DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are pending in the application and claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome all objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action of January 5th, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3-9 are directed towards a method and claims 10 and 12-19 are directed towards a product. Therefore, all of these claims fall into statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite:
receiving an indication of a test environment;
accessing a configuration catalog to obtain configuration information for the test environment;
configuring a test node based on the configuration information; wherein the configuration information includes at least one of a hardware configuration, software configuration, and signal configuration.
obtaining test signals for the test environment; and
performing testing on the configured test node using the test signals;
Steps (a), (b), and (d) are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite additional elements, i.e. steps (c) and (e), a computing device, a processor, a communication subsystem, and computer readable medium. However, these steps are simply insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a computing device, a processor, a communication subsystem, computer readable medium, the configuration information includes at least one of a hardware configuration, software configuration, and signal configuration are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more that the judicial exception itself.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the claims recite: wherein the test environment is a vehicle configuration. The additional element “vehicle configuration” is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the claims recite: selecting an operating system on the test node to match an operating system for the test environment. The limitation “selecting” is a function that can reasonably be performed by a human using pen and paper.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the claims recite: selecting hardware on the test node to match hardware for the test environment. The limitation “selecting” is a function that can reasonably be performed by a human using pen and paper.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the claims recite: receiving the indication based on a selection of a vehicle make and model at a development node. The additional element “make and model” is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the claims recite: wherein the test signals are real world signals for a vehicle performing tasks. The additional element “real world signals” is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the claims recite: installing a synthetic sensor at the test node, the synthetic sensor providing insights on the operation of the test node; applying the test signals; and providing logs and metrics to a developer node. The claims recite the additional elements of “installing a synthetic sensor”, “applying the test signals”, and “providing logs and metrics”, which are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activities, and are therefore not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2. Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more that the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the claims recite: wherein the test node is an emulator interacting with hardware, and setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware. The additional elements “emulator” and “hardware” are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception at Step 2B. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “setting a signal configuration”, which is nothing more than an insignificant extra solution activity, and are therefore not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2. Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more that the judicial exception at Step 2B.
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, 3, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US20200167436, Xiao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao teaches: a method at a computing device comprising:
receiving an indication of a test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0031], “When the user launches the client environment, the client device will connect to one of the initialization servers 121. The initialization server 121 is configured to direct users to the right environment. For example, the users will need to select which test environment with structure models they want to test their virtual vehicle on. It will create the new test environment and place them on the servers or create new servers in cloud environments.”);
accessing a configuration catalog to obtain configuration information for the test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0039], “The database 104 for the system stores user data 130, vehicle physics model data 131, structure model data 132, various map data 133 and other metadata, according to the desired implementation. The 3D map data is rendered by the simulation server based on user selection”) … (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0048], “At 604, the experiment server 123 manages the simulation session by transmitting the simulation session to the DB server 125 to be stored in the DB 104 and made available for subsequent users to simulate another vehicle through simulating their model data.”);
configuring a test node based on the configuration information (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0031], “When the user launches the client environment, the client device will connect to one of the initialization servers 121. The initialization server 121 is configured to direct users to the right environment. For example, the users will need to select which test environment with structure models they want to test their virtual vehicle on. It will create the new test environment and place them on the servers or create new servers in cloud environments.”);
obtaining test signals for the test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”); and
performing testing on the configured test node using the test signals (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0046], “At 602, the communication server 120 instructs the experiment server 123 to execute a simulation session to simulate the vehicle on the 3D environment based on the model data. In an example implementation, the experiment server 123 will model the physics of the vehicle based on the vehicle model information such as vehicle physics model 131, along with map information 133 to determine the interactions between the vehicle and objects in the map…”) … (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”);
wherein the configuration information includes at least one of a hardware configuration, software configuration, and signal configuration (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”).
Regarding claim 3, Xiao teaches: wherein the test environment is a vehicle configuration (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0041], “At 502, an interface is provided to configure the vehicle model, to facilitate the selection of the preconfigured vehicle type and input customized sensor data or upload a complete new vehicle model based on own needs.”).
Regarding claim 10, Xiao teaches: A computing device comprising:
a processor (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0024]); and
a communications subsystem (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0024, 0030]),
wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive an indication of a test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0031], “When the user launches the client environment, the client device will connect to one of the initialization servers 121. The initialization server 121 is configured to direct users to the right environment. For example, the users will need to select which test environment with structure models they want to test their virtual vehicle on. It will create the new test environment and place them on the servers or create new servers in cloud environments.”);
access a configuration catalog to obtain configuration information for the test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0039], “The database 104 for the system stores user data 130, vehicle physics model data 131, structure model data 132, various map data 133 and other metadata, according to the desired implementation. The 3D map data is rendered by the simulation server based on user selection”) … (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0048], “At 604, the experiment server 123 manages the simulation session by transmitting the simulation session to the DB server 125 to be stored in the DB 104 and made available for subsequent users to simulate another vehicle through simulating their model data.”);
configure a test node based on the configuration information (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0031], “When the user launches the client environment, the client device will connect to one of the initialization servers 121. The initialization server 121 is configured to direct users to the right environment. For example, the users will need to select which test environment with structure models they want to test their virtual vehicle on. It will create the new test environment and place them on the servers or create new servers in cloud environments.”);
obtain test signals for the test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”); and
perform testing on the configured test node using the test signals (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0046], “At 602, the communication server 120 instructs the experiment server 123 to execute a simulation session to simulate the vehicle on the 3D environment based on the model data. In an example implementation, the experiment server 123 will model the physics of the vehicle based on the vehicle model information such as vehicle physics model 131, along with map information 133 to determine the interactions between the vehicle and objects in the map…”) … (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”);
wherein the configuration information includes at least one of a hardware configuration, software configuration, and signal configuration (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”).
Regarding claim 12, Xiao teaches: wherein the test environment is a vehicle configuration (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0041], “At 502, an interface is provided to configure the vehicle model, to facilitate the selection of the preconfigured vehicle type and input customized sensor data or upload a complete new vehicle model based on own needs.”);
Regarding claim 19, Xiao teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction code (see Xiao et al, paragraph [0011]), which, when executed by a processor of a computing device cause the computing device to:
receive an indication of a test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0031], “When the user launches the client environment, the client device will connect to one of the initialization servers 121. The initialization server 121 is configured to direct users to the right environment. For example, the users will need to select which test environment with structure models they want to test their virtual vehicle on. It will create the new test environment and place them on the servers or create new servers in cloud environments.”);
access a configuration catalog to obtain configuration information for the test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0039], “The database 104 for the system stores user data 130, vehicle physics model data 131, structure model data 132, various map data 133 and other metadata, according to the desired implementation. The 3D map data is rendered by the simulation server based on user selection”) … (see Xiao et al., paragraph [0048], “At 604, the experiment server 123 manages the simulation session by transmitting the simulation session to the DB server 125 to be stored in the DB 104 and made available for subsequent users to simulate another vehicle through simulating their model data.”);
configure a test node based on the configuration information (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0031], “When the user launches the client environment, the client device will connect to one of the initialization servers 121. The initialization server 121 is configured to direct users to the right environment. For example, the users will need to select which test environment with structure models they want to test their virtual vehicle on. It will create the new test environment and place them on the servers or create new servers in cloud environments.”);
obtain test signals for the test environment (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”); and
perform testing on the configured test node using the test signals (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0046], “At 602, the communication server 120 instructs the experiment server 123 to execute a simulation session to simulate the vehicle on the 3D environment based on the model data. In an example implementation, the experiment server 123 will model the physics of the vehicle based on the vehicle model information such as vehicle physics model 131, along with map information 133 to determine the interactions between the vehicle and objects in the map…”) … (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”);
wherein the configuration information includes at least one of a hardware configuration, software configuration, and signal configuration (see Xiao et al., paragraphs [0047], “At 603, the experiment server 123 provides virtual sensor data output for the simulation session. The virtual sensor data can be any type of desired sensor data (e.g., brake response, proximity to objects, speed, etc.) that the user desires to have fed back to the front end GUI 110.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 6, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, in view of Konrardy et al. (US20210116256, Konrardy hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Xiao does not teach: wherein the configuring the test node comprises selecting an operating system on the test node to match an operating system for the test environment.
However, Konrardy teaches: wherein the configuring the test node comprises selecting an operating system on the test node to match an operating system for the test environment (see Konrardy et al., paragraphs [0252], “In some embodiments the selection of test conditions may include selection of a make and/or model of an autonomous vehicle, an on-board computer, a smart home controller, or an autonomous environment operating system…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the selection of an operating system taught by Konrardy for the result of more accurately emulating a vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Xiao does not teach: wherein the receiving the indication is based on a selection of a vehicle make and model at a development node.
However, Konrardy teaches: wherein the receiving the indication is based on a selection of a vehicle make and model at a development node (see Konrardy et al., paragraphs [0252], “In some embodiments the selection of test conditions may include selection of a make and/or model of an autonomous vehicle, an on-board computer, a smart home controller, or an autonomous environment operating system…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the selection of a vehicle’s make and model taught by Konrardy for the result of obtaining more accurate and/or relevant test data.
Regarding claim 13, Xiao does not teach: wherein the computing device is configured to configure the test node by selecting an operating system on the test node to match an operating system for the test environment.
However, Konrardy teaches: wherein the computing device is configured to configure the test node by selecting an operating system on the test node to match an operating system for the test environment (see Konrardy et al., paragraphs [0252], “In some embodiments the selection of test conditions may include selection of a make and/or model of an autonomous vehicle, an on-board computer, a smart home controller, or an autonomous environment operating system…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the selection of an operating system taught by Konrardy for the result of more accurately emulating a vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Xiao does not teach: wherein the computing device is configured to receive the indication based on a selection of a vehicle make and model at a development node.
However, Konrardy teaches: wherein the computing device is configured to receive the indication based on a selection of a vehicle make and model at a development node. (see Konrardy et al., paragraphs [0252], “In some embodiments the selection of test conditions may include selection of a make and/or model of an autonomous vehicle, an on-board computer, a smart home controller, or an autonomous environment operating system…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the selection of a vehicle’s make and model taught by Konrardy for the result of obtaining more accurate and/or relevant test data.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, in view of Zhao et al. (US20220136930, Zhao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Xiao does not teach: wherein the configuring the test node comprises selecting hardware on the test node to match hardware for the test environment.
However, Zhao teaches: wherein the configuring the test node comprises selecting hardware on the test node to match hardware for the test environment (see Zhao et al., paragraphs [0017], “The hardware-in-the-loop sub-system is configured to construct a specific test environment for hardware of the intelligent vehicle, and send data of a test scenario to the hardware of the intelligent vehicle via the specific test environment to test response of the intelligent vehicle in the test scenario”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the selection of hardware taught by Zhao for the result of more accurately emulating a vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Xiao does not teach: wherein the computing device is configured to configure the test node by selecting hardware on the test node to match hardware for the test environment.
However, Zhao teaches: wherein the computing device is configured to configure the test node by selecting hardware on the test node to match hardware for the test environment. (see Zhao et al., paragraphs [0017], “The hardware-in-the-loop sub-system is configured to construct a specific test environment for hardware of the intelligent vehicle, and send data of a test scenario to the hardware of the intelligent vehicle via the specific test environment to test response of the intelligent vehicle in the test scenario”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the selection of hardware taught by Zhao for the result of more accurately emulating a vehicle.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, in view of Hong et al. (US20200339109, Hong hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 7, Xiao does not teach: wherein the test signals are real world signals for a vehicle performing tasks.
However, Hong teaches: wherein the test signals are real world signals for a vehicle performing tasks (see Hong et al., paragraphs [0006], “Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to simulating realistic test data from transformed real-world sensor data for autonomous machine applications. Systems and methods are disclosed that leverage real-world sensor data captured from sensors on a vehicle to generate transformed or updated test data corresponding to desired vehicle states in order to test a function of the vehicle—such as a function of an automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, a collision mitigation warning (CMW) system, an automatic lane departure warning (ALDW or LDW) system, an automatic lane change (ALC) system, and/or an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include real world signals taught by Hong for the result of obtaining more realistic test data.
Regarding Claim 16, Xiao does not teach: wherein the test signals are real world signals for a vehicle performing tasks.
However, Hong teaches: wherein the test signals are real world signals for a vehicle performing tasks (see Hong et al., paragraphs [0006], “Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to simulating realistic test data from transformed real-world sensor data for autonomous machine applications. Systems and methods are disclosed that leverage real-world sensor data captured from sensors on a vehicle to generate transformed or updated test data corresponding to desired vehicle states in order to test a function of the vehicle—such as a function of an automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, a collision mitigation warning (CMW) system, an automatic lane departure warning (ALDW or LDW) system, an automatic lane change (ALC) system, and/or an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include real world signals taught by Hong for the result of obtaining more realistic test data.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, in view of McCool et al. (US 6466888, McCool hereinafter) and Gabrovski et al. (US 11126763, Gabrovski hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Xiao does not teach: installing a synthetic sensor at the test node, the synthetic sensor providing insights on an operation of the test node; applying the test signals; and providing logs and metrics to a developer node.
However, McCool teaches: installing a synthetic sensor at the test node, the synthetic sensor providing insights on the operation of the test node, and applying the test signals (see McCool et al., column [2] line [40], “FIG. 3 symbolically depicts installation of the virtual sensor 14 (hereinbefore referred to) onboard aircraft 10. Such virtual sensor 14 includes: means 16 for: (a) determining the input parameters during flight; (b) generating successive signals representing such input parameters and at least one equation representing a nonlinear input-output relationship between the input parameters and a desired output in terms of airspeed, sideslip angle and angle of attack”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the installation of a synthetic sensor and application of test signals taught by McCool for the result of recording data and using data.
Xiao as further modified does not teach: providing logs and metrics to a developer node.
However, Gabrovski teaches: providing logs and metrics to a developer node (see Gabrovski et al., column [11] line [59], “The results of each version of a simulation may correspond to the event data of log data, and may therefore include information such as collisions or near collisions with other objects, planned trajectories describing a planned geometry and/or speed for a potential path of the simulated vehicle, locations of the simulated vehicle at different times, orientations/headings of the simulated vehicle at different times, speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the simulated vehicle at different times in the simulation, classifications of and responses to perceived objects, behavior predictions of perceived objects, status of various simulated systems (such as acceleration, deceleration, perception, steering, signaling, routing, power, etc.) of the simulated vehicle at different times including logged errors, inputs to and outputs of the various systems of the simulated vehicle at different times in the simulation, etc.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include logs and metrics taught by Gabrovski for the result of being able to analyze and draw conclusions from data.
Regarding claim 17, Xiao does not teach: installing a synthetic sensor at the test node, the synthetic sensor providing insights on an operation of the test node; applying the test signals; and providing logs and metrics to a developer node.
However, McCool teaches: installing a synthetic sensor at the test node, the synthetic sensor providing insights on the operation of the test node, and applying the test signals (see McCool et al., column [2] line [40], “FIG. 3 symbolically depicts installation of the virtual sensor 14 (hereinbefore referred to) onboard aircraft 10. Such virtual sensor 14 includes: means 16 for: (a) determining the input parameters during flight; (b) generating successive signals representing such input parameters and at least one equation representing a nonlinear input-output relationship between the input parameters and a desired output in terms of airspeed, sideslip angle and angle of attack”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include the installation of a synthetic sensor and application of test signals taught by McCool for the result of recording data and using data.
Xiao as further modified does not teach: providing logs and metrics to a developer node.
However, Gabrovski teaches: providing logs and metrics to a developer node (see Gabrovski et al., column [11] line [59], “The results of each version of a simulation may correspond to the event data of log data, and may therefore include information such as collisions or near collisions with other objects, planned trajectories describing a planned geometry and/or speed for a potential path of the simulated vehicle, locations of the simulated vehicle at different times, orientations/headings of the simulated vehicle at different times, speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the simulated vehicle at different times in the simulation, classifications of and responses to perceived objects, behavior predictions of perceived objects, status of various simulated systems (such as acceleration, deceleration, perception, steering, signaling, routing, power, etc.) of the simulated vehicle at different times including logged errors, inputs to and outputs of the various systems of the simulated vehicle at different times in the simulation, etc.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include logs and metrics taught by Gabrovski for the result of being able to analyze and draw conclusions from data.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, in view of Holzinger et al. (US20210406562, Holzinger hereinafter) and Wang et al. (US11768975, Wang hereinafter)
Regarding claim 9, Xiao does not teach: wherein the test node is an emulator interacting with hardware, and wherein the configuring comprises setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware.
However, Holzinger teaches: wherein the test node is an emulator interacting with hardware (see Holzinger et al., paragraph [0006], “According to an aspect of the inventive concepts, a hardware-in-loop (HiL) test system for testing sensor fusion of an advance driver assistance system (ADAS) is provided. The ADAS includes a plurality of sensors and an electronic control unit (ECU) processing outputs of the sensors. The HiL test system includes a three-dimensional (3D) scenario simulator for generating drive scenarios including objects in a surrounding environment of a simulated vehicle, and a sensor target emulator for generating emulated sensors inputs to the plurality of sensors corresponding to the drive scenarios generated by the 3D scenario simulator.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include an emulator taught by Holzinger for the result of more accurately testing a virtual vehicle.
Xiao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the configuring comprises setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware.
However, Wang teaches: wherein the configuring comprises setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware (see Wang et al., column [7] line [9], “As shown in FIG. 2, in step S8, the input signal configuration of the user-defined vehicle controller is checked before each overall vehicle simulation covering all components. B1. Current input signals of the user-defined vehicle controller are summarized. B3. Based on step B1, it is determined whether current input signal configuration of the user-defined vehicle controller is consistent with previous configuration.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include a signal configuration taught by Wang for the result of more accurately testing a virtual vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Xiao does not teach: wherein the test node is an emulator interacting with hardware, and wherein the computing device is configured to configure by setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware.
However, Holzinger teaches: wherein the test node is an emulator interacting with hardware (see Holzinger et al., paragraph [0006], “According to an aspect of the inventive concepts, a hardware-in-loop (HiL) test system for testing sensor fusion of an advance driver assistance system (ADAS) is provided. The ADAS includes a plurality of sensors and an electronic control unit (ECU) processing outputs of the sensors. The HiL test system includes a three-dimensional (3D) scenario simulator for generating drive scenarios including objects in a surrounding environment of a simulated vehicle, and a sensor target emulator for generating emulated sensors inputs to the plurality of sensors corresponding to the drive scenarios generated by the 3D scenario simulator.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include an emulator taught by Holzinger for the result of more accurately testing a virtual vehicle.
Xiao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the computing device is configured to configure by setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware.
However, Wang teaches: wherein the computing device is configured to configure by setting a signal configuration for interacting with the hardware. (see Wang et al., column [7] line [9], “As shown in FIG. 2, in step S8, the input signal configuration of the user-defined vehicle controller is checked before each overall vehicle simulation covering all components. B1. Current input signals of the user-defined vehicle controller are summarized. B3. Based on step B1, it is determined whether current input signal configuration of the user-defined vehicle controller is consistent with previous configuration.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system for virtually testing vehicles as taught by Xiao to include a signal configuration taught by Wang for the result of more accurately testing a virtual vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument: Newly amended claims overcome the 101 rejection.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. Receiving an indication of a test environment, accessing a configuration catalog to obtain configuration information for test environment, and obtaining test signals for the test environment are all mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Configuring a test node based on the configuration information; wherein the configuration information includes at least one of a hardware configuration, software configuration, and signal configuration, and performing testing on the configured test node using the test signals are simply insignificant extra-solution activities. The claims as a whole recite an abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant's argument: Prior art does not teach the limitation added from claim 2 to claim 1.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. Xiao teaches a signal configuration in paragraph [0047], where by broadest reasonable interpretation, the virtual sensor data output is a form of signal, and the combination of desired sensor data types included in the virtual sensor data output is a configuration of the signal. Additional evidence of this is provided in paragraph [0041] of Xiao (see Xiao, paragraph [0041], "...The interface can facilitate configurations as to the desired output (e.g., camera images, radar or lidar data, vehicle dynamic data), that can then be downloaded after the virtual test run..."). Therefore, by broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art teaches the newly amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-5460. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on (571)272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights