DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 4/27/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent claims.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in this application because portions of . Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and further where” where “and further wherein” was apparently intended.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising controlling” where “wherein the autonomous agent is adapted to control” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claim 16 recites a “computer-readable medium,” which the specification states may be “any available media that can be accessed by the device” (paragraph 0071). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable media. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Dependent claims inherit the same issue from parent claims and do not resolve it. Examiner suggests adding the word “non-transitory.”
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2019/0361454 A1, hereinafter Zeng) in view of Wu et al. (“The Ensemble Approach to Forecasting: A Review and Synthesis,” 5 January 2022, https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/27301/EnsembleForecasting_SynthesisPaper.pdf, hereinafter Wu).
As to independent claim 1, Zeng teaches an autonomous agent (“FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating an autonomous vehicle in accordance with the disclosed embodiments,” paragraph 0044 lines 1-3) comprising:
at least one computing device (“the controller 34 implements a high-level controller of an autonomous driving system (ADS) 33 as shown in FIG. 3,” paragraph 0068 lines 1-3); and
an autonomous decision system (“The high-level controller 133 includes a map generator module 130, 134 and a vehicle controller module 148. The vehicle controller module 148 includes memory 140 that stores a plurality or ensemble of sensorimotor primitive modules, a scene understanding module 150 and an arbitration and vehicle control module 170,” paragraph 0075 lines 1-6) comprising:
plurality of modules (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” paragraph 0079 lines 1-5), wherein each module is adapted to receive a plurality of input signals (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can map sensing in an environment (as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138) to one or more action(s) that accomplishes a specific vehicle maneuver,” paragraph 0080 lines 1-5), and to output a control signal of a plurality of control signals (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” paragraph 0080 lines 5-11), and further where the autonomous agent is adapted to control the operation of the autonomous agent according to the plurality of control signals (“The control signals 172 are then provided to the actuator system 190, which processes the control signals 172 to generate the appropriate commands to control various vehicle systems and subsystems. In this embodiment, the actuator system 190 includes a low-level controller 192 and a plurality of actuators 194 of the vehicle (e.g., a steering torque or angle controller, a brake system, a throttle system, etc.),” paragraph 0094 lines 1-8).
Zeng does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the plurality of modules is a plurality of ensembles.
Wu teaches a system wherein the plurality of modules is a plurality of ensembles (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” abstract lines 13-16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modules of Zeng to comprise the ensembles of Wu. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely controlling the autonomous agent with a plurality of ensembles (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a system wherein each ensemble of the plurality of ensembles comprises a plurality (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16) of experts (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” Zeng paragraph 0079 lines 1-5) and/or a plurality of ensembles of experts, and each expert is adapted to apply a plurality of rules to a subset of the plurality of input signals (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can map sensing in an environment (as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138) to one or more action(s) that accomplishes a specific vehicle maneuver,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 1-5), and to output a signal (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 5-11).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a system wherein the control signal output (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 5-11) by an ensemble is based on the signals output by the plurality (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16) of experts (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” Zeng paragraph 0079 lines 1-5) or ensembles of experts associated with the ensemble.
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a system wherein each signal output by an expert or ensemble of experts is associated with a confidence, and wherein the control signal output by an ensemble is based on the signals output by the plurality of experts associated with the ensemble weighted by their associated confidence (“Output from each base model is assigned a weight, which depends on some performance criteria of the base models; and the weights from all base models add up to one,” Wu page 4 section “2.2 Weighted Average” line 3 to page 5 line 2).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a system wherein the autonomous agent is an autonomous vehicle (“FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating an autonomous vehicle in accordance with the disclosed embodiments,” Zeng paragraph 0044 lines 1-3).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a system comprising a plurality of sensors (“The sensor system 28 includes one or more sensing devices 40a-40n that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment and/or the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle 10. The sensing devices 40a-40n can include, but are not limited to, radars, lidars, optical cameras, thermal cameras, imager sensors, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, global positioning systems, navigation systems, and/or other sensors,” Zeng paragraph 0047 lines 1-8), and at least some of the plurality of input signals are received from the plurality of sensors (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can map sensing in an environment (as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138) to one or more action(s) that accomplishes a specific vehicle maneuver,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 1-5).
As to independent claim 10, Zeng teaches a method for controlling (“the controller 34 implements a high-level controller of an autonomous driving system (ADS) 33 as shown in FIG. 3,” paragraph 0068 lines 1-3) an autonomous agent (“FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating an autonomous vehicle in accordance with the disclosed embodiments,” paragraph 0044 lines 1-3) comprising:
receiving a plurality of input signals by the autonomous agent (“The sensor system 28 includes one or more sensing devices 40a-40n that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment and/or the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle 10. The sensing devices 40a-40n can include, but are not limited to, radars, lidars, optical cameras, thermal cameras, imager sensors, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, global positioning systems, navigation systems, and/or other sensors,” paragraph 0047 lines 1-8);
for each module of a plurality of modules of the autonomous agent (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” paragraph 0079 lines 1-5), generating a control signal by the module (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” paragraph 0080 lines 5-11); and
controlling the operation of the autonomous agent according to the generated control signals (“The control signals 172 are then provided to the actuator system 190, which processes the control signals 172 to generate the appropriate commands to control various vehicle systems and subsystems. In this embodiment, the actuator system 190 includes a low-level controller 192 and a plurality of actuators 194 of the vehicle (e.g., a steering torque or angle controller, a brake system, a throttle system, etc.),” paragraph 0094 lines 1-8).
Zeng does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the plurality of modules is a plurality of ensembles.
Wu teaches a method wherein the plurality of modules is a plurality of ensembles (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” abstract lines 13-16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modules of Zeng to comprise the ensembles of Wu. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely controlling the autonomous agent with a plurality of ensembles (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a method wherein each ensemble comprises a plurality of experts and wherein generating the control signal by the ensemble comprises:
each expert (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” Zeng paragraph 0079 lines 1-5) of the plurality (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16) of experts applying a plurality of rules to a subset of the input signals to generate a signal (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 5-11); and
generating the control signal based on the generated signals (“The control signals 172 are then provided to the actuator system 190, which processes the control signals 172 to generate the appropriate commands to control various vehicle systems and subsystems. In this embodiment, the actuator system 190 includes a low-level controller 192 and a plurality of actuators 194 of the vehicle (e.g., a steering torque or angle controller, a brake system, a throttle system, etc.),” Zeng paragraph 0094 lines 1-8).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a method wherein the autonomous agent is an autonomous vehicle (“FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating an autonomous vehicle in accordance with the disclosed embodiments,” Zeng paragraph 0044 lines 1-3).
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a method wherein the autonomous agent comprises a plurality of sensors (“The sensor system 28 includes one or more sensing devices 40a-40n that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment and/or the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle 10. The sensing devices 40a-40n can include, but are not limited to, radars, lidars, optical cameras, thermal cameras, imager sensors, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, global positioning systems, navigation systems, and/or other sensors,” Zeng paragraph 0047 lines 1-8), and at least some of the plurality of input signals are received from the plurality of sensors (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can map sensing in an environment (as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138) to one or more action(s) that accomplishes a specific vehicle maneuver,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 1-5).
As to independent claim 16, Zeng teaches a computer-readable medium with computer executable instructions stored thereon (“In certain embodiments, some or all steps of these methods, and/or substantially equivalent steps, are performed by execution of processor-readable instructions stored or included on a processor-readable medium,” paragraph 0142 lines 28-31) that when executed by a computing device (“the controller 34 implements a high-level controller of an autonomous driving system (ADS) 33 as shown in FIG. 3,” paragraph 0068 lines 1-3) of an autonomous agent (“FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating an autonomous vehicle in accordance with the disclosed embodiments,” paragraph 0044 lines 1-3) cause the computing device to perform a method comprising:
receive a plurality of input signals (“The sensor system 28 includes one or more sensing devices 40a-40n that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment and/or the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle 10. The sensing devices 40a-40n can include, but are not limited to, radars, lidars, optical cameras, thermal cameras, imager sensors, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, global positioning systems, navigation systems, and/or other sensors,” paragraph 0047 lines 1-8);
for each module of a plurality of modules of the autonomous agent (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” paragraph 0079 lines 1-5), generate a control signal by the module (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” paragraph 0080 lines 5-11); and
control the operation of the autonomous agent according to the generated control signals (“The control signals 172 are then provided to the actuator system 190, which processes the control signals 172 to generate the appropriate commands to control various vehicle systems and subsystems. In this embodiment, the actuator system 190 includes a low-level controller 192 and a plurality of actuators 194 of the vehicle (e.g., a steering torque or angle controller, a brake system, a throttle system, etc.),” paragraph 0094 lines 1-8).
Zeng does not appear to expressly teach a medium wherein the plurality of modules is a plurality of ensembles.
Wu teaches a medium wherein the plurality of modules is a plurality of ensembles (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” abstract lines 13-16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modules of Zeng to comprise the ensembles of Wu. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely controlling the autonomous agent with a plurality of ensembles (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a medium wherein each ensemble comprises a plurality of experts and wherein generating the control signal by the ensemble comprises:
each expert (“FIG. 4 illustrates five non-limiting examples of sensorimotor primitive modules: SuperCruise, collision imminent brake/collision imminent steering (CIB/CIS), Lane Change, Construction Zone Handling, and Intersection Handling,” Zeng paragraph 0079 lines 1-5) of the plurality (“In this paper we review and synthesize methods of ensemble forecasting with a unifying framework, categorizing ensemble methods into two broad and not mutually exclusive categories, namely combining models, and combining data; this framework further extends to ensembles of ensembles,” Wu abstract lines 13-16) of experts applying a plurality of rules to a subset of the input signals to generate a signal (“Each sensorimotor primitive module can be used to generate control signals and actuator commands that address a specific driving scenario (e.g., combination of sensed environment, location and navigation goals as represented by the navigation route data and GPS data 136, and the world representation 138, etc.) encountered during operation of an autonomous vehicle,” Zeng paragraph 0080 lines 5-11); and
generating the control signal based on the generated signals (“The control signals 172 are then provided to the actuator system 190, which processes the control signals 172 to generate the appropriate commands to control various vehicle systems and subsystems. In this embodiment, the actuator system 190 includes a low-level controller 192 and a plurality of actuators 194 of the vehicle (e.g., a steering torque or angle controller, a brake system, a throttle system, etc.),” Zeng paragraph 0094 lines 1-8).
As to dependent claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu further teaches a medium wherein the autonomous agent is an autonomous vehicle (“FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating an autonomous vehicle in accordance with the disclosed embodiments,” Zeng paragraph 0044 lines 1-3).
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Wu and Yager (“On the Construction of Hierarchical Fuzzy Systems Models,” February 1998, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/661090).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Zeng/Wu does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is a fuzzy logic rule.
Yager teaches a system wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is a fuzzy logic rule (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ensemble of Zeng/Wu to comprise the fuzzy logic of Yager. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely coordinating the ensembles using fuzzy logic (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” Yager page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu/Yager further teaches a system wherein each expert adapted to apply the plurality of rules to the subset of the plurality of input signals to output the signal comprises:
evaluating each rule of the plurality of rules to generate a fuzzy logic value for each rule (“1) For each rule, we find the firing level of that rule λi λi = Ai(x*)˄Bi(y*), 2) We calculate the effective output of each rule Ei,” Yager page 56 column left lines 3-5); and
applying a defuzzification process to the generated fuzzy logic values to output the signal (“3) We then combine these individual effective rule outputs to give us an overall system output E,” Yager page 56 column left lines 6-7).
As to dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Zeng/Wu does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is a fuzzy logic rule.
Yager teaches a method wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is a fuzzy logic rule (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ensemble of Zeng/Wu to comprise the fuzzy logic of Yager. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely coordinating the ensembles using fuzzy logic (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” Yager page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Zeng/Wu does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein each expert applying the plurality of rules to the subset of the input signals to generate the signal comprises:
evaluating each rule of the plurality of rules to generate a fuzzy logic value for each rule; and
applying a defuzzification process to the generated fuzzy logic values to generate the signal.
Yager teaches a method wherein each expert applying the plurality of rules to the subset of the input signals to generate the signal comprises:
evaluating each rule of the plurality of rules to generate a fuzzy logic value for each rule (“1) For each rule, we find the firing level of that rule λi λi = Ai(x*)˄Bi(y*), 2) We calculate the effective output of each rule Ei,” page 56 column left lines 3-5); and
applying a defuzzification process to the generated fuzzy logic values to generate the signal (“3) We then combine these individual effective rule outputs to give us an overall system output E,” page 56 column left lines 6-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ensemble of Zeng/Wu to comprise the fuzzy logic of Yager. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely coordinating the ensembles using fuzzy logic (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” Yager page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated.
Zeng/Wu does not appear to expressly teach a medium wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is a fuzzy logic rule.
Yager teaches a medium wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is a fuzzy logic rule (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ensemble of Zeng/Wu to comprise the fuzzy logic of Yager. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely coordinating the ensembles using fuzzy logic (“FUZZY systems modeling [1] has shown itself to be a useful technology for the modeling of complex relationships. Most notable are the applications of this technology to the modeling of control systems: fuzzy logic control [2]–[4],” Yager page 55 section “I. Introduction” paragraph 1 lines 1-4). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Zeng/Wu/Yager further teaches a medium wherein each expert applying the plurality of rules to the subset of the input signals to generate the signal comprises:
evaluating each rule of the plurality of rules to generate a fuzzy logic value for each rule (“1) For each rule, we find the firing level of that rule λi λi = Ai(x*)˄Bi(y*), 2) We calculate the effective output of each rule Ei,” Yager page 56 column left lines 3-5); and
applying a defuzzification process to the generated fuzzy logic values to output the signal (“3) We then combine these individual effective rule outputs to give us an overall system output E,” Yager page 56 column left lines 6-7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Wu and Srini (US 2020/0142406 A1).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Zeng/Wu does not appear to expressly teach a system comprising controlling at least one of the plurality of sensors based on the plurality of control signals.
Srini teaches a system comprising controlling at least one of the plurality of sensors based on the plurality of control signals (“the DISC module can control the lidar transmitters during a given time period (e.g., to cause a first subset of the lidar transmitters to transmit during the given time period and a second subset of the lidar transmitters to not transmit during the given time period, to control a power level of the lidar transmitters in the first subset that are transmitting during the given time period),” paragraph 0007 lines 14-21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors of Zeng/Wu to comprise the control of Srini. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely controlling the sensors based on the control signals (“the DISC module can control the lidar transmitters during a given time period (e.g., to cause a first subset of the lidar transmitters to transmit during the given time period and a second subset of the lidar transmitters to not transmit during the given time period, to control a power level of the lidar transmitters in the first subset that are transmitting during the given time period),” Srini paragraph 0007 lines 14-21). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2022/0260989 A1 disclosing ensemble control of an autonomous vehicle
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148