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. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 stand rejected. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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: FILLIN "Identify each claim limitation." \d "[ 1 ]" execution units in claim 1-10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “execution units to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification fails to set forth any corresponding structure to perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above, the claimed “execution units to” invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) but the originally filed specification fails to adequately link or associate adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in the claimed means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation . 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. Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0391756 (hereinafter Wang) . *NOTE* The Examiner interprets the term and/or as either and or “or”. For the purposes of examination, the term “and/or” will be interpreted simply as or. Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses: A validation system for executing a method for prioritizing validation tasks, the system comprising: execution units ( Fig. 5, task processing subunits 530 and 540; Also depicted in Fig. 6 as other processor core(s) and dedicated processing core(s) ) to perform validation tasks of the validation system ( [0013], “The at least one processor may classify, via the ACU, the one or more tasks into real time vehicle controlling (VC) tasks and non real time VC tasks. The at least one processor may send the real time VC tasks to at least one dedicated processing core of the ACU for processing the real time VC tasks and generating one or more real time VC commands accordingly.” ), the execution units being divided into at least two groups and each group is assigned capabilities by the validation system and/or by a user of the validation system so that execution units of a respective group have the capabilities of the group ( As noted above, Wang discloses dividing their execution units into real-time and non-real-time groups. ) and, when the validation tasks are executed automatically by the validation system ( ¶[0050], “The ACU 420 may be configured to process the sensor data in order to operate the vehicle automatically.” ) and/or by the user, a requirement ( ¶[ 0054], “The real time VC task may be defined as a hard real time task that needs to be completed within a critical time period such as 5 ms , 10 ms , 15 ms , 20 ms , etc. If the system fails to complete the hard real time task during the critical time period, it may cause an error of the autonomous pilot system and an accident for the vehicle… The non real time VC task may be defined as a soft real time task that can be completed exceed the critical time period. Even if the system fails to complete the soft real time task within the critical time period, it is unlikely to cause a fatal error of the autonomous pilot system.” ) of the respective validation task for the capability of the execution units and a priority ( ¶[ 0054] explains that real-time VC tasks have high priority while non- realtime tasks have low priority ) for execution are specified and, taking into account the priorities and the capable execution units, an execution sequence is determined ( ¶s[0054, 0062 and 0070] discuss the prioritization and execution of critical real-time tasks before non-real-time tasks ) and the validation task is executed according to the execution sequence by the capable execution units ( ¶[0037], “n some embodiments, at least one dedicated processing core of the ACU may be dedicated to process one or more real time vehicle controlling (VC) tasks to generate one or more real time VC commands according to the real time sensor data. Another processing core(s) of the ACU may be dedicated to process one or more non real time VC tasks to generate non real time VC commands.” See also Figure 6 which shows that the output of the execution of the tasks are VC commands. ). Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein the validation system includes individual components ( See at least Fig. 4 which shows various components of the autonomous vehicle including the ACU having further individual components shown in Fig. 5 ) and the execution of the prioritization method is carried out by a component of the validation system ( ¶[0037], “n some embodiments, at least one dedicated processing core of the ACU may be dedicated to process one or more real time vehicle controlling (VC) tasks to generate one or more real time VC commands according to the real time sensor data. Another processing core(s) of the ACU may be dedicated to process one or more non real time VC tasks to generate non real time VC commands.” See also Figure 6 which shows that the output of the execution of the tasks are VC commands. ). Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein the validation tasks are suitable for testing a device for the at least partial autonomous guidance of a transport vehicle and/or road user ( As noted through the disclosure of Wang, their invention relates to the execution of tasks during autonomous vehicle operation. ). Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein the validation system and/or components of the validation system are executed locally ( ¶[ 0044], “For example, the processing device 112 may be implemented on the computing device 300, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof. As another example, the ACU 240 may be implemented on the computing device 300, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof . ” The ACU is further shown in Fig . 4/5 as 420 and has the processing sub units 530/540 . ) or in a cloud environment ( ¶[0044], “Although only one such computer is shown, for convenience, the computer functions relating to the search service as described herein may be implemented in a distributed fashion on a number of similar platforms to distribute the processing load.” ). Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein the capabilities of the at least two groups of execution units comprise a type of validation task ( As noted above, Wang discloses distinguishing tasks based on the type: real-time vs. non- realtime ), an execution location of the validation task, and/or an execution duration of the validation task. Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein each execution unit belongs to at least one group and thus has at least one capability ( As noted above, Wang discloses 2 groups of execution units shown in fig. 5: real-time VC task processing subunit and non real-time VC task processing subunit ). Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein validation tasks with a higher priority and thus earlier in the execution sequence have priority access to computing resources and/or execution units of the validation system ( As noted above, Wang discloses the real-time tasks have time critical components and are prioritized over non real-time tasks. ). Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein the priority of a validation task is dynamically adjusted before starting the execution of the validation task ( ¶ s[ 0054 and 0069] discuss that the kernel is responsible for designating priorities to the tasks. Prior to the kernel, the tasks are unclassified and afterwards are designated as high priority or low priority tasks ). Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses: The validation system according to claim 1, wherein the requirements of a validation task are dynamically adjusted before starting the execution of the validation task ( At least ¶ s[ 0054, 0062 and 0072] describe a dynamic critical time requirement of 5/10/15/20 ms. ). 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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2020/0391756) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Philion (20240092390) . Wang discloses a validation as discussed in the rejection of independent claim 1. Wang does not expressly teach wherein execution units are dynamically activated and/or deactivated before starting an execution of a validation task. Within the same field of autonomous vehicle navigation, Philion teaches wherein execution units are dynamically activated and/or deactivated before starting an execution of a validation task ( ¶[0144], “The CPU(s) 1106 may implement power management capabilities that include one or more of the following features: individual hardware blocks may be clock-gated automatically when idle to save dynamic power; each core clock may be gated when the core is not actively executing instructions due to execution of WFI/VVFE instructions; each core may be independently power-gated; each core cluster may be independently clock-gated when all cores are clock-gated or power-gated; and/or each core cluster may be independently power-gated when all cores are power-gated.” ). Insofar as both Wang and Philion are within the same field of autonomous vehicle navigation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize Philion’s individual cpu /core power gating in Wang’s ACU having the individual processing subunits. Implementing such power management function would achieve the predictable result of power savings when a processing unit is not actively being utilized ( see ¶[ 0144] of Philion ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (11926340): Relates to task scheduling in an autonomous vehicle. Lim (20230219596): Also relates to task scheduling in an autonomous vehicle. McGill( 20220009483): Relates to the prioritization of computation tasks in an autonomous vehicle. Alsharif ( 20210190508): Relates to an autonomous vehicle comprising a plurality of execution units. Liu (“ An Efficient Task Scheduling Strategy Utilizing Mobile Edge Computing in Autonomous Driving Environment ”): Relates to distributed task scheduling in an autonomous vehicle environment. Zheng (“ Next Generation Automotive Architecture Modeling and Exploration for Autonomous Driving ”): Relates to validation tasks in an autonomous vehicle. Yan( “ Design Verification and Validation for Reliable Safety-critical Autonomous Control Systems ”): Relates to task scheduling in an autonomous vehicle. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN M STIGLIC whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3641 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT (M-F) 6:30 - 4:30 . 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, Andrew Koenig can be reached at (408) 918-7501 . 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 M STIGLIC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6213