and the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle is configured to use the at least one second sensor as an additional perspective of the surroundings of the motor vehicle [see Paragraph 0178 and 1085-1087- discusses cooperative perception between a subordinate vehicle and a principal vehicle, the subordinate vehicle provides sensor data, a sensor map is determined based on the second sensor and the first sensor, vehicle control for the subordinate vehicle is based on the sensor map (second sensor data from the second sensor of the principle vehicle), see Figure 1 below - depicts the sensors of each vehicle having different perspectives].
PNG
media_image1.png
278
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kelkar
Regarding claim 20, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein the system is configured to identify the road user in the surroundings of the motor vehicle in a congestion situation [see Paragraph 0091 - discusses identifying vehicles within a predetermined distance that are sensed, see Paragraph 0085 – discusses that a subordinate vehicle identifies a principal vehicle based on a vehicle identifier in the broadcast message sent from the principal vehicle when the principal vehicle senses the subordinate vehicle within a distance using a sensor, see Figure 12 below - depicts a congestion scenario (multiple subordinate and principal vehicles)].
PNG
media_image2.png
364
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of Kelkar
Regarding claim 21, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Kelkar further discloses wherein the system is configured to identify the road user in the surroundings of the motor vehicle in a congestion situation [see Paragraph 0091 - discusses identifying vehicles within a predetermined distance that are sensed, see Paragraph 0085 – discusses that a subordinate vehicle identifies a principal vehicle based on a vehicle identifier in the broadcast message sent from the principal vehicle when the principal vehicle senses the subordinate vehicle within a distance using a sensor, see Figure 12 below - depicts a congestion scenario (multiple subordinate and principal vehicles)].
PNG
media_image2.png
364
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of Kelkar
Regarding claim 22, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user is an object of a traffic infrastructure [see Figure 12 above - depicts principle vehicle(s) in traffic].
Regarding claim 23, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Kelkar further discloses wherein the road user is an object of a traffic infrastructure [see Figure 12 above - depicts principle vehicle(s) in traffic].
Claim 24 is analogous to claim 10 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelkar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelkar in view of Ng et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0135075 A1) hereinafter Ng.
Regarding claim 12, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 10. Kelkar further discloses wherein the system is configured to:
check whether the driver assistance system meets the safety requirements of the increased degree of automation upon additional use of the at least one second sensor and/or the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0196 - discusses ending share autonomy, see Paragraphs 0091 and 0095 - discusses sending broadcast messages from the subordinate vehicle to the principle vehicle based on proximity - after ending shared autonomy, the subordinate vehicle detects the principle vehicle again and performs the compatibility check again after receiving the second broadcast message from the principle vehicle for the second sensors (see Paragraph 0095 - discusses after receiving the broadcast message from the principle vehicle, the subordinate vehicle determines the compatibility check (determines that an amount of sensors have a predetermined view (safety requirement) of the sensor/system requirements for cooperative automation with the principle vehicle, see Paragraphs 0104-0105 - discusses that the broadcast message from the principle vehicle includes sensor capability (e.g., number of sensors, sensor range, type of sensors, etc.)) and the second computing unit (see Paragraph 0048, Paragraphs 0092-0095, see Paragraphs 0104-1015 - discusses that the road user and the principle vehicle are operating on a roadway (see Figure 1 below), the vehicles are determined to be each autonomous based on the compatibility check, the compatibility check involves determining that the differential predetermined level of autonomy exists between the vehicles and that a requisite number of sensors have a predetermined field of view (safety requirements) - the principle vehicle is driving along the roadway in Figure 1 using an SAE Level (the second computing unit is performing the SAE Level of driving - being used) and the subordinate vehicle (the driving assistance system includes the first computing unit) is also driving along the roadway using an SAE Level, the principle vehicle transmits a broadcast message indicating the autonomy level to the subordinate vehicle, the subordinate vehicle (the driving assistance system includes the first computing unit) performs the compatibility check that determines whether the differential predetermined level of autonomy exists and the sensors (principle vehicle) have a predetermined field of view (safety requirements))], and
PNG
media_image1.png
278
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kelkar
increase the degree of automation of the motor vehicle to the increased degree of automation by using the at least one second sensor and/or the at least one second computing unit if the driver assistance system meets the safety requirements of the increased degree of automation upon additional use of the at least one second sensor and/or the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0095 — discusses determining that principle vehicles sensors (second sensors) have a requisite number of sensors with a predetermined field of view (meet safety requirements for cooperative automation), see Paragraph 0115 - discusses the cooperative automation between the subordinate vehicle and the principle vehicle is determined based on the number of sensors of the principle vehicle, see Paragraph 0184- 0188 — discusses the subordinate vehicle using the sensors of the principle vehicle and subordinate vehicle to determine a sensor map and controlling the principle vehicle and principle vehicle based on a behavior plan (cooperative automation) determined using the sensor map — the degree of automation is increased to control the vehicles in the cooperative automation when using the sensor map when a principle vehicle has a requisite number of sensors (second sensors) and a higher predetermined level of autonomy (the software in the second computing unit)].
However, Kelkar fails to disclose wherein the system is configured to:
decompose the safety requirements of the higher degree of automation onto the at least one first sensor, the at least one second sensor, the at least one first computing unit, and/or the at least one second computing unit.
Ng discloses wherein the system is configured to:
decompose the safety requirements of the higher degree of automation onto at least one first computing unit [see Paragraphs 0005, 0024, 0028, 0088, and 0090 – discusses decomposing safety requirements for a behavior planning component for a collision avoidance component (first computing unit) for a host vehicle].
Ng suggests that by decomposing safety requirements onto a computing system prevents any violation of safety goals for an autonomous vehicle [see Paragraph 0006]. Further, robustness of the computing system is improved for the autonomous vehicle [see Paragraph 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify computing system as taught by Kelkar to have a decomposition of safety requirements as taught by Ng in order to prevent any violation of safety goals and to improve the robustness of the computing system [Ng, see Paragraph 0006].
Regarding claim 13, Kelkar discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Kelkar further discloses wherein the system is configured to:
check whether the driver assistance system meets the safety requirements of the increased degree of automation upon additional use of the at least one second sensor and/or the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0196 - discusses ending share autonomy, see Paragraphs 0091 and 0095 - discusses sending broadcast messages from the subordinate vehicle to the principle vehicle based on proximity - after ending shared autonomy, the subordinate vehicle detects the principle vehicle again and performs the compatibility check again after receiving the second broadcast message from the principle vehicle for the second sensors (see Paragraph 0095 - discusses after receiving the broadcast message from the principle vehicle, the subordinate vehicle determines the compatibility check (determines that an amount of sensors have a predetermined view (safety requirement) of the sensor/system requirements for cooperative automation with the principle vehicle, see Paragraphs 0104-0105 - discusses that the broadcast message from the principle vehicle includes sensor capability (e.g., number of sensors, sensor range, type of sensors, etc.)) and the second computing unit (see Paragraph 0048, Paragraphs 0092-0095, see Paragraphs 0104-1015 - discusses that the road user and the principle vehicle are operating on a roadway (see Figure 1 below), the vehicles are determined to be each autonomous based on the compatibility check, the compatibility check involves determining that the differential predetermined level of autonomy exists between the vehicles and that a requisite number of sensors have a predetermined field of view (safety requirements) - the principle vehicle is driving along the roadway in Figure 1 using an SAE Level (the second computing unit is performing the SAE Level of driving - being used) and the subordinate vehicle (the driving assistance system includes the first computing unit) is also driving along the roadway using an SAE Level, the principle vehicle transmits a broadcast message indicating the autonomy level to the subordinate vehicle, the subordinate vehicle (the driving assistance system includes the first computing unit) performs the compatibility check that determines whether the differential predetermined level of autonomy exists and the sensors (principle vehicle) have a predetermined field of view (safety requirements))], and
PNG
media_image1.png
278
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kelkar
increase the degree of automation of the motor vehicle to the increased degree of automation by using the at least one second sensor and/or the at least one second computing unit if the driver assistance system meets the safety requirements of the increased degree of automation upon additional use of the at least one second sensor and/or the at least one second computing unit [see Paragraph 0095 — discusses determining that principle vehicles sensors (second sensors) have a requisite number of sensors with a predetermined field of view (meet safety requirements for cooperative automation), see Paragraph 0115 - discusses the cooperative automation between the subordinate vehicle and the principle vehicle is determined based on the number of sensors of the principle vehicle, see Paragraph 0184- 0188 — discusses the subordinate vehicle using the sensors of the principle vehicle and subordinate vehicle to determine a sensor map and controlling the principle vehicle and principle vehicle based on a behavior plan (cooperative automation) determined using the sensor map — the degree of automation is increased to control the vehicles in the cooperative automation when using the sensor map when a principle vehicle has a requisite number of sensors (second sensors) and a higher predetermined level of autonomy (the software in the second computing unit)].
However, Kelkar fails to disclose wherein the system is configured to:
decompose the safety requirements of the higher degree of automation onto the at least one first sensor, the at least one second sensor, the at least one first computing unit, and/or the at least one second computing unit.
Ng discloses wherein the system is configured to:
decompose the safety requirements of the higher degree of automation onto at least one first computing unit [see Paragraphs 0005, 0024, 0028, 0088, and 0090 – discusses decomposing safety requirements for a behavior planning component for a collision avoidance component (first computing unit) for a host vehicle].
Ng suggests that by decomposing safety requirements onto a computing system prevents any violation of safety goals for an autonomous vehicle [see Paragraph 0006]. Further, robustness of the computing system is improved for the autonomous vehicle [see Paragraph 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify computing system as taught by Kelkar to have a decomposition of safety requirements as taught by Ng in order to prevent any violation of safety goals and to improve the robustness of the computing system [Ng, see Paragraph 0006].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter, and are not persuasive, as noted supra in the rejections of that claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/S.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665