Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed October 2, 2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims as amended make clear that the error being detected is directly linked to a computing unit and active consideration of its operation. The rejections of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 8, 10 – 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swearingen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0017049), hereinafter Swearingen.
Regarding claim 1, Swearingen teaches a method comprising:
detecting, at a first timestamp and at a second timestamp, an error corresponding to a computing unit of a monitored system (Paragraph 0030, detecting whether a component has failed; This is compiled into a risk and benefit score in paragraphs 0033/0034 and then a health score in paragraph 0036; Fig. 5 illustrates a process of taking the health score and further testing it to confirm there is an error; Fig. 5 step 510 / paragraph 0043 further assesses any failures in components);
determining that the error as detected at the first timestamp affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system (Whether the risk score is high in paragraph 0033 or there is an actuator in a fail state; Paragraphs 0032 – 0034, a risk and benefit value are computed representing the safety of operating the vehicle);
determining that the error as detected at the second timestamp does not affect safety with respect to operation of the monitored system (Whether the risk score is low in paragraph 0033. That the same error may be detected and evaluated multiple times is taught in Fig. 5, where multiple evaluations need to be made to confirm that the data is stable over time. It is further taught in paragraph 0060, where the evaluation of risk/criticality is stated to be sensitive to current vehicle state. This dynamic evaluation is analogous to the support for the timestamp limitation in paragraphs 0098 – 0100 of the application’s Specification.);
determining one or more first operations for the monitored system to perform with respect to detection of the error at the first timestamp based at least on the determining that the error, as detected at the first timestamp, affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system (Fig. 8A, if the actuator is in a fail state, it is determined that the AC component executes reconfiguration);
determining one or more second operations for the monitored system to perform with respect to detection of the error at the second timestamp based at least on the determining that the error, as detected at the second timestamp, does not affect safety with respect to operation of the monitored system, the one or more second operations being different from the one or more first operations (Figs. 8B and 10, if the actuator is not in a fail state but there is still a health issue, the actuator is fine-tuned);
generating a first electronic control command that causes the monitored system to perform the one or more first operations (Paragraph 0027, special computer commands are sent to actuators in the event of a failure); and
generating a second electronic control command that causes the monitored system to perform the one or more second operations (Paragraph 0024, normal operation of the actuators involves computer commands to them).
Regarding claim 2, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the error as detected at the first timestamp affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system is based at least on data generated using one or more sensors corresponding to the monitored system (Paragraph 0030, vehicle sensor data).
Regarding claim 3, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the monitored system includes one or more modules, the one or more modules including one or more virtual machines corresponding to the monitored system (Paragraph 0077, the monitoring may be performed on a virtual machine).
Regarding claim 4, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the error as detected at the first timestamp affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system is based at least on whether the error affects one or more of navigation or decision making (Paragraphs 0032/0033, the risk value is based on component data and is sensitive to the criticality of control surface or function; Paragraphs 0028/0030, guidance and navigation functions are a factor in criticality of components and software).
Regarding claim 5, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the error, as detected at the first timestamp, affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system is based at least on whether the error affects one or more measurable safety metrics corresponding to the monitored system, or one or more systems associated with the monitored system with respect to one or more predetermined thresholds (Paragraph 0007, actuator power thresholds. Paragraph 0009, the health score is compared to a threshold).
Regarding claim 8, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in response to determining that the error, as detected at the second timestamp, does not affect safety with respect to operation of the monitored system, the error, as detected at the second timestamp, is reported for correction while the monitored system continues performing one or more operations (Paragraph 0068/0069, it is determined that fine tuning should occur, and this is transmitted for the actuator control component to perform. This can occur during the flight itself.).
Regarding claim 10, Swearingen teaches a system comprising:
one or more processing units to perform operations (Paragraphs 0022/0023) comprising:
detecting an error corresponding to a computing unit (Fig. 2/Paragraph 0030, detecting a failure of an actuator or component. Fig. 6 and paragraph 0052/0055, the actuator/component failures correspond to actuator control component);
determining whether the error is deemed to affect safety based at least on one or more operational factors of the computing unit, wherein at least one operational factor of the one or more operational factors varies over time such that the determining of whether the error is deemed to affect safety is a dynamic determination depending on at least one value of the at least one operational factors at a time that the error occurs (Paragraph 0060, the evaluation of risk/criticality is stated to be sensitive to current vehicle state);
determining one or more operations for the computing unit to perform based at least on whether the error is deemed to affect safety (Figs. 8A, 8B, and 10, if the error represents a failure state, the component is tested and reconfigured, otherwise it is finetuned); and
generating an electronic control command that causes the computing unit to perform the one or more operations based at least on whether the error is deemed to affect safety (Paragraphs 0024 – 0027, the actuators are controlled through computer commands).
Claim 11 recites similar language to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites similar language to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites similar language to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites similar language to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (Swearingen is directed to a control system for an aircraft).
Regarding claim 16, Swearingen teaches one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to perform operations (Paragraphs 0022/0023), the operations comprising:
detecting an error corresponding to a computing unit (Fig. 2/Paragraph 0030, detecting a failure of an actuator or component. Fig. 6 and paragraph 0052/0055, the actuator/component failures correspond to actuator control component);
determining:
whether the error corresponds to a safety module associated with the computing unit, the safety module including functionality deemed to affect safety (Paragraphs 0032 – 0034, a risk and benefit value are computed representing the safety of operating the vehicle; Paragraph 0046, a test is performed to determine which actuator is experiencing a failure), the determining whether the error corresponds to the safety module being based at least on module information that indicates types of operations performed by the safety module (Paragraph 0033, the risk value is sensitive to the criticality of the control surface being actuated or the frequency of use of the actuator); or
whether the error corresponds to a safety process associated with the computing unit, the safety process including one or more operations deemed to affect safety by not associated with the safety module (Paragraph 0033, instead basing risk on the criticality of the control surface being actuated, it may be based on the criticality of the function being performed. There are multiple separate systems which may be deemed to affect safety, so said process would not be associated with the safety module.), and
determining one or more operations for the computing unit to perform based at least on whether the error corresponds to the safety module or whether the error corresponds to the safety process associated with the computing unit (Fig. 8A, if the actuator is in a fail state, it is determined that the AC component executes reconfiguration); and
generating a control command to cause the computing unit to perform the one or more operations based at least on whether the error corresponds to the safety module or the safety process (Paragraph 0027, special computer commands are sent to actuators in the event of a failure).
Claim 17 recites similar language to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites similar language to claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen in view of Swanson (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0144579, cited in previous action).
Regarding claim 6, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 5.
Swearingen does not explicitly teach that the thresholds are based on at least one or more of an amount of economic loss or an amount of damage to the monitored system (Although it is reasonable to assume that, given that thresholds are related to a health measure of the system, they could be in part based on an amount of economic loss or damage to the system, this is not explicitly stated by Swearingen).
Swanson teaches a monitoring and error handling mechanism where an error is detected using a predetermined threshold based on an amount of damage to the monitored system (Paragraphs 0028 – 0031 describe a threshold number of errors, i.e. damage, that can occur in a hardware component before it is considered a persistent failure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that, similarly to the threshold of Swanson, the thresholds of Swearingen are based at least in part on an amount of damage to the monitored system. It would be obvious because damage to the system is relevant to Swearingen (Swearingen paragraph 0033, the risk value may be calculated based on failure and component degradation impact. This damage is then reflected as part of Swearingen’s health score), so a threshold for a health score such as Swearingen’s should reflect that damage (Swearingen paragraph 0039, the vehicle data is only taken further in the process if the threshold is exceeded). The specific method of Swanson provides the benefit of avoiding unnecessary costly repairs (Swanson paragraph 0029), which performs a similar purpose to Swearingen’s system ensuring that measurements are consistent.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen in view of Kidder (US Patent 6,708,291, cited in previous action).
Regarding claim 7, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Swearingen does not explicitly teach that the error is detected using one or more memory management units corresponding to the monitored system (Although the system which detects issues and manages actuators is a computer with memory according to paragraph 0022, and the systems being monitored for vehicle health include software as taught by paragraphs 0021 and 0028, it is not explicitly stated that errors are detected by an MMU).
Kidder teaches that a memory management unit can detect errors (Column 36, lines 35 – 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the computer executing the monitored software of Swearingen would include a memory management unit which detected errors in the memory. It would be obvious because memory access errors are commonly known software errors (Kidder column 36, line 35) and the use of an MMU to manage memory can isolate the error to the process that caused the error, making the memory more stable and the system more robust (Kidder column 36, lines 46 – 58). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that common memory access errors would be an important form of software error to detect and handle in the system of Swearingen.
Claim 18 recites similar language to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen in view of Goldberg (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0106117, cited in previous action).
Regarding claim 9, Swearingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Swearingen does not explicitly teach that the control command directs the monitored system to perform a low-risk maneuver to stop the monitored system in response to determining that the error, as detected at the first timestamp, affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system (While Swearingen teaches that certain corrections to system errors cannot be performed under certain operating conditions or maneuvers in paragraph 0069, it does not explicitly teach a correction where a low-risk maneuver brings the monitored system to a stop).
Goldberg teaches, in response to a safety failure, generating a control command directing the monitored system to perform a low-risk maneuver to stop the monitored system in response to determining that the error, as detected at the first timestamp, affects safety with respect to operation of the monitored system (Paragraphs 0021/0022, the vehicle is controlled to perform a safe stop, alert a driver, or disengage autonomous operation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, given a sufficiently significant error detected by the system of Swearingen, the control command of Swearingen would cause the vehicle to come to a stop in the way taught by Goldberg. It would be obvious because the error may cause the vehicle to be unable to function, and would need to be repaired. Swearingen teaches that certain corrective actions can only be performed in an appropriate phase of operation (Swearingen paragraph 0069). The vehicle may be in an unsafe state that can be avoided by stopping it (Goldberg paragraph 0063). One with a typical understanding of vehicle safety would understand that safely stopping the vehicle is a suitable response to encountering a fault.
Claim 20 recites similar language to claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/B.P.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114