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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/485,840, is filed on 10/12/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 10/12/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 and 17-25 should include minimal essential text labels for ease of reading satisfying the purpose of presenting drawings. See the examiner annotated Fig. 1 as a sample illustration.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sample annotated Fig. 1
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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 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) 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) 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.
The current application includes limitations in claim 20, that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 20 includes limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, i.e. vehicle control module and control module, that are coupled with functional language, for “controlling” and configured to “receive”, “calculate”, “detect”, “modify” and “transmit”, without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
The “vehicle control module” can be found in the specification as a control component of a vehicle (see specification – vehicle 2400 [0137, Fig, 1 and 24 108]). However, the description on the physical structures of the “vehicle control module” cannot be found. The “control module” can be also found in the specification as an external control component communicating with the “vehicle control module”, but the description for the physical structures of the “control module” cannot be found either.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 1, claim recites “the vehicle parameter” in the limitations “detecting an anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the anomaly, modifying the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration set”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for the case of more than one vehicle parameter. The same thing applies to the anomaly score.
For the sake of examination, the limitations “detecting an anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the anomaly, modifying the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration set; and transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter” are interpreted as “detecting each anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the each anomaly score for the at least one vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the each anomaly, modifying the at least one vehicle parameter of the each vehicle calibration set; and transmitting the each vehicle calibration set including the modified at least one vehicle parameter”.
As per claim 19, claim recites “the anomaly score for the section”, “the anomaly”, “the section” and “the calibration set” in “detecting an anomaly associated with at least one section of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the section and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the anomaly, modifying a vehicle parameter in the section of the vehicle calibration set; and transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these recited limitations in the claim for the case of a plurality of sections, more than one vehicle calibration set.
For the sake of examination, the limitation “detecting an anomaly associated with at least one section of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the section and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the anomaly, modifying a vehicle parameter in the section of the vehicle calibration set; and transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter” is interpreted as “detecting each anomaly associated with at least one section of the each vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the each anomaly score for the each section and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the each anomaly, modifying a vehicle parameter in the each section of the each vehicle calibration set; and transmitting the each vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter”.
As per claim 20, claim recites “the anomaly score” and “the vehicle parameters” in “detect an anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the anomaly, modify the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration set; and transmit the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these recited limitations in the claim for a plurality of vehicle parameter and anomaly score.
For the sake of examination, the limitation “detect an anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the anomaly, modify the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration set; and transmit the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter” is interpreted as “detect each anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of each vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the each anomaly score for the each vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; in response to detecting the each anomaly, modify the each vehicle parameter of the each vehicle calibration set; and transmit the each vehicle calibration set including the modified each vehicle parameter”.
The limitations/elements “vehicle control module” and “control module” are also ambiguous because they lack the description on physical structures for the both limitations/elements as pointed out in 35 USC 112(f) above.
As per claim 2-18, claims are also rejected because base claim 1 is rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets, (1.A) the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of vehicle calibration sets, (1.B.1) each vehicle calibration set including corresponding vehicle parameters; (1.B.2)
calculating, for each vehicle parameter of each vehicle calibration set, an anomaly score; (1.C.1)
detecting an anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; (1.C.2)
in response to detecting the anomaly, modifying the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration set; (1.C.3)
and transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter to a vehicle control module (1.D.1) associated with a vehicle for controlling at least one component of the vehicle. (1.D.2)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.C.1) – (1.C.3) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Processing groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations or show Mathematical Relationship with optional Mental observation while the highlighted limitations/steps (1.B.2) and (1.D.2) are treated as belonging to Mental Processing grouping as the limitations describe “each calibration set” and “vehicle control module” as mental observation.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets”, “receiving a plurality of vehicle calibration sets” and “transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter to a vehicle control module”;
In Claim 13: “transmitting a visualization … to a display module”;
In Claim 15: “receiving user input in response to the transmitted visualization”;
In Claim 20: “A system for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets”, “a vehicle control module” and “a control module”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links a method with an intended purpose, i.e. detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations set, which is abstract and not particular. The limitation/step “receiving a plurality of vehicle calibration sets” represents a standard data initialization step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation/step “transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter to a vehicle control module” represents a standard data update step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 13, the limitation/step “transmitting a visualization … to a display module” represents a standard result report step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 15, the limitation/step “receiving user input in response to the transmitted visualization” represents a standard user interface interaction activity and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 20, the additional element in the preamble “A system for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation generally links a system with an intended purpose, i.e. detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations set, which is abstract and not particular. The limitations/elements “a vehicle control module” and “a control module” are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements except those treated as patent eligible, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Winio, Singer, Dor, Woz, Thron, and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winiowski (US 20180307238 A1), hereinafter ‘Winio” in view of Singer (US 20150100200 A1) best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Winio discloses
A method for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets, (calibration validation process [0015-0016, 0058-0061, 0064-0071, Fig. 6-8], recognize … calibration anomalies [0005], validating accuracy of an existing calibration during autonomous operation, anomalies [0023], calibrations, data sets, anomalous conditions [0033]) the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of vehicle calibration sets, each vehicle calibration set including corresponding vehicle parameters; (processing module … stores … the calibration data [0054], implying receiving calibration data set)
calculating, for each vehicle parameter of each vehicle calibration set, an anomaly score; (a metric indicative of the relative validity of the calibration [0024], calibration validity metric [0057, 0065-0066, 0068])
detecting an anomaly associated with at least one vehicle parameter of a vehicle calibration set of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on the anomaly score for the vehicle parameter and a defined threshold; (an anomalous condition may be identified when the difference metric exceeds the threshold value [0066])
in response to detecting the anomaly, modifying the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration set; (identify a potentially anomalous calibration and initiate remedial action [0068-0071], remedial actions, recalibrating [0023-0024, 0072])
However, Winio is silent regarding “transmitting the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter to a vehicle control module associated with a vehicle for controlling at least one component of the vehicle”.
Singer discloses transmitting calibration command sequence to a module in a vehicle under calibration (calibration command sequence, receive a calibration command sequence, decode the calibration command sequence … select a set of calibration data from a plurality of sets of calibration data [0005-0007], commands … commands can be transmitted … to trigger self-diagnostics in the module under calibration [0021, Fig. 1]).
Singer is in the same automotive vehicle art concerning accurate calibration quality as Winio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Winio in view of Singer to transmit the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter to a vehicle control module associated with a vehicle for controlling at least one component of the vehicle as a way to improve vehicle controls (see Winio – improving … vehicle controls [0044]).
As per claim 13, Winio and Singer discloses claim 1 set forth above.
Winio further discloses use of visual display (includes a visual display, such as a touch-screen graphical display, or other display [0039]) and determination of calibration metric (calibration validity metric, notification [0057, 0065-0066]).
As per claim 19, Winio discloses the claim as shown in claim 1 above except the limitation “each vehicle calibration set including corresponding vehicle parameters divided into two or more sections” and detecting an anomaly associated with at least one section of a vehicle calibration set.
Winio further discloses using different types of data corresponding to different points in time from different view points in setting up calibration relationship between different devices (see Winio – different points in time [0004], different times, relative time [0051], timestamps, a time associated with the … condition, calibration [0060])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Winio in view of Singer to use each vehicle calibration set including corresponding vehicle parameters divided into two or more sections and detect an anomaly associated with at least one section of a vehicle calibration set as a way to improve vehicle controls by taking appropriate remedial actions.
As per claim 20, Winio discloses
A system for detecting anomalies in vehicle calibrations sets, (systems … for controlling a vehicle [abs, 0006], calibration validation process [0015-0016, 0058-0061, 0064-0071, Fig. 6-8], recognize … calibration anomalies [0005], validating accuracy of an existing calibration during autonomous operation, anomalies [0023], calibrations, data sets, anomalous conditions [0033]) the system comprising:
a vehicle control module associated with a vehicle for controlling at least one component of the vehicle; (a control module on board the vehicle [0006, 0025, Fig. 1],)
and a control module in communication with the vehicle control module, (remote system [0030, Fig. 2], backend server system [0040])
Winio in view of Singer disclose the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winio and Singer in view of Krishnan (US 20210117760 A1), hereinafter ‘Krish’.
As per claim 4, Winio and Singer disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding “calculating a gradient for each corresponding vehicle parameter of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets; and calculating one or more numerical relationships for each corresponding vehicle parameter of each vehicle calibration set against a corresponding vehicle parameter of all other vehicle calibration sets”.
Krish discloses use of gradient optimization in improving both accuracy and uncertainty calibration ([0114]), use of discloses calibration error ([0104-0105]) for model calibration and training objective function toward model calibration ([0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Krish to calculate a gradient for each corresponding vehicle parameter of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets and calculate one or more numerical relationships for each corresponding vehicle parameter of each vehicle calibration set against a corresponding vehicle parameter of all other vehicle calibration sets as a way to improve vehicle controls by taking appropriate remedial actions to the accurately detected anomaly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winio, Singer and Krish in view of Lambert (US 20210334630 A1).
As per claim 6, Winio, Singer and Krish disclose claims 4 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding a Euclidean distance and a linear regression for the numerical relationships.
Lam discloses technique of using Euclidean distance and linear regression for data processing or machine learning models associated with calibration (Euclidean distance [00092], calibration [0504], linear regression [0517]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Lam to include a Euclidean distance and a linear regression for the one or more numerical relationships as a way to improve vehicle controls by taking appropriate remedial actions to the accurately detected anomaly.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winio and Singer in view of Dormody (US 20230221144 A1), hereinafter ‘Dor’.
As per claim 14, Winio and Singer disclose claim 13 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding the visualization includes at least one graph charting the anomaly score.
Dor discloses displaying calibration quality data (graph, calibration values, calibration confidence value, offset [0043-0053, 0061-0064, Fig. 4 -7])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dor to include at least one graph charting the anomaly score for the visualization as a way to improve vehicle controls by taking appropriate remedial actions to the displayed anomaly.
As per claim 15, Winio and Singer disclose claim 13 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent receiving the user input in response to the displayed anomaly score and modifying calibration parameter in response to the received user input.
Dor discloses permitting a user to provide inputs using user interface which can display and taking user input (a user interface 26, e.g., display, keyboard, microphone, speaker, other, for permitting a user to provide inputs and receive outputs [0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dor to receive the user input in response to the displayed anomaly score and modify calibration parameter in response to the received user input as a way to improve vehicle controls by taking appropriate remedial actions reflecting user inputs to the displayed anomaly.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winio, Singer and Dor in view of Gethner (US 5446681 A), hereinafter ‘Geth’.
As per claim 16, Winio and Singer disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding calculating one or more statistical relationships of corresponding vehicle parameters of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets.
Geth discloses statistical method for describing the model calibration validity (validity of the model, statistical accuracy of parameter … or confidence level, model calibration dataset [col 22 line 15026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Geth to calculate one or more statistical relationships of corresponding vehicle parameters of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets for an accurate evaluation of the calibration dataset quality.
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding and transmitting a visualization including at least one table charting the one or more statistical relationships to a display module.
Dor discloses displaying calibration quality data through graphs (graph, calibration values, calibration confidence value, offset [0043-0053, 0061-0064, Fig. 4 -7])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dor to transmit a visualization including at least one table charting the one or more statistical relationships to a display module with a rationale to improve vehicle controls by taking appropriate remedial actions to the displayed anomaly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winio, Singer and Dor in view of Zoltan (KR 20210098501 A).
As per claim 17, Winio and Singer disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding receiving a defined autocorrect threshold and autocorrecting the vehicle parameter based on the autocorrect threshold.
Zoltan discloses auto-correcting the vehicle parameter using a predetermined parameter value (calibrating vehicle camera [pg. 4 line 21], camera calibration process [pg. 9 line 3], verification process … verify recalibration by transforming a predetermined reference position … misalignment values, distance and direction, … can be used for auto-correction [pg. 10 line 10-16]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Zoltan to receive a defined autocorrect threshold and modify the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration by autocorrecting the vehicle parameter of the vehicle calibration to a reference calibration in response to the detected anomaly being greater than the defined autocorrect threshold for an accurate calibration as one of appropriate remedial actions to the displayed anomaly.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winio, Singer and Dor in view of Thron (US 20190311556 A1).
As per claim 18, Winio and Singer disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding transmitting the vehicle calibration set to the vehicle control module associated with the vehicle via an over-the-air (OTA) update.
Thron discloses transmitting vehicle parameter using OTA update (vehicle feature data, anomaly detection, remedial action [abs], vehicle updates may be over the air ‘OTA’ updates … via network and communications [0048, Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Thron to transmit the vehicle calibration set including the modified vehicle parameter to the vehicle control module includes transmitting the vehicle calibration set to the vehicle control module associated with the vehicle via an over-the-air (OTA) update for an accurate calibration as one of appropriate remedial actions to the detected anomaly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5 and 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 2-3, the closest prior art of record, Winio, Singer, Wozniak (Wozniak, Len, and Paul Clements. "How automotive engineering is taking product line engineering to the extreme." In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on software product line, pp. 327-336. 2015), hereinafter ‘Woz’ and Griessl (Griessl, Rene, and et al. "Evaluation of the DL accelerator designs." Evaluation 500: 3-3, 2020), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“calculating the anomaly score based on a cost function, a weighted value of the gradient, and weighted values of the one or more numerical relationships” in combination of other limitations.
Winio and Singer discloses claim 1 set forth above.
However, the set forth combined prior art is silent regarding the plurality of vehicle calibration sets includes a master vehicle calibration set and one or more child vehicle calibration sets.
Woz discloses using master calibration sets and developed calibration sets (master calibration sets, a developed calibration set [pg. 335 left col par. 1 from the bottom]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Griessl discloses optimization technique minimizing a cost function and gradient graph and quantization using calibration datasets (automated benchmarking, characterization, and deployment, generated gradient graphs [pg. 6 par. 4], optimization parameters, cost function is minimized [pg. 20 par. 4], quantization using calibration dataset [pg. 22 par. 9-10]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
As per claim 3, claim is also allowable because base claim 2 would be allowable.
As per claim 5, the closest prior art of record, Winio, Singer and Krish, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“calculating a provisional anomaly score for each corresponding vehicle parameter of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets based on a cost function, a weighted value of the gradient, and weighted values of the one or more numerical relationships” in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 7, the closest prior art of record, Winio, Singer, Woz and Pipe-Mazo (US 20210129339 A1), hereinafter ‘PM’, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“calculating the anomaly score includes: calculating a distance for each corresponding vehicle parameter of each child vehicle calibration set against a corresponding vehicle parameter of the master vehicle calibration set; and calculating the anomaly score based on the distance” in combination with other limitations.
PM discloses use of calibration logic ([0172]) and recites use of calibration marker from a specified distance ([0203]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
As per claim 8, claim is also allowable because base claim 7 would be allowable.
As per claim 9, the closest prior art of record, Winio, Singer, Woz and PM, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“calculating a mean for each corresponding vehicle parameter of the plurality of vehicle calibration sets and calculating a distance for each corresponding vehicle parameter of each vehicle calibration set against the calculated mean for that vehicle parameter” in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 10, claim is also allowable because base claim 10 would be allowable.
As per claim 11, the closest prior art of record, Winio, Singer, Woz and PM, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“calculating a distance for each corresponding vehicle parameter of each set of vehicle calibrations against a reference value and calculating the anomaly score based on the distance” in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 12, the closest prior art of record, Winio, Singer, Woz, Griessl and PM, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“the plurality of vehicle calibration sets are in a vector format or a map format” in combination with other limitations.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Khalili ((US 11428541 B1) discloses receiving a calibration dataset (the controller … receive a calibration dataset [col 7 line 29-30]).
Throne (US 20190311556 A1) discloses anomaly detection score, statistical data analysis, remedial action for the vehicle calibration ((anomaly detection score [0003, claim 1], Gaussian distribution, remedial action [0028], corrective or … remedial action [0029], anomaly detection threshold, statistical techniques, distribution model, vehicle prognostics, remedial action [0033], vehicle specification [0043]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights