DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 30 January, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
PFEIFFER describes a drive train test stand that uses a simulation model to simulate the movement of a virtual vehicle along a virtual route. While PFEIFFER refers to a "route," that route is part of a single simulation environment and is not set using a first map as claimed. PFEIFFER further explains that the route may be generated from real-world driving data or may be freely defined by a user in an editor. In either case, PFEIFFER does not disclose setting a travel route based on a map, let alone a first map that is distinct from another map. The simulation environment in PFEIFFER functions as a model that includes vehicle dynamics, wheel dynamics, tire dynamics, and road interaction, rather than as separate map-based data sources.
PFEIFFER also fails to disclose acquiring road information from a second map that is more detailed than the first map. In PFEIFFER, road characteristics such as gradients, curves, and surface properties are handled within the simulation model itself. These characteristics are not obtained from a separate, more detailed map after the route has been set. There is no disclosure in PFEIFFER of layered or hierarchical map usage, nor any disclosure of selecting a route from one map and then separately querying a more detailed map for road information corresponding to that route. Instead, all road-related information in PFEIFFER is embedded in a single simulation framework.
Because PFEIFFER does not disclose a second map, it also does not disclose calculating travel resistance based on road information acquired from such a second map. In PFEIFFER, resistance-related forces are calculated using tire models and vehicle models that operate on simulated physical parameters. These calculations are driven by the internal state of the simulation, not by road information retrieved from a more detailed map that is separate from route definition. As a result, PFEIFFER does not teach or suggest the claimed sequence of setting a route using a first map, acquiring road information from a second, more detailed map, and calculating travel resistance based on that road information.
Even to the extent PFEIFFER contemplates generating a virtual route using real-world driving data, PFEIFFER necessarily relies on at least one prior physical drive on an actual road to obtain that data. PFEIFFER therefore presupposes that the test vehicle, or a substantially similar vehicle, has already been operated in the real world under the conditions to be simulated. This is in contrast to the claims, which define a travel route using a first map and acquire corresponding, more detailed road information from a second map, both of which may be derived from existing digital map databases. The claimed approach does not require any prior real-world driving by the specific test vehicle in order to establish realistic loading conditions. Instead, the route and road characteristics are determined entirely from map-based data. This enables bench testing of the drive train under representative conditions without first instrumenting and operating the vehicle on public roads.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth in the Office Action dated 6 November, 2025 does not rely on Pfeiffer to teach the claim limitations of setting a travel route based on a map and acquiring road information from a second map that is more detailed than the first map. The rejection instead relies on Fok to teach these claim limitations.
Applicant further argues:
FOK likewise does not cure these deficiencies. FOK discloses obtaining route information from a map and identifying road features from that same map in order to generate validation tests for autonomous driving software. FOK does not disclose the use of two different maps with different levels of detail, nor does it disclose separating route setting from road information acquisition using different map sources.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the first map recited in the instant claims includes the updated map taught by Fok (See Fok Paragraph 0046 Referring to FIG. 3, the process 300 begins, at 302 with determining whether a new and/or updated map has been received, at 304. Route information identifying a route in a map for an autonomous vehicle may then be obtained at 306.). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the second map, more detailed than the first map, recited in the instant claims includes the route information taught by Fok (See Fok Paragraph 0047 At 308, the route information may be segmented into multiple test route subsections. The test route subsections may be segmented based on one or more way points. The way points may be user determined and/or automatically determined based on one or more road features. The road features may include, for example, a lane merge, lane split, a cross walk, an intersection, and/or other features. In one embodiment, the way points may be determined by automatically identifying the road features from the map information and/or by a user setting way points at or near the road features.). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the road information, acquired from the second map, recited in the instant claims includes the waypoints and road features taught by Fok (See Fok Paragraph 0047 At 308, the route information may be segmented into multiple test route subsections. The test route subsections may be segmented based on one or more way points. The way points may be user determined and/or automatically determined based on one or more road features. The road features may include, for example, a lane merge, lane split, a cross walk, an intersection, and/or other features. In one embodiment, the way points may be determined by automatically identifying the road features from the map information and/or by a user setting way points at or near the road features.). Therefore, Fok teaches all remaining limitations of amended claim 1.
Applicant further argues:
FOK also does not disclose calculating travel resistance for a dynamometer based on road information, as it is directed to software validation rather than physical load control.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth in the Office Action dated 6 November, 2025 does not rely on Fok to teach this limitation. The rejection instead relies on Pfeiffer to teach this claim limitation.
Applicant further argues:
FOK uses a map to generate test scenarios for validating autonomous driving software. FOK relies on a single map data source and performs multiple processing steps on that same source, such as extracting routes and identifying road features. FOK does not disclose using different maps with different levels of detail for different purposes. In contrast, the claims use a second map that is a high-detail map storing detailed road attributes, such as slopes, cants, curvatures, and the positions of signs and traffic lights. This second map can function as a shared repository of detailed road data that is usable across multiple test benches and multiple types of vehicles. The same second map database can therefore provide high-fidelity road information for many different test objects and test systems. FOK contains no disclosure or suggestion of using such a shared high-detail road data source to calculate travel resistance or to control a dynamometer.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. As set forth above, Fok does teach using different maps with different levels of detail.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant’s replacement abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the test object is a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), an automatic driving vehicle, or a part of one of the vehicles.” It is unclear and indefinite how the test object can be a part of one of the vehicles (plural) when only one vehicle or part of the vehicle has been recited. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0310162) in view of Fok (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0356277).
Regarding claim 1, Pfeiffer teaches a test object testing system for testing a test object that is a vehicle or a part of the vehicle, the test object testing system comprising: a dynamometer that applies a load to the test object (Paragraph 0024 Dynamometers 8a, 8b, for example, electric motors, are arranged on the driven side shafts 7a, 7b of the drive train 2.); a road information acquisition unit that acquires road information of the travel route (Paragraph 0028 In the test stand automation unit 10, a simulation model 20 is implemented, in the form of simulation hardware and/or simulation software, that simulates the movement of a virtual (i.e., simulated) vehicle with the drive train 2 through a virtual (i.e., simulated) test environment along a virtual route. The virtual test environment defines at least the virtual route (curves, gradients, road slopes, road surface).); a travel resistance calculation unit that calculates a travel resistance of the test object based on the road information (Paragraph 0029 At the same time, the simulation model 20 supplies in the predetermined time steps of the simulation setpoint values for the dynamometers 8a, 8b used, preferably a setpoint speed nBa,set, nBb,set In this way, the drive train 2 on the drive train test stand 1 "experiences" substantially the same conditions that the simulated vehicle would experience when driving along the simulated test track.); and a dynamometer control unit that controls the dynamometer based on the travel resistance (Paragraph 0030 The dynamometers 8a, 8b are controlled in a known manner in each case by an associated control unit 9a, 9b. For this purpose, a control unit 9a, 9b receives the setpoint value for the assigned dynamometer 8a, 8b, according to the present teaching a setpoint speed nBa,set nBb,set, and controls this by means of the implemented controller, for example a known PI controller or a PID controller.).
However, Pfeiffer does not teach a travel route setting unit that sets a travel route using a map.
Fok, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a simulation system for testing the functions of an autonomous vehicle. The system determines a travel route for the simulation using a map (Paragraph 0046 Referring to FIG. 3, the process 300 begins, at 302 with determining whether a new and/or updated map has been received, at 304. Route information identifying a route in a map for an autonomous vehicle may then be obtained at 306.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Pfeiffer with the teachings of Fok which teaches determining a travel route for the simulation using a map in order to run a simulation which ensures that the map is compatible with the functions of the autonomous vehicle (See Fok Paragraph 0017 These tests ensure the updated and/or new maps are compatible with the autonomous vehicle, and the autonomous vehicle is able to traverse the road features on the updated and/or new map.).
Pfeiffer also does not teach wherein the map includes a first map and a second map more detailed than the first map, the travel route setting unit sets a travel route using the first map, and the road information acquisition unit acquires road information of the travel route from the second map.
Fok, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the map includes a first map and a second map more detailed than the first map, the travel route setting unit sets a travel route using the first map (Paragraph 0046 Referring to FIG. 3, the process 300 begins, at 302 with determining whether a new and/or updated map has been received, at 304. Route information identifying a route in a map for an autonomous vehicle may then be obtained at 306.), and the road information acquisition unit acquires road information of the travel route from the second map (Paragraph 0047 At 308, the route information may be segmented into multiple test route subsections. The test route subsections may be segmented based on one or more way points. The way points may be user determined and/or automatically determined based on one or more road features. The road features may include, for example, a lane merge, lane split, a cross walk, an intersection, and/or other features. In one embodiment, the way points may be determined by automatically identifying the road features from the map information and/or by a user setting way points at or near the road features.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Pfeiffer with the teachings of Fok which teaches wherein the map includes a first map and a second map more detailed than the first map, the travel route setting unit sets a travel route using the first map, and the road information acquisition unit acquires road information of the travel route from the second map in order to run a simulation which ensures that the map is compatible with the functions of the autonomous vehicle (See Fok Paragraph 0017 These tests ensure the updated and/or new maps are compatible with the autonomous vehicle, and the autonomous vehicle is able to traverse the road features on the updated and/or new map.).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that claim 11 is directed to a testing method. Therefore, the same prior art can be applied to claim 11 as was applied to claim 1
Regarding claim 3, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the travel route setting unit acquires position information of the travel route, and the road information acquisition unit acquires road information corresponding to the position information from the second map (Paragraph 0028 In the test stand automation unit 10, a simulation model 20 is implemented, in the form of simulation hardware and/or simulation software, that simulates the movement of a virtual (i.e., simulated) vehicle with the drive train 2 through a virtual (i.e., simulated) test environment along a virtual route. The virtual test environment defines at least the virtual route (curves, gradients, road slopes, road surface).).
Regarding claim 4, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the road information acquisition unit acquires from the second map, as the road information, at least one of a slope and a road curvature (Paragraph 0028 In the test stand automation unit 10, a simulation model 20 is implemented, in the form of simulation hardware and/or simulation software, that simulates the movement of a virtual (i.e., simulated) vehicle with the drive train 2 through a virtual (i.e., simulated) test environment along a virtual route. The virtual test environment defines at least the virtual route (curves, gradients, road slopes, road surface).). The Examiner notes that limitations in this claim are presented in the alternative and as such prior art is not applied to all limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the travel resistance calculation unit calculates the travel resistance based on the road information (Paragraph 0028 In the test stand automation unit 10, a simulation model 20 is implemented, in the form of simulation hardware and/or simulation software, that simulates the movement of a virtual (i.e., simulated) vehicle with the drive train 2 through a virtual (i.e., simulated) test environment along a virtual route. The virtual test environment defines at least the virtual route (curves, gradients, road slopes, road surface).), vehicle specifications (Paragraph 0032 To implement the simulation of the movement of the virtual vehicle, at least a vehicle model 22 which simulates the movement of the vehicle along the route, and a wheel model 21 with an integrated tire model 23 are required in the simulation model 20, as shown in FIG. 2. The wheel model 21 with the tire model 23 simulates the interaction of the wheel/tire with the environment, that is to say specifically with the road of the test track. In the tire model 23, the transmission of power from the tire 11 to the road is usually simulated and the wheel model 21 simulates the dynamics with the inertia of the vehicle wheel and with the forces/moments of the power transmission.), and a vehicle speed (Paragraph 0028 Often, real-world vehicles drive real distances and measure certain parameters (e.g., curves, gradients, road gradients, road surface (tire grip), vehicle speed, etc.). From such a real trip, a virtual route can then be generated. Likewise, a driving profile can be obtained from the real drive, so for example, the vehicle speed or a shifting action at certain points of the route or a speed change at certain points.).
Regarding claim 6, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Pfeiffer does not teach wherein the test object is a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), an automatic driving vehicle, or a part of one of the vehicles.
Fok, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a simulation system for testing the functions of an autonomous vehicle. The system simulates autonomous driving on a route determined based on a map (Paragraph 0017 The road features for individual ones of the test route subsections may be identified such that a simulated autonomous vehicle may traverse the road features during the validation tests.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Pfeiffer with the teachings of Fok which teaches simulates autonomous driving on a route determined based on a map in order to run a simulation which ensures that the map is compatible with the functions of the autonomous vehicle (See Fok Paragraph 0017 These tests ensure the updated and/or new maps are compatible with the autonomous vehicle, and the autonomous vehicle is able to traverse the road features on the updated and/or new map.).
Regarding claim 7, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Pfeiffer further teaches a vehicle position simulation unit that simulates travel of the test object on the travel route and calculates a simulation signal including a vehicle position and road information on the travel route (Paragraph 0036 At least the longitudinal force Fx is thereby calculated in the tire model 23 of the wheel model 21, but usually also at least the rolling resistance torque MY and often also the lateral force FY and the drilling torque MZ, which tries to turn back the turned wheel. According to the current acting statics and dynamics (position, speed, acceleration) of the virtual vehicle, but also as a result of implemented drive concepts such as an active torque distribution, the acting tire forces and tire torque on the individual wheels of the vehicle of course do not need to be the same.).
Regarding claim 8, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Pfeiffer does not teach wherein the vehicle position simulation unit generates sensor simulation signals of various sensors based on the vehicle position and the road information, and inputs the sensor simulation signals to the various sensors.
Fok, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a simulation system for testing the functions of an autonomous vehicle. The system simulates sensor signals of sensors of the vehicle during testing based on the vehicle position and road information (Paragraph 0048 One or more road features corresponding to the one or more multiple test route subsections may be identified at 310. In some embodiments, input from one or more sensors 116 (see FIG. 2) may be used to identify the one or more road features. Sensors 116 may communicate with autonomous map circuit 210 to provide information used to identify the one or more road features. In some embodiments, autonomous map circuit 210 may utilize database information, 3rd party sources, and/or other information to identify the one or more multiple test route subsections. At 312, one or more validation tests corresponding to the one or more of the multiple test route subsections may be automatically generated based on a simulated autonomous vehicle transversing one or more of the road features.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Pfeiffer with the teachings of Fok which teaches simulating sensor signals of sensors of the vehicle during testing based on the vehicle position and road information in order to run a simulation which ensures that the map is compatible with the functions of the autonomous vehicle (See Fok Paragraph 0017 These tests ensure the updated and/or new maps are compatible with the autonomous vehicle, and the autonomous vehicle is able to traverse the road features on the updated and/or new map.).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Fok and Sugihara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0169629).
Regarding claim 9, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Pfeiffer in view of Fok does not teach wherein the travel route is a travel route satisfying a real driving test conforming to regulations.
Sugihara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle testing system which simulates driving of a vehicle. The simulation follows a prescribed pattern which complies with regulations (Paragraph 0037 Specifically, the vehicle speed pattern display device 2 is such that the body 21 acquires a control signal from the control part 41, and on the basis of the control signal, as illustrated in FIGS. 2 to 4, displays a graph G1 with the vertical axis representing time and the horizontal axis representing a vehicle speed (and vice versa in terms of axis) on a screen of the display 22 as well as displaying a prescribed speed pattern B prescribed by rules such as regulations, and upper and lower limit speed patterns H and L set for the prescribed speed pattern B.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Pfeiffer in view of Fok with the teachings of Sugihara which teaches performing a simulation which follows a prescribed pattern which complies with regulations in order to test vehicle systems against established regulations (See Sugihara Paragraph 0038 The respective speed patterns B, H, and L are related to a predetermined running pattern provided under rules such as regulations and then registered in a speed pattern storage part 42 preliminarily set in a predetermined area of the memory of the measurement management device 4.).
Regarding claim 12, Pfeiffer in view of Fok teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Pfeiffer in view of Fok does not teach wherein the travel route is a travel route satisfying a real driving test conforming to regulations, and the real driving test conforming to the regulations is reproduced using the dynamometer without real driving.
Sugihara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle testing system which simulates driving of a vehicle. The simulation follows a prescribed pattern which complies with regulations (Paragraph 0037 Specifically, the vehicle speed pattern display device 2 is such that the body 21 acquires a control signal from the control part 41, and on the basis of the control signal, as illustrated in FIGS. 2 to 4, displays a graph G1 with the vertical axis representing time and the horizontal axis representing a vehicle speed (and vice versa in terms of axis) on a screen of the display 22 as well as displaying a prescribed speed pattern B prescribed by rules such as regulations, and upper and lower limit speed patterns H and L set for the prescribed speed pattern B.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Pfeiffer in view of Fok with the teachings of Sugihara which teaches performing a simulation which follows a prescribed pattern which complies with regulations in order to test vehicle systems against established regulations (See Sugihara Paragraph 0038 The respective speed patterns B, H, and L are related to a predetermined running pattern provided under rules such as regulations and then registered in a speed pattern storage part 42 preliminarily set in a predetermined area of the memory of the measurement management device 4.).
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 PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/PATRICK DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights