DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 03/04/2024.
Claim 2 (and similarly claim 11) and 4 (and similarly 13 and 18) has been considered under “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (7 January 2019), the instant claims are viewed as not reciting an abstract idea under step 2A(ii). With regard to claim 2, there is recited “performing synchronous emulation by using the one or more virtual sensors” which directly effectuates an improved simulation accuracy during execution (see the instant application Paragraph 13 “Synchronous emulation is performed by using the plurality of virtual sensors that separately correspond to the processing delays, to obtain the plurality of first input signals … In this way, the signals may be synchronized, thereby improving simulation test accuracy.”). With regard to claim 4, there is recited “delaying the sending of one or more second input signals to the sensor emulator based on the processing delay” which directly effectuates an improved simulation accuracy during execution (see the instant application Paragraph 19 “the processing delay may be compensated by delaying the sending of the second input signal, so that performance of the real sensor can be accurately simulated”). Accordingly, the claims are deemed eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Specification
Applicant submits that the amended specification is to place the application in better condition for examination (see Applicant’s Arguments dated 03/04/2024). A review of the amendments shows that they consist of clarifying amendments (e.g., “the present disclosure”, and “comprises”, and “a ray tracing algorithm using at least one GPU any of three relationships may exist. For example, A and/or B may represent one of the following three cases: Only A exists, both A and B exist, or only B exists”), or consist of changing “a” to “the”, or consist of deleting a phrase which does not change what is actually later disclosed (e.g., “Details are not described herein again”). Therefore, the amendment specification is accepted as not introducing new subject matter.
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: virtual scenario emulator, input signal emulator, sensor emulator, digital emulator, system synchronizer in claim 16; and input signal emulator in claim 18; and driving system, power system emulator in claim 20.
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. Looking to the disclosure with regard to claim 16: the virtual scenario emulator is implemented using generic computer hardware and commercially available software (see the instant application Paragraph 67 “The scenario emulation software may be commercial 3D emulation software, or may be open-source 3D emulation software.”), the input signal emulator and sensor emulator and digital emulator is implemented using generic computer hardware and requiring no more than generic computer functions that can be programmed by one of ordinary skill in the art (see the instant application Paragraph 72 and 73 and 76), and the system synchronizer is implemented using generic computer hardware and software using commercially available algorithms (see the instant application Paragraph 81). With regard to claim 18, the input signal emulator can implement the claimed at least using Kalman filtering (see the instant application Paragraph 100). With regard to claim 20, the digital emulator recited function requires no more than generic computer functions that can be programmed by one of ordinary skill in the art, the driving system is implemented using available real vehicle driving systems in vehicles, and the power system emulator performs the substantially similar emulator as the virtual scenario emulator in implemented using generic computer hardware and performing substantially similar emulation as the virtual scenario emulator (see preceding remarks regarding the virtual scenario emulator).
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 § 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 1, 3, 5 – 10 and 12, 14 – 17 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) a simulation test method, applied to an input signal emulator, wherein the input signal emulator is located in an autonomous driving test architecture, the autonomous driving test architecture further comprises a virtual scenario emulator and a sensor emulator, the virtual scenario emulator is configured to emulate a virtual scenario, the virtual scenario comprises a to-be-tested virtual object, the to-be-tested virtual object comprises a first driving state and a plurality of virtual sensors, and the method comprises: determining whether each of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets a preset condition; when any of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensor meets the preset condition, predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “predicting” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality requiring no more than evaluations and judgements. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: obtaining a processing delay of each of the plurality virtual sensors; performing emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on the which the second driving state is obtained, to obtain one or more first input signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors; and sending the one or more first input signals to the sensor emulator. The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “determining” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “sending” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality. The “performing emulation” recites the idea of an outcome since it covers any available commercial software for its implementation (see the instant application Paragraph 67 the virtual scenario comprises the to-be-tested virtual object comprising the driving state “The scenario emulation software may be commercial 3D emulation software, or may be open-source 3D emulation software.”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “obtaining” and “sending” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity require no more than generic electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,”). The “performing emulation” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its normal capacity. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “performing emulation” and “sending” are necessarily performed serially and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 and 5 - 9 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 3 wherein the processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors is determined by a difference between a first processing time and a second processing time, wherein the first processing time is a processing time of the virtual sensor in the sensor emulator, and the second processing time is a preset real processing time of a real sensor corresponding to the virtual sensor.
Claim 5 wherein the sensor emulator is configured to perform calculation based on a preset frontend model and a preset algorithm of the corresponding virtual sensor to obtain an output signal, wherein the preset frontend model of the virtual sensor is Y=G*X+N+I, wherein Y is the output signal of the frontend model, X is the first input signal or the second input signal, G is a gain of a frontend of the virtual sensor, N is a noise of the frontend of the virtual sensor, and I is interference introduced by the frontend of the virtual sensor.
Claim 6 each of the one or more first input signals or the second input signal is obtained according to a ray tracing algorithm
Claim 7 wherein the first driving state comprises a first location, a first speed, and a first acceleration of the to-be-tested virtual object at a moment t, and the predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state comprises:
predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay by using a Kalman filtering method, to obtain the second driving state, wherein the second driving state comprises a second location, a second speed, and a second acceleration of the to-be tested virtual object at t+ T, and Tis the processing delay.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “first driving state comprises” and “second driving state comprises” further limits the parent claim “predicting” and without precluding performance in the mind. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determined by a difference” and “perform calculation” and “using a Kalman filtering method” and “using a ray tracing algorithm” recite mathematical calculations or algorithm. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
Claim 5 wherein the sensor emulator is configured to receive each of the one or more the first input signals or the second inputs signal,
Claim 6 wherein the virtual scenario is obtained through emulation by the virtual scenario emulator by using at least one CPU and/or at least one GPU, and each of the one or more first input signals or the second input signal is obtained through emulation by the input signal emulator at least one GPU.
Claim 8 wherein the autonomous driving test architecture further comprises a digital emulator, a driving system, and a power system emulator, wherein the digital emulator is configured to receive an output signal sent by the sensor emulator, and send the output signal to the driving system; the driving system is configured to determine a driving decision based on the output signal; and the power system emulator is configured to perform emulation on the driving decision to obtain a third driving state, and feed back the third driving state to the virtual scenario emulator, to enable the to-be-tested virtual object to update the first driving state based on the third driving state
Claim 9 wherein the plurality of virtual sensors comprises at least one of a millimeter wave radar virtual sensor, a laser radar virtual sensor, an infrared virtual sensor, or a camera virtual sensor.
For example, the “receive” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the received corner model (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “obtained through emulation” recites the idea of an outcome since it covers any available commercial software for its implementation (see the instant application Paragraph 67 the virtual scenario comprises the to-be-tested virtual object comprising the driving state “The scenario emulation software may be commercial 3D emulation software, or may be open-source 3D emulation software.”). The ”CPU and/or at least one GPU” and “GPU” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “autonomous driving test architecture further comprises” further limits the preamble and does not appear to directly change the performance of the recited steps. The “plurality of virtual sensors comprises” further limits the virtual sensors, however, without changing their character as being virtual. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the ”CPU and/or at least one GPU” and “GPU” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “receive” amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity require no more than generic electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,”). The “obtained through emulation” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its normal capacity. The “autonomous driving test architecture further comprises” further limits the preamble and does not appear to directly change the performance of the recited steps. The “plurality of virtual sensors comprises” further limits the virtual sensors, however, without changing their character as being virtual. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receive” and “obtained through emulation” and “autonomous driving test architecture further comprises” and “plurality of virtual sensors comprises” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) a simulation test apparatus, applied to an input signal emulator, wherein the input signal emulator is located in an autonomous driving test architecture, the autonomous driving test architecture further comprises a virtual scenario emulator and a sensor emulator, the virtual scenario emulator is configured to emulate a virtual scenario, the virtual scenario comprises a to-be-tested virtual object, the to-be-tested virtual object comprises a first driving state and a plurality of virtual sensors, and the apparatus comprises: substantially similar steps as claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: the same additional elements as in claim 1; implementation using various circuit. The “circuit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea, and for the same additional reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “circuit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible, and for same additional reasons as in claim 1.
Dependent claims 12 and 14 – 15 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and may be compared to claims 3 and 6 – 7, respectively. Therefore, they are directed to abstract ideas for the same reasons.
Independent claim 16 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine), wherein: determine whether each processing delay meets a preset condition; when any processing delay meets the preset condition, predict the first driving state based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state; perform calculation based on a preset frontend model and a preset algorithm of the corresponding virtual sensor to obtain an output signal. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determine” and “predict” and “perform calculations” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality requiring no more than evaluations and judgements. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a virtual scenario emulator, an input signal emulator, a sensor emulator, a digital emulator, and a system synchronizer, wherein: the virtual scenario emulator is configured to emulate a virtual scenario, the virtual scenario comprises a to-be-tested virtual object, and the to-be-tested virtual object comprises a first driving state and a plurality of virtual sensors; the input signal emulator is configured to: obtain a processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors; perform emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on which the second driving sate is obtained, to obtain one or more first inputs signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors; and send the one or more first inputs signals to the sensor emulator; the sensor emulator is configured to: receive each of the one or more first input signals; the digital emulator is configured to receive the output signal sent by the sensor emulator; and the system synchronizer is configured to provide a synchronization clock for each of the virtual scenario emulator, the input signal emulator, the sensor emulator, and the digital emulator. The various “emulator” and “synchronizer” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) (see the instant application Paragraph 67 “The scenario emulation software may be commercial 3D emulation software, or may be open-source 3D emulation software.”). The “emulate” and “perform emulation” recites the idea of an outcome since it covers any available commercial software for its implementation (see the instant application Paragraph 67 the virtual scenario comprises the to-be-tested virtual object comprising the driving state, where readily available software contains algorithms to implement the recited emulation “The scenario emulation software may be commercial 3D emulation software, or may be open-source 3D emulation software.”). The ”obtain” and “receive” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality. The “sending” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality. The “provide a synchronization clock” recites the idea of an outcome since it relies on commonly available protocols (see the instant application Paragraph 81 “the system synchronization module 700 may be, for example, a high-speed Ethernet switch that supports the 1588 synchronization protocol, or may be a special-purpose synchronization module. This is not specifically limited in this embodiment”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “obtain” and “receive” and “send” amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity require no more than generic electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,”). The “emulate” and “perform emulation” and “provide a synchronization clock” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its normal capacity. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtain” and “receive” and “emulate” and “perform emulation” and “sending” are necessarily performed serially and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17 and 19 – 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and may be compared to claims 3 and 7 – 8, respectively. Therefore, they are directed to abstract ideas for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 10 and 16, and claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 by incorporation) simulation test method, applied to an input signal emulator, wherein the input signal emulator is located in an autonomous driving test architecture, the autonomous driving test architecture further comprises a virtual scenario emulator and a sensor emulator, the virtual scenario emulator is configured to emulate a virtual scenario, the virtual scenario comprises a to-be-tested virtual object, the to-be-tested virtual object comprises a first driving state and a plurality of virtual sensors, and the method comprises: “obtaining a processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors; determining whether each of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets a preset condition; when any of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets the preset condition, predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state; performing emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on which the second driving state is obtained, to obtain one or more first input signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors; and sending the one or more first input signals to the sensor emulator”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claims. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
CN107302845 teaches time delay correction and directional information for rendering a display image. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: obtaining a processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors; determining whether each of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets a preset condition; when any of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets the preset condition, predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state; performing emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on which the second driving state is obtained, to obtain one or more first input signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors.
Farabet et al. (US 2019/0303759) teaches multiple sensors may be executed on a single GPU, or at least as many sensors as feasible to ensure real-time generation of the virtual sensor data. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: obtaining a processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors; determining whether each of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets a preset condition; when any of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets the preset condition, predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state; performing emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on which the second driving state is obtained, to obtain one or more first input signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors.
Holzinger et al. (US 2021/0406562) teaches synchronizing the emulated sensor inputs by interpolating a current location of the objects from parameters extracted from the drive scenarios. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: obtaining a processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors; determining whether each of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets a preset condition; when any of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets the preset condition, predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state; performing emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on which the second driving state is obtained, to obtain one or more first input signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors.
Hasegawa et al. (US 2023/0267238) teaches simulator scenario includes a simulator built-in sensor signal included in the actual vehicle driving test log data, or includes a virtual sensor signal as the simulator built-in sensor signal, and an emulated sensor signal on the basis of a simulator built-in sensor signal or a virtual sensor signal included in the navigation simulator scenario, and generates an emulated sensor signal obtained by emulating the car navigator built-in sensor signal output by the car navigator built-in sensor 503. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: obtaining a processing delay of each of the plurality of virtual sensors; determining whether each of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets a preset condition; when any of the processing delays of the plurality of virtual sensors meets the preset condition, predicting the first driving state of the to-be-tested virtual object based on the processing delay to obtain a second driving state; performing emulation based on each second driving state by using one or more virtual sensors corresponding to the processing delay, based on which the second driving state is obtained, to obtain one or more first input signals, wherein the one or more first input signals correspond one-to-one with the one or more virtual sensors.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H B WECHSELBERGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights