DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
With respect to Claim(s) 1, the limitation states:
“detecting, based at least on performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine, a potential failure associated with an element of the machine;
determining, based at least on the potential failure, a first time period associated with a failure mode;
determining a second time period that is associated with an availability of the element; and
determining, based at least on the first time period and the second time period, whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs.”
For simplicity and example purposes only, Examiner will define the ‘machine’ as a vehicle and the ‘element of the machine’ as a headlight of the vehicle.
In light of the Examiner’s example, Examiner understands the claimed invention to first perform one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a vehicle to detect a potential failure associated with a headlight of a vehicle. Examiner understands the term ‘potential failure’ to correspond to an identifiable condition that indicates a piece of equipment or component is deteriorating and may fail if no corrective action is taken.
Next, the claim language states that a first time period that is ‘associated with a failure mode’ is determined. It is unclear what the defined scope of said time period is and how it is being determined.
Next, the claim states that a second time period that is ‘associated with an availability of the element’ is determined. It is unclear what the defined scope of said time period is and how it is being determined.
In light of the Examiner’s example, does determining the time period until the failure of the headlight meet the scope of either time periods? Examiner’s example time period can be interpreted as being associated with a mode of failure and associated with an availability of the headlight. As you can see, it is unclear if the two claimed time periods have an overlapping scope, or separate and distinct scopes.
Next, the claim states that we determine whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs. It is unclear when the answer to this question is not ‘yes’. The very first step is to detect a potential failure for an element of the machine. If the potential failure occurs for the element, wouldn’t that impact the availability of the element?
In light of the Examiner’s example, if the headlight fails, the headlights would no longer be functioning properly and would therefore be unavailable.
Defining the machine and comprising elements of the machine that the analysis is being processed for would help make the claim(s) definite. Defining the two time periods that are being determined would help make the claim(s) definite. Defining what the end result of the algorithm is supposed to be and how it utilizes the two determined time periods to get the intended end result would help make the claim(s) definite.
For examination purposes, any prior art that utilizes safety analysis techniques to detect a potential failure of an element/component of a machine and determines the time period until the potential failure occurs meets the BRI of the claimed invention. Further, Examiner will assume any element/component that experiences a failure will impact the availability of the element due to the failure occurring.
Examiner invites the applicant to schedule an interview to discuss amendments that would make the claim language definite and clear for compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 11, 19 is/are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-18, 20 is/are rejected as for being dependent on the above rejected parent claim(s) and similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
detecting, based at least on performing one or more safety analysis techniques, a potential failure associated with an element of the machine;
determining, based at least on the potential failure, a first time period associated with a failure mode;
determining a second time period that is associated with an availability of the element; and
determining, based at least on the first time period and the second time period, whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 11 recites
determine a potential failure associated with an element of a machine;
determine a first time period that is associated with operating in a failure mode when an occurrence of the potential failure occurs;
determine a second time period that is associated with an availability of the element;
and
generate information associated with one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine,
the information indicating at least the potential failure of the element,
the first time period associated with the failure mode, and
the second time period associated with the availability of the element
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 19 recites
determine whether an availability of an element is impacted by a potential failure to the element based at least on information associated with one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine,
wherein
the information indicates at least a first time period that the element will operate in a failure mode and a second time period that is associated with the availability of the element
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, 19, Claim(s) 2-10, 12-17 recite(s)
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises one of:
determining that the availability of the element may be impacted by the potential failure based at least on the first time period being greater than the second time period;
or
determining that the availability of the element will not be impacted by the potential failure based at least on the first amount time period being less than or equal to the second time period.
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises:
determining that the first time period is greater than the second time period;
determining a third time period that is associated with one or more safety measures that are available for the element;
and
determining, based at least on the first time period and the third time period, that whether the availability of the element will be impacted when the potential failure occurs.
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises
determining, based at least on the third time period being less than or equal to the first time period, that the availability of the element will not be impacted by the potential failure.
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises:
determining that the first time period is greater than the second time period;
determining that one or more safety measures that are available for the element include providing a notification associated with the availability of the element; and
determining, based at least on the one or more safety measures including the notification, that the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs.
further comprising:
detecting, based at least on the performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine, a second potential failure associated with a second element of the machine;
determining that the second potential failure is associated with a permanent effect;
determining a third time period that is associated with a second availability of the second element;
determining a fourth time period that is associated with one or more safety measures that are available for the second element; and
determining, based at least on the second potential failure being associated with the permanent effect and the fourth time period being less than or equal to the third time period, that the second availability of the second element is not impacted when the second potential failure occurs.
wherein:
the determining the first time period associated with the failure mode uses information associated with the one or more safety analysis techniques;
and
the determining the second time period that is associated with the availability of the element uses the information associated with the one or more safety analysis techniques.
wherein
the second time period associated with the availability of the element comprises one or more of:
an amount of time before a next request associated with the element occurs;
or
a fault handling tolerant time associated with the element.
wherein
the performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine comprises performing one or more of:
a failure mode and effects analysis associated with the machine;
or
a critical path analysis associated with the machine.
further comprising
generating information associated with the one or more safety analysis techniques,
the information indicating at least:
the potential failure associated with the element;
the first time period associated with the failure mode;
and
the second time period that is associated with the availability of the element.
wherein
the one or more processing units are further to:
determine, based at least on the first time period being greater than the second time period, a third time period that is associated with one or more safety measures for the availability of the element,
wherein
the information further indicates the third time period that is associated with the one or more safety measures for the availability of the element.
wherein
the one or more processing units are further to:
determine, based at least on the first time period being less than or equal to the second time period, that the availability associated with the element will not be impacted by the potential failure,
wherein
the information further indicates that the availability associated with the element will not be impacted by the potential failure.
wherein
the one or more processing units are further to:
determine a second potential failure associated with a second element of the machine;
determine that the second potential failure is associated with a permanent effect;
determine a third time period that is associated with a second availability of the second element; and
determine, based at least on the second potential failure being associated with the permanent effect, a fourth time period that is associated with one or more safety measures for the second availability of the second element,
wherein
the information further indicates the second potential failure for the second element,
the second potential failure is associated with the permanent effect;
the third time period that is associated with the second availability of the second element, and
the fourth time period that is associated with the one or more safety measures for the second availability of the second element.
wherein
the one or more processing units are further to:
detect, based at least on performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine, the potential failure associated with the element of the machine; and
determine, based at least on the information, whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. associated with a machine; one or more processing units to:; wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system implementing one or more large language models; a system implementing one or more language models; a system for performing one or more generative Al operations; a system for performing conversational Al operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. associated with a machine; wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system implementing one or more large language models; a system implementing one or more language models; a system for performing one or more generative Al operations; a system for performing conversational Al operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAVAT ET AL. (US 20230192139 A1) (hereinafter “KUMAVAT”) in view of HOUSE ET AL. (US 20040044499 A1) (hereinafter “HOUSE”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, KUMAVAT teaches a system for addressing failure in an autonomous agent and the BRI of:
detecting a potential failure associated with an element of the machine (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2);
determining, based at least on the potential failure, a failure mode (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2);
determining an availability of the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2); and
determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
However, KUMAVAT is lacking the explicit language of:
performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine;
determining a first time period, a second time period.
HOUSE teaches the reliability and remaining time before failure for electric motor systems and the BRI of:
performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine; determining time period(s) (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine; determining time period(s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 11, KUMAVAT teaches a system for addressing failure in an autonomous agent and the BRI of:
one or more processing units (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
to:
determine a potential failure associated with an element of a machine (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2);
determine information that is associated with operating in a failure mode when an occurrence of the potential failure occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2);
determine information that is associated with an availability of the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2);
and
generate information associated with the machine, the information indicating at least the potential failure of the element, the first information associated with the failure mode, and the second information associated with the availability of the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
However, KUMAVAT is lacking the explicit language of:
one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine;
determining a first time period, a second time period.
HOUSE teaches the reliability and remaining time before failure for electric motor systems and the BRI of:
one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine; determining time period(s) (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine; determining time period(s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 19, KUMAVAT teaches a system for addressing failure in an autonomous agent and the BRI of:
one or more processing units (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
to
determine whether an availability of an element is impacted by a potential failure to the element based at least on information associated with a machine, wherein the information indicates at least a first information that the element will operate in a failure mode and a second information that is associated with the availability of the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
However, KUMAVAT is lacking the explicit language of:
performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine;
determining a first time period, a second time period.
HOUSE teaches the reliability and remaining time before failure for electric motor systems and the BRI of:
performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine; determining time period(s) (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine; determining time period(s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, 13, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises one of:
determining that the availability of the element may be impacted by the potential failure; or determining that the availability of the element will not be impacted by the potential failure (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
at least on the first time period being greater than the second time period, at least on the first amount time period being less than or equal to the second time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include at least on the first time period being greater than the second time period, at least on the first amount time period being less than or equal to the second time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, 12, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises: determining one or more safety measures that are available for the element; and determining that whether the availability of the element will be impacted when the potential failure occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
determining that the first time period is greater than the second time period; determining a third time period; the first time period and the third time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include determining that the first time period is greater than the second time period; determining a third time period; the first time period and the third time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 4, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises determining that the availability of the element will not be impacted by the potential failure (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
the third time period being less than or equal to the first time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include the third time period being less than or equal to the first time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 5, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the determining whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs comprises:
determining that one or more safety measures that are available for the element include providing a notification associated with the availability of the element; and determining, based at least on the one or more safety measures including the notification, that the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
determining that the first time period is greater than the second time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include determining that the first time period is greater than the second time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 7, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein:
the determining the first information associated with the failure mode uses information associated with the one or more analysis techniques; and the determining the second information that is associated with the availability of the element uses the information associated with the one or more analysis techniques (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine; determining time period(s) (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine; determining time period(s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 9, 16, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine comprises performing one or more of: a failure mode and effects analysis associated with the machine; or a critical path analysis associated with the machine (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include the performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine comprises performing one or more of: a failure mode and effects analysis associated with the machine; or a critical path analysis associated with the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 10, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
further comprising
generating information associated with the one or more analysis techniques, the information indicating at least: the potential failure associated with the element; the first information associated with the failure mode; and the second information that is associated with the availability of the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine; determining time period(s) (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include performing one or more safety analysis techniques associated with a machine; determining time period(s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 17, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processing units are further to:
detect, based at least on performing the one or more analysis techniques associated with the machine, the potential failure associated with the element of the machine; and determine, based at least on the information, whether the availability of the element may be impacted when the potential failure occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 18, 20, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system implementing one or more large language models; a system implementing one or more language models; a system for performing one or more generative Al operations; a system for performing conversational Al operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT).
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim(s) in view of YEN (US 20230339480 A1).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, 14, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
further comprising:
detecting a second potential failure associated with a second element of the machine;
determining a third information that is associated with a second availability of the second element; determining a fourth information that is associated with one or more safety measures that are available for the second element; and determining that the second availability of the second element is not impacted when the second potential failure occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine; a third, fourth time period, the fourth time period being less than or equal to the third time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include performing the one or more safety analysis techniques associated with the machine; a third, fourth time period, the fourth time period being less than or equal to the third time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, KUMAVAT is lacking the explicit language of:
determining that the second potential failure is associated with a permanent effect.
YEN teaches methods for robust fault tolerant architecture, which can include methods for determining transient faults and permanent faults and the BRI of:
determining that a potential failure is associated with a permanent effect (See, e.g., ¶ 0026, 0075-0078, 0085, 0096, 0100, 0101, 0158).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include determining that a potential failure is associated with a permanent effect.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to identify a severity of a fault. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim(s) in view of HARTUNG ET AL. (US 20170139411 A1) (hereinafter “HARTUNG”).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, 15, KUMAVAT, HOUSE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KUMAVAT further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the second information associated with the availability of the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0143-0179; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
HOUSE further teaches the BRI of:
determining time period(s) (See, e.g., ¶ 0006-0008, 0016-0034; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include determining time period(s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to determining component/element reliability. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, KUMAVAT is lacking the explicit language of:
an amount of time before a next request associated with the element occurs; or a fault handling tolerant time associated with the element.
HARTUNG teaches an autonomous vehicle platform and safety architecture, safety managers of a safety-critical system monitor outputs of linked components of the safety-critical system and the BRI of:
an amount of time before a next request associated with the element occurs; or a fault handling tolerant time associated with the element (See, e.g., ¶ 0045, 0114).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KUMAVAT to include an amount of time before a next request associated with the element occurs; or a fault handling tolerant time associated with the element.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify KUMAVAT because it would be beneficial to improve safety architecture. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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 SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights