DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The preliminary amendment filed on January 25, 2024, has been acknowledged. Claims 1-13, as amended, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 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: “drive test device for conducting a drive test” and “signal control unit … that transmits”, each in claim 1, invoke 112 (f). “drive test device for conducting a drive test”, in claim 12, invokes 112 (f). “drive test device control unit that controls a drive test device for conducting a drive test” and “a signal control unit that transmits”, in claim 13, invokes 112 (f). Each of these limitations recite a generic placeholder, recites a function and does not recite any additional structural elements, as such they invoke 112 (f). Looking to the applicant’s specification “drive test device” and “drive test device control unit” a drive test device is a rotating body and a dynamometer as stated in paragraphs [0025] and [0026] and shown in figures 1 and 3 as item 2. The “signal control unit … that transmits” and “a signal control unit that transmits” from the applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0029] the function of the signal control unit is carried out by the test device 5. As stated in paragraph [0028] establishes that the test device 5 is a dedicated or general-purpose computer.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP 2,947,448 A1) hereafter Tanaka, in view of Chung et al. (US 2019/0312892 A1) hereafter Chung.
As per claim 1, Tanaka discloses a test system that conducts a test of a test subject that is a vehicle or a part thereof that includes an electronic control device (Tanaka paragraph [0028] discloses that the invention includes a vehicle testing apparatus), comprising:
a drive test device for conducting a drive test on the test subject (From the applicant’s originally filed specification a drive test device is a rotating body and a dynamometer as stated in paragraphs [0025] and [0026] and shown in figures 1 and 3 as item 2. Tanaka paragraph [0030]; establishes the use of a dynamometer and includes rollers which are the rotating body which the wheels of the vehicle are placed. This is shown in Tanaka figure 1 element 111);
an automatic driving robot that drives the test subject (From the applicant’s originally filed specification the automatic driving robot is a set of actuators which are configured to be operated, this includes for operating “the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, shift lever, ignition key, or operation switches” as discussed in paragraph [0027]. Tanaka paragraph [0031]; discloses a driving robot set into the driver’s seat which includes a set of actuators and used to operate the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, clutch pedal, shift lever, ignition key and other components); and
a signal control unit that is connected to the test subject and that transmits, to the electronic control device, a test signal for evaluating the electronic control device (From the applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0029] the function of the signal control unit is carried out by the test device 5. As stated in paragraph [0028] establishes that the test device 5 is a dedicated or general-purpose computer. Tanaka paragraph [0032] establishes a control device which is computer equipment including a CPU. Further the control device commands the driving robot in a running pattern and commands the chassis dynamometer to match a load. Paragraph [0033] establishes that the control device operates the programs and runs the patterns, which is the test signal for evaluating the device. Paragraph [0035] establishes that the that the test device is connected to the ECU and compares the test pattern with the actual values to determine if there are any deviations. Paragraph [0036] discloses that the test signal or pattern for evaluating the components is fed into the robot and used to control the operation of the vehicle).
While Tanaka establishes connecting to the vehicle as it sends and receives information from the vehicle including the ECU, it is not explicit that the connection is by wire or wirelessly.
Chung, which like Tanaka talks about evaluating the operating parameters of a vehicle, teaches it is known that the for the testing or diagnostic device to communicate with the vehicle network either wired or wirelessly (Chung paragraphs [0135] establishes that the diagnostic device is for a vehicle and can include a processor, network interface, and memory. The diagnostic device is used to diagnose the state of the vehicle similar to what is discussed in Tanaka. Paragraph [0136] teaches that the state of the vehicle is determined using the information which is collected. Paragraph [0137] establishes that the connection to the vehicle can be through either a wired or wireless method. Paragraph [0139]; teaches that these techniques can be used for the physical faults which are similar to what is shown in Tanaka but also for cyberattacks which may be diagnosed and fixed. Paragraph [0139]; teaches that the system is used to autonomously diagnosing a cybersecurity problem and outputs the security state based on the ECU control sensor data. Since the Tanaka reference already determines operating state of the vehicle and enters patterns to simulate states to test for faults it would have been obvious to communicate with the vehicle using either wired or wireless forms of communication. As shown in Chung either wired or wireless is a known means for connecting to the vehicle and sending and receiving data. Additionally, Chung establishes that the same testing of operational data can be used for determining if the problems are physical in nature or possible cybersecurity threats. As such it would have been obvious to simulate situations as shown in Tanaka and to use that operational data to determine if faults or problems occur).
Tanaka discloses a testing system which utilizes a drive test device in the form of rollers and a dynamometer. Tanaka establishes the use of an automatic driving robot in the form of actuators controlling the operation of the vehicle. While Tanaka discusses a signal control unit that is connected to the vehicle and is used to transmit test signals or patters to be evaluated it is not explicit that the data is communicated to the vehicle wire or wirelessly.
Chung teaches it is known to communicate with a vehicle using either wired or wireless means of communication. Like Tanaka, Chung establishes comparing the operational state information to expected values to determine if their deviations or potential problems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vehicle testing system of Tanaka the ability to communicate with the vehicle either wired or wirelessly as taught by Chung since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Chung, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle testing system provided by Tanaka, with the ability to communicate with the vehicle either wired or wirelessly as taught by Chung, for the purposes of using known techniques for communicating with the vehicle. Since the Tanaka reference already determines operating state of the vehicle and enters patterns to simulate states to test for faults it would have been obvious to communicate with the vehicle using either wired or wireless forms of communication. As shown in Chung either is a known means for connecting to the vehicle and sending and receiving data. Additionally Chung establishes that the same testing of operational data can be used for determining if the problems are physical in nature or possible cybersecurity threats. As such it would have been obvious to simulate situations as shown in Tanaka and to use that operational data to determine if faults or problems occur.
As per claim 2, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 1, Tanaka further discloses wherein the test subject is brought into a predetermined state in which the test can be initiated by controlling at least one of the automatic driving robot and the drive test device (Tanaka paragraph [0028]; discloses that the vehicle can be brought into a predetermined running state which can be used to test the vehicle. This is done by controlling an automatic driving robot); and
the signal control unit inputs the test signal to the electronic control device in this state (Tanaka paragraph [0032]; discloses that the test signal is input into the control device to load the actual running values and determine if there is a difference as shown in paragraph [0035]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 1, Tanaka further discloses wherein the drive test is a bench test device including a rotating body on which a wheel of the test subject is mounted, and the rotating body is supported to be rotatable in accordance with a steering direction of the mounted wheel (Tanaka paragraph [0030]; discloses that the drive test is a bench as discussed in paragraph [0003] the bench includes rollers 111 onto which the wheels of the vehicle are placed or mounted. The rollers are a rotating body that is supported and rotatable in accordance with the steering direction of the mounted wheel as can be seen in figure 1).
As per claim 4, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 1, Tanaka further discloses wherein the signal control unit obtains a response signal output from the electronic control device when the test signal is input (Tanaka paragraph [0053] discloses that the response signal output from the control device when the test signal or pattern is entered), and
the test system further comprises a storage part that associates and stores the test signal and the response signal (Tanaka paragraph [0053] discloses that the system includes a storage part that associates the outputs and the measured differences from the expected values and stores these values in memory).
As per claim 5, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 4, Chung further teaches further comprising a test subject monitoring unit that monitors behavior of the test subject (Chung paragraphs [0073]-[0075]; teaches that the test subject or vehicle is monitored for state transition analysis or time-series (sequence pattern) analysis using a series of received electronic control commands. This monitors the behavior of the vehicle to determine if signs of abnormality have been received. One example provided in Chung the system detects while the vehicle moving forward at 60 km/h it receives a command to shift into reverse gear. This is found to be an abnormality and signs of an attack.), wherein the storage part further associates and stores behavior information indicating the behavior of the test subject when the test signal is input (Chung paragraph [0083] teaches that the behavior information and associated information is stored in the memory. This is used as shown in [0084] to identify the attacker device and attack target).
As per claim 9, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 1, Chung further teaches wherein the test signal includes: a cyber security test signal for evaluating a cyber security function of the electronic control device, or a software update test signal for evaluating a software update function of the electronic control device (Chung paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; teaches that the cybersecurity function checks the integrity of the data, thus determine vulnerabilities. The cybersecurity diagnostic tool provides a test function by scanning the security diagnostic data which is stored in memory. Paragraph [0120] teaches that the system includes a cybersecurity diagnostic tool or function which scans a cybersecurity state. Chung paragraph [0054] teaches updating vehicle software for providing services.).
As per claim 10, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 9, Chung further teaches wherein the cyber security test signal includes a functionality test signal for carrying out a functionality test, a vulnerability scan signal for carrying out a vulnerability scan, a fuzz test signal for carrying out a fuzz test, or a penetration test signal for carrying out a penetration test (Chung paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; teaches that the cybersecurity function checks the integrity of the data, thus determine vulnerabilities. The cybersecurity diagnostic tool provides a test function by scanning the security diagnostic data which is stored in memory. Paragraph [0120] teaches that the system includes a cybersecurity diagnostic tool or function which scans a cybersecurity state).
As per claim 11, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 9, Chung further teaches wherein the software update test signal imitates a software update program of the electronic control device (Chung Paragraphs [0116]-[0117]; teaches that the system can update the software remotely and the integrity of the update can be tested to determine if there are defects in the integrity).
As per claim 12, Tanaka discloses a test method for conducting a test of a test subject that is a vehicle or a part thereof that includes an electronic control device (Tanaka paragraph [0028] discloses that the invention includes a vehicle testing apparatus), comprising
controlling the test subject via at least one of a drive test device (From the applicant’s originally filed specification a drive test device is a rotating body and a dynamometer as stated in paragraphs [0025] and [0026] and shown in figures 1 and 3 as item 2) for conducting a drive test of the test subject or an automatic driving robot (From the applicant’s originally filed specification the automatic driving robot is a set of actuators which are configured to be operated, this includes for operating “the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, shift lever, ignition key, or operation switches” as discussed in paragraph [0027]) that drives the test subject (Tanaka paragraph [0030]; establishes the use of a dynamometer and includes rollers which are the rotating body which the wheels of the vehicle are placed. This is shown in Tanaka figure 1 element 111. This is the drive test device as described in the applicant’s originally filed specification. Tanaka paragraph [0031]; discloses a driving robot set into the driver’s seat which includes a set of actuators and used to operate the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, clutch pedal, shift lever, ignition key and other components); and
transmitting, to the electronic control device, a test signal for evaluating the electronic control device (Tanaka paragraph [0032] establishes a control device which is computer equipment including a CPU. Further the control device commands the driving robot in a running pattern and commands the chassis dynamometer to match a load. Paragraph [0033] establishes that the control device operates the programs and runs the patterns, which is the test signal for evaluating the device. Paragraph [0035] establishes that the that the test device is connected to the ECU and compares the test pattern with the actual values to determine if there are any deviations. Paragraph [0036] discloses that the test signal or pattern for evaluating the components is fed into the robot and used to control the operation of the vehicle).
While Tanaka establishes connecting to the vehicle as it sends and receives information from the vehicle including the ECU, it is not explicit that the connection is by wired communication or wireless communication.
Chung, which like Tanaka talks about evaluating the operating parameters of a vehicle, teaches it is known that the for the testing or diagnostic device to communicate with the vehicle network either wired communication or wireless communication (Chung paragraphs [0135] establishes that the diagnostic device is for a vehicle and can include a processor, network interface, and memory. The diagnostic device is used to diagnose the state of the vehicle similar to what is discussed in Tanaka. Paragraph [0136] teaches that the state of the vehicle is determined using the information which is collected. Paragraph [0137] establishes that the connection to the vehicle can be through either a wired or wireless method. Paragraph [0139]; teaches that these techniques can be used for the physical faults which are similar to what is shown in Tanaka but also for cyberattacks which may be diagnosed and fixed. Paragraph [0139]; teaches that the system is used to autonomously diagnosing a cybersecurity problem and outputs the security state based on the ECU control sensor data. Since the Tanaka reference already determines operating state of the vehicle and enters patterns to simulate states to test for faults it would have been obvious to communicate with the vehicle using either wired or wireless forms of communication. As shown in Chung either wired or wireless is a known means for connecting to the vehicle and sending and receiving data. Additionally, Chung establishes that the same testing of operational data can be used for determining if the problems are physical in nature or possible cybersecurity threats. As such it would have been obvious to simulate situations as shown in Tanaka and to use that operational data to determine if faults or problems occur).
Tanaka discloses a testing system which utilizes a drive test device in the form of rollers and a dynamometer. Tanaka establishes the use of an automatic driving robot in the form of actuators controlling the operation of the vehicle. While Tanaka discusses a signal control unit that is connected to the vehicle and is used to transmit test signals or patters to be evaluated it is not explicit that the data is communicated to the vehicle wire or wirelessly.
Chung teaches it is known to communicate with a vehicle using either wired or wireless means of communication. Like Tanaka, Chung establishes comparing the operational state information to expected values to determine if their deviations or potential problems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vehicle testing system of Tanaka the ability to communicate with the vehicle either wired or wirelessly as taught by Chung since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Chung, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle testing system provided by Tanaka, with the ability to communicate with the vehicle either wired or wirelessly as taught by Chung, for the purposes of using known techniques for communicating with the vehicle. Since the Tanaka reference already determines operating state of the vehicle and enters patterns to simulate states to test for faults it would have been obvious to communicate with the vehicle using either wired or wireless forms of communication. As shown in Chung either is a known means for connecting to the vehicle and sending and receiving data. Additionally Chung establishes that the same testing of operational data can be used for determining if the problems are physical in nature or possible cybersecurity threats. As such it would have been obvious to simulate situations as shown in Tanaka and to use that operational data to determine if faults or problems occur.
As per claim 13, Tanaka discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium on which is stored a program for a test system that conducts a test of a test subject that is a vehicle or a part thereof that includes an electronic control device (Tanaka paragraph [0028] discloses that the invention includes a vehicle testing apparatus. Paragraph [0078]; discloses that the functions can be performed on computers and stored on a medium such as a USB memory which is a non-transitory computer readable medium), the program when executed by a computer causes the computer to function as:
at least one of a drive test device control unit (From the applicant’s originally filed specification a drive test device is a rotating body and a dynamometer as stated in paragraphs [0025] and [0026] and shown in figures 1 and 3 as item 2) that controls a drive test device for conducting a drive test of the test subject and an automatic driving robot control unit (From the applicant’s originally filed specification the automatic driving robot is a set of actuators which are configured to be operated, this includes for operating “the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, shift lever, ignition key, or operation switches” as discussed in paragraph [0027].) that controls an automatic driving robot that drives the test subject (Tanaka paragraph [0030]; establishes the use of a dynamometer and includes rollers which are the rotating body which the wheels of the vehicle are placed. This is shown in Tanaka figure 1 element 111. This is the drive test device as described in the applicant’s originally filed specification. Tanaka paragraph [0031]; discloses a driving robot set into the driver’s seat which includes a set of actuators and used to operate the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, clutch pedal, shift lever, ignition key and other components); and
a signal control unit that transmits, to the electronic control device, a test signal for evaluating the electronic control device (From the applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0029] the function of the signal control unit is carried out by the test device 5. As stated in paragraph [0028] establishes that the test device 5 is a dedicated or general-purpose computer. Tanaka paragraph [0032] establishes a control device which is computer equipment including a CPU. Further the control device commands the driving robot in a running pattern and commands the chassis dynamometer to match a load. Paragraph [0033] establishes that the control device operates the programs and runs the patterns, which is the test signal for evaluating the device. Paragraph [0035] establishes that the that the test device is connected to the ECU and compares the test pattern with the actual values to determine if there are any deviations. Paragraph [0036] discloses that the test signal or pattern for evaluating the components is fed into the robot and used to control the operation of the vehicle).
While Tanaka establishes connecting to the vehicle as it sends and receives information from the vehicle including the ECU, it is not explicit that the connection is by wired communication or wireless communication.
Chung, which like Tanaka talks about evaluating the operating parameters of a vehicle, teaches it is known that the for the testing or diagnostic device to communicate with the vehicle network either wired communication or wireless communication (Chung paragraphs [0135] establishes that the diagnostic device is for a vehicle and can include a processor, network interface, and memory. The diagnostic device is used to diagnose the state of the vehicle similar to what is discussed in Tanaka. Paragraph [0136] teaches that the state of the vehicle is determined using the information which is collected. Paragraph [0137] establishes that the connection to the vehicle can be through either a wired or wireless method. Paragraph [0139]; teaches that these techniques can be used for the physical faults which are similar to what is shown in Tanaka but also for cyberattacks which may be diagnosed and fixed. Paragraph [0139]; teaches that the system is used to autonomously diagnosing a cybersecurity problem and outputs the security state based on the ECU control sensor data. Since the Tanaka reference already determines operating state of the vehicle and enters patterns to simulate states to test for faults it would have been obvious to communicate with the vehicle using either wired or wireless forms of communication. As shown in Chung either wired or wireless is a known means for connecting to the vehicle and sending and receiving data. Additionally, Chung establishes that the same testing of operational data can be used for determining if the problems are physical in nature or possible cybersecurity threats. As such it would have been obvious to simulate situations as shown in Tanaka and to use that operational data to determine if faults or problems occur).
Tanaka discloses a testing system which utilizes a drive test device in the form of rollers and a dynamometer. Tanaka establishes the use of an automatic driving robot in the form of actuators controlling the operation of the vehicle. While Tanaka discusses a signal control unit that is connected to the vehicle and is used to transmit test signals or patters to be evaluated it is not explicit that the data is communicated to the vehicle wire or wirelessly.
Chung teaches it is known to communicate with a vehicle using either wired or wireless means of communication. Like Tanaka, Chung establishes comparing the operational state information to expected values to determine if their deviations or potential problems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vehicle testing system of Tanaka the ability to communicate with the vehicle either wired or wirelessly as taught by Chung since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Chung, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle testing system provided by Tanaka, with the ability to communicate with the vehicle either wired or wirelessly as taught by Chung, for the purposes of using known techniques for communicating with the vehicle. Since the Tanaka reference already determines operating state of the vehicle and enters patterns to simulate states to test for faults it would have been obvious to communicate with the vehicle using either wired or wireless forms of communication. As shown in Chung either is a known means for connecting to the vehicle and sending and receiving data. Additionally Chung establishes that the same testing of operational data can be used for determining if the problems are physical in nature or possible cybersecurity threats. As such it would have been obvious to simulate situations as shown in Tanaka and to use that operational data to determine if faults or problems occur.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP 2,947,448 A1) hereafter Tanaka, in view of Chung et al. (US 2019/0312892 A1) hereafter Chung, further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2002/0134169 A1) hereafter Takeda.
As per claim 6, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 5, the combination however fails to further discloses wherein when predetermined behavior that has an influence on safety of the test subject is detected by the test subject monitoring unit, a stop sequence is executed in at least one of the drive test device and the automatic driving robot.
Takeda, which like the combination talks about monitoring the operation of a vehicle, teaches it is known wherein when predetermined behavior that has an influence on safety of the test subject is detected by the test subject monitoring unit, a stop sequence is executed in at least one of the drive test device and the automatic driving robot (Paragraph [0119]; teaches that like Chung it monitors the behavior of the vehicle. If it is determined the behavior of the vehicle is unstable and has an influence on safety, the system initiates a stop sequence of the testing device to improve safety. Since the combination already monitors behavior and the operation of the vehicle it would have been obvious to execute a stop sequence when the operation or behavior is considered to be unsafe as shown in Takeda).
Tanaka discloses a testing system which utilizes a drive test device in the form of rollers and a dynamometer. Tanaka establishes the use of an automatic driving robot in the form of actuators controlling the operation of the vehicle. Chung teaches it is known to communicate with a vehicle using either wired or wireless means of communication. The combination however fails to execute a stop sequence when the behavior has an influence on safety.
Takeda which like the combination talks about monitoring the operation and behavior of a vehicle during testing. Takeda establishes it is known when testing to automatically stop when the behavior of the vehicle is unstable. Takeda establishes this improves safety in performing the evaluation tests.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vehicle testing system of Tanaka and Chung the ability to top stop when the behavior of the vehicle is influenced by the test as taught by Takeda since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Takeda, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle testing system provided by Tanaka and Chung, with the ability to top stop when the behavior of the vehicle is influenced by the test as taught by Takeda, for the purposes of improving safety. Since the combination already monitors behavior and the operation of the vehicle it would have been obvious to execute a stop sequence when the operation or behavior is considered to be unsafe as shown in Takeda.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP 2,947,448 A1) hereafter Tanaka, in view of Chung et al. (US 2019/0312892 A1) hereafter Chung, further in view of Tedeschi (US 5,524,476 A) hereafter Tedeschi.
As per claim 7, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 5, the combination however fails to further discloses wherein the test subject monitoring unit includes a camera that captures still or moving pictures of the test subject.
Tedeschi, which like the combination talks about vehicle testing, teaches it is known wherein the test subject monitoring unit includes a camera that captures still or moving pictures of the test subject (Figure 1, Col. 2, line 47 through Col. 3, line 4; teaches that the vehicle monitoring unit includes a camera which captures video of the test vehicle. Tedeschi establishes this is done to observe the vehicle and prevent fraud).
Tanaka discloses a testing system which utilizes a drive test device in the form of rollers and a dynamometer. Tanaka establishes the use of an automatic driving robot in the form of actuators controlling the operation of the vehicle. Chung teaches it is known to communicate with a vehicle using either wired or wireless means of communication. The combination however fails to establish wherein the test subject monitoring unit includes a camera that captures still or moving pictures of the test subject.
Tedeschi which like the combination talks about testing vehicles. Tedeschi establishes it is known wherein the test subject monitoring unit includes a camera that captures still or moving pictures of the test subject. Tedeschi establishes this helps prevent fraudulent testing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vehicle testing system of Tanaka and Chung the ability to include a camera that captures still or moving pictures of the test subject as taught by Tedeschi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Tedeschi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle testing system provided by Tanaka and Chung, with the ability to include a camera that captures still or moving pictures of the test subject as taught by Tedeschi, for the purposes of preventing fraud.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP 2,947,448 A1) hereafter Tanaka, in view of Chung et al. (US 2019/0312892 A1) hereafter Chung, further in view of Fieramosca et al. (US 6,021,366 A) hereafter Fieramosca.
As per claim 8, the combination of Tanaka and Chung teaches the test system according to claim 5, the combination however fails to further discloses wherein the test subject monitoring unit is configured to measure electric current or electromagnetic waves in the test subject.
Fieramosca, which like the combination talks about evaluating a vehicle, teaches it is known wherein the test subject monitoring unit is configured to measure electric current or electromagnetic waves in the test subject (Col. 2, lines 25-29; teaches that it is known when testing a vehicle it is known to test the vehicle quality by measuring the electric current flow. Fieramosca establishes that this is done to provide a diagnostic indicator of the vehicle’s electrical system. Since the combination already establishes testing and monitoring a vehicle it would have been obvious to test the vehicle’s electrical system by testing the vehicle electric current as shown in Fieramosca).
Tanaka discloses a testing system which utilizes a drive test device in the form of rollers and a dynamometer. Tanaka establishes the use of an automatic driving robot in the form of actuators controlling the operation of the vehicle. Chung teaches it is known to communicate with a vehicle using either wired or wireless means of communication. The combination however fails to establish wherein the test subject monitoring unit is configured to measure electric current or electromagnetic waves in the test subject.
Fieramosca which like the combination talks about testing vehicles. Fieramosca establishes it is known wherein the test subject monitoring unit is configured to measure electric current. Fieramosca establishes this provides a diagnostic indicator of the vehicle’s electrical system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vehicle testing system of Tanaka and Chung the ability t to measure electric current in the test subject as taught by Fieramosca since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Fieramosca, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle testing system provided by Tanaka and Chung, with the ability t to measure electric current in the test subject as taught by Fieramosca, for the purposes of testing the quality of the vehicle. Since the combination already establishes testing and monitoring a vehicle it would have been obvious to test the vehicle’s electrical system by testing the vehicle electric current as shown in Fieramosca.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoehr et al. (WO 2019/133696 A1) (G01M 17/007, 07-04-2019) – discusses a method for testing using a dynamometer.
Matsui (EP 1219946 A2) (G01M 15/00, 07-03-2002) – discusses a vehicle management system which is used to improve safety.
Shibata et al. (US 2020/0293034 A1) – discusses vehicle controls for autonomous vehicles.
Csicsay et al. (US 2014/0346894 A1) – discusses battery pack testing for a vehicle battery pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571)272-8878. 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.
PAUL R. FISHER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2498
/PAUL R FISHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498 6/28/2025