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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 11/03/2025, in which claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 are amended and claims 2, 3, and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-17 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see REMARKS filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC §112b, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections, under 35 USC §112b, are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC §103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections, under 35 USC §103, are maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, the Applicant argues:
As mentioned, the claims have been amended to recite that the verification
platforms comprise a main platform and a fallback platform, and that these platforms are logically and functionally identical. None of the references teach or suggest this feature.
Poledna, the base reference used in the rejections, teaches a "Safe Trajectory Selection STS further [that] implements one or more Verification Modules." These modules include "four Verification Modules VM1-VM4. The Verification Modules VM1-VM4 are configured to implement tests on the trajectories T1-T3. Said tests on said trajectories T1- T3 return Quality Assessments Q11-Q43, wherein said Quality Assessments Q11-Q43 are indicating the quality of each of the trajectories T1-T3 in terms of said tests." See Poledna, paragraph [0063]. Also, Poledna notes that "each Verification Module implements a different test...." See Poledna, paragraph [0064], emphasis added. In other words, Poledna wants to perform different tests in parallel, not the same tests, and has structured his system accordingly.
Consequently, each of Poledna's modules are different in functionality since they implement completely different tests. These modules were seen by the Office Action as being the claimed verification platforms. See Office Action, page 10 (referencing VM1 and VM2). But since the claims require that the verification platforms are logically and functionally identical, Poledna cannot and does not teach this claimed feature as his modules execute different tests.
Here, the Applicant is arguing that the “functionality” of the Verification Modules (VM) of Poledna are not identical because they can implement different tests on each VM.
However, the Applicant has not claimed at what abstraction layer the system must be functionally identical. In the prior art, the function of the VMs are identical in that they are determining the quality of the trajectory, i.e., at an application abstraction level they are the same. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claims, Poledna discloses identical functionality at least at an application level.
Thus, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues:
The other references are silent as to this feature.
However, because the primary art discloses the entirety of the amended claim language, this argument is moot.
Applicant further argues:
But even if some reference did teach this feature, there would be no reason to modify Poledna to include the claimed feature. Poledna is trying to run different tests (i.e., different functionality) in parallel to seemingly increase his processing speed. To change Polena's modules to use the same test would destroy the main purpose of Poledna and, consequently, is taught against by Poledna. As a result, any modification of Poledna to include the claimed subject matter would rely on the applicant's own teachings as providing the motivation for any modification and this would amount to an improper hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. The claims are allowable for these additional reasons.
Poledna discloses that the VMs “preferably” execute different tests on the trajectories. (¶ [0040] and [0064]) This does not mean that the VMs must execute different tests on the trajectories.
The term preferably1 is defined as “used to show what you think is the best choice.” Therefore, by using the term preferably Poledna is disclosing a preferable embodiment that implements a different test while also disclosing a non-preferable embodiment wherein the same tests are performed by the VMs.
Thus, even if the Applicant amends the claims to indicate which level of abstraction the functionality of the devices must be the same, Poledna still teaches that the VMs may have the same functionality by running the same tests.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the above argument unpersuasive.
For the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the previous rejections under 35 USC §103.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“…calculation region…configured to calculate trajectories and output commands…” in claims 1, 9, 12, 14, and 15;
“…verification region…for monitoring…” in claims 1, and 15;
“…verification platforms comprising a driving command and input monitor for monitoring…” in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7;
“…a driving command and input monitor for monitoring the calculated trajectories…” in claims 1, 7, and 8;
“…a security unit for recognizing errors…” in claims 5, 6, and 7
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
These limitations will be interpreted as:
…the calculation region comprises multiple, in particular three, independent computer platforms. (¶ [0015])
…The verification region 11 verifies the integrity of the input data received from the external control units and sensors of the vehicle and makes the checked input data available to the calculation region 10. The realization can be effected by a SoC (single chip) or a MCM (multi-chip module) having multiple chips or chiplets. As a general rule, an MCM comprises multiple individual (micro)chips (or "dies"), which are accommodated next to one another (i.e., in a planar manner) in a common housing. (¶ [0035])
…The verification region 11 comprises two verification platforms which are separate from one another, a main platform 13 and a fallback platform 14 which are preferably logically and/or functionally identical. Each verification platform comprises a driving command and input monitor 15a, 15b and a communication controller 16a, 16b (e.g., Ethernet, FlexRay, CAN or the like) as well as, likewise, a communication device (e.g., NoC, as depicted in FIG. 3) in order to connect the components to one another and to the calculation region 10. [0041] Each driving command and input monitor 15a, 15b comprises hardware and software for verifying the integrity of the input data received from sensors (e.g., checksums, time stamp, message ID or the like) and providing verified data for calculating the domain in a buffer memory, for comparing the roadway with the driving command and for adding safety-relevant ancillary information (e.g., checksums, time stamp, message number or the like) for data which can be transmitted to an external control unit or ECU. (¶ [0038])
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poledna et al. (US 2021/0001881 A1, “Poledna”) in view of Yousuf et al. (US 2018/0370540 A1, “Yousuf”).
Regarding claim 1, Poledna discloses safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles and teaches:
A control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising; (The Selected-Trajectory generating-device (STG), i.e., a control device, is contained within a vehicle – See at least ¶ [0057] and Fig. 1)
a calculation region; and (The STG contains three Trajectory Generators (TG), i.e., calculation regions – See at least ¶ [0057] and Fig. 1)
a verification region, (The STG further contains a Safe Trajectory Selection (STS) which selects a trajectory based on a ranking scheme. The STS contains multiple Verification Modules (VM) – See at least ¶ [0057], [0063], and Fig. 2)
wherein the calculation region is configured to calculate trajectories [], (The TG generate trajectories T1-T3 – See at least ¶ [0057])
wherein the verification region comprises two verification platforms which are separate from one another, and (As shown in Fig. 2 VM1 and VM2 are separate from one another.)
wherein the verification platforms each comprise a monitor for monitoring the calculated trajectories and a communication device for connecting the verification platforms to one another and to the calculation region; (FIG. 2 depicts an example of an inner structure of a Safe Trajectory Selection STS. The Safe Trajectory Selection STS receives as an input trajectories, for examples the trajectories T1-T3 from the Trajectory Generators TG1-TG3 according to FIG.1, and preferably other inputs IN, as for example: Vehicle State information (velocity and/or acceleration and/or direction and/or tire friction and/or steering angle, etc.), and/or Map Data, and/or Trajectory Generator Diagnostics – See at least ¶ [0058-[0061])
wherein the verification platforms comprise a main platform and a fallback platform and wherein the verification platforms are logically and functionally identical. (Examples of Verification Modules (the checks which said modules may execute) are: analysis whether the probability of collision with an obstacle is sufficiently low, an analysis whether the trajectory is drivable by the vehicle according to the vehicle dynamics, or an analysis whether the trajectory is in line with legal regulations – See at least ¶ [0023])
Poledna does not explicitly teach wherein the calculation region is configured to calculate trajectories and to output driving commands. However, Yousuf discloses a method for using a single controller (ECU) for a fault-tolerant/fail-operational self-driving system and teaches:
wherein the calculation region is configured to calculate trajectories and to output driving commands, (processor 206 typically performs vehicle dynamics/vehicle path calculation 144 including projected vehicle path calculation 158, actual vehicle path calculation 160, and plausibility check 162 – See at least ¶ [0111]; FIGS . 8 and 9A - 9D show that processor 206 performs algorithms that execute under normal operating conditions and are dominant/active and may potentially run on the LS core 324, namely: Vehicle dynamics and controls, Controls, Rationality checks, Decision-making, and send actuation commands – See at least ¶ [0140]-[0146])
In summary, Poledna discloses a system that creates trajectories for self-driving cars. Poledna further teaches that the vehicle state data, i.e., information relating to the control commands of the vehicles, is used with the calculation of the trajectories and is also used as input for the verification modules. Poledna does not explicitly teach that the calculation region is configured to calculate trajectories and to output driving commands. However, Yousuf discloses a method for using a single controller (ECU) for a fault-tolerant/fail-operational self-driving system and teaches that the trajectory calculating processor, e.g., processor 206, can also perform the function of determining vehicle controls and then sends those controls to their proper actuators and systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna to provide for the method for using a single controller (ECU) for a fault-tolerant/fail-operational self-driving system, as taught in Yousuf, to provide added redundancy and fault tolerance without adding more controllers or other controller hardware to the vehicle. (At Yousuf ¶ [0005])
Regarding claim 4, Poledna further teaches:
wherein the verification platforms execute the monitoring in parallel. (the verification platforms operate in parallel given their physical layout as shown in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, each module receives data on the same line at the same time, i.e., they operate in parallel.)
Claim(s) 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poledna in view of Yousuf, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ruiz et al. (A safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, “Ruiz”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach wherein the verification platform has at least one security unit for recognizing errors, and wherein a verification platform is brought into a fail-silent state by the security unit as soon as the security unit recognizes an error in this verification platform. However, Ruiz discloses a safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars and teaches:
wherein each of the verification platform has at least one security unit for recognizing errors, and (Based on these properties, a globally consistent state is provided, which is enforced through an adaptation mechanism on every device. More specifically, the software architecture of this adaptation mechanism is composed from multiple software artefacts, each providing a distinct functionality. At the architecture’s core, an adaptation logic module is responsible for reacting to local hardware faults and changes within the system’s global state – See at least pg. 163)
wherein a verification platform is brought into a fail-silent state by the security unit as soon as the security unit recognizes an error in this verification platform. (In case of unsalvageable local faults, the adaptation logic is further capable of discontinuing operations through a fail-silent mechanism, thus preventing incorrect system behavior from occurring – See at least pg. 163)
In summary, Yousuf discloses the use of a fault-silent state when determining a fault within a processor. Yousuf does not explicitly teach a security unit for recognizing the error. However, Ruiz discloses an adaptation logic module of a processor that is specifically used to identify an error and react with a fail-silent mechanism when the faults are unsalvageable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein the security unit of the main platform sends information about its internal status to the fallback platform and vice versa. (Based on this, a backup core node will work in standby mode and only take over the critical functions of the primary core node after that core node fails. As a matter of fact, each core node must hold a set of hardware and software safety mechanisms to support ASIL D applications and to guarantee fail-silent behavior at component level – See at least pg. 165)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein the monitor comprises a security unit which receives error messages from the verification platform and places the corresponding verification platform in a fail- silent state when an error has been notified to the security unit. (In case of unsalvageable local faults, the adaptation logic is further capable of discontinuing operations through a fail-silent mechanism, thus preventing incorrect system behavior from occurring – See at least pg. 163)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein the monitor has a central computing unit which is implemented in the hardware lockstep. (As such, the system must consist of at least two processing units that are connected through two physically independent channels and powered by two independent power sources, thus excluding communication link and power failures from a fault cause analysis. Moreover, each computing platform must meet minimal diagnostic capabilities in form of lockstepped processing units to detect deviations in the calculations and thereby infer a local hardware fault – See at least Pg. 163)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 9, Poledna further teaches:
wherein the calculation region comprises multiple, in particular three, independent computer platforms. (The system contains TG1-TG3 and it may be provided that all Trajectory Generators are diverse , in particular in that each of the Trajectory Generators uses different algorithms for generating trajectories then the other Trajectory Generators and/or each Trajectory Generator is implemented on different hardware – See at least ¶ [0021], Claim 18, and Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Poledna and Ruiz does not explicitly teach, but Yousuf further teaches:
wherein the computer platform has a processing unit for data processing, (An example non-limiting embodiment solving this problem has three or more processors, or in some cases exactly three processors, as part of the architecture of the main controller. Additional processors may be distributed throughout the vehicle to perform additional, specialized functions – See at least ¶ [0025]) a memory, for storing programs and/or data of the processing unit, (FIG . 7B shows a more detailed hardware configuration diagram of the FIG. 7A architecture. This diagram reveals that each of GPUs 208, 210 is supported by DDR and flash memory 209A, 209B (211A, 211B). Similarly, each of the processors 202, 204 are supported by associated flash memory 203A, 203B (205A, 205B) and DDR memory 203, 205. Each of processors 202, 204, 206 executes program instructions including operating systems such as Linux from computer instructions stored in non-transitory memory such as flash memory 203, 205 and/or DDR memory – See at least ¶ [0121]) as well as a communication device, for communicating units of the calculation region and/or units of the verification region. (The processors 202, 204, 206 may communicate with one another via SPI buses 356 – See at least ¶ [0122])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Ruiz to provide for the method for using a single controller (ECU) for a fault-tolerant/fail-operational self-driving system, as taught in Yousuf, to provide added redundancy and fault tolerance without adding more controllers or other controller hardware to the vehicle. (At Yousuf ¶ [0005])
Regarding claim 11, Poledna further teaches:
wherein each computer platform runs the calculation of the trajectories [] independently of other computer platforms. (TG1-TG3 generate the trajectories independently – See at least ¶ [0053] and Fig. 2)
the combination of Poledna and Ruiz does not explicitly teach, but Yousuf further teaches:
wherein each computer platform runs the calculation of the trajectories and the respective driving command [] (processor 206 typically performs vehicle dynamics/vehicle path calculation 144 including projected vehicle path calculation 158, actual vehicle path calculation 160, and plausibility check 162 – See at least ¶ [0111]; FIGS . 8 and 9A - 9D show that processor 206 performs algorithms that execute under normal operating conditions and are dominant/active and may potentially run on the LS core 324, namely: Vehicle dynamics and controls, Controls, Rationality checks, Decision-making, and send actuation commands – See at least ¶ [0140]-[0146])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Ruiz to provide for the method for using a single controller (ECU) for a fault-tolerant/fail-operational self-driving system, as taught in Yousuf, to provide added redundancy and fault tolerance without adding more controllers or other controller hardware to the vehicle. (At Yousuf ¶ [0005])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein each computer platform of the calculation region is supplied via a separate supply voltage. (As such, the system must consist of at least two processing units that are connected through two physically independent channels and powered by two independent power sources, thus excluding communication link and power failures from a fault cause analysis. Moreover, each computing platform must meet minimal diagnostic capabilities in form of lockstepped processing units to detect deviations in the calculations and thereby infer a local hardware fault – See at least Pg. 163)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein the supply voltages are provided by at least two independent supply networks. (Because the processing units are each powered by independent power sources, then they would require their own circuitry, i.e., supply networks, to distribute the power – See at least pg. 163)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 14, Regarding claim 13, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein each computer platform of the calculation region has a separate clock generation system. (In detail, reconfiguration relies heavily on the cyclic exchange of heartbeats between processing units. As such, the system must consist of at least two processing units that are connected through two physically independent channels and powered by two independent power sources, thus excluding communication link and power failures from a fault cause analysis – See at least pg. 163)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Poledna and Yousuf does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz further teaches:
wherein the communication between and within the calculation region and the verification region is protected by means of EC codes and/or end-to-end ECC/EDC codes. (The Data Validation (Integrity Check) is responsible to provide checks on the input data and the system itself during the execution of the derived algorithm. A cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is included for that purpose. Range checks or correctness checks are carried on basis of functioning parity or CRC checks. Likewise, a rolling counter is added to guarantee that the current message has been updated since the last computation cycle. This is used to detect stale and omitted transitions – See at least pg. 166; Examiner notes that CRC is an ECC)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the safe trajectory selection for autonomous vehicles of Poledna and Yousuf to provide for the safe generic adaptation mechanism for smart cars, as taught in Ruiz, to allow individual non-critical applications to be passivated in order to free enough resources for scheduling critical tasks after failure situation, as part of a graceful degradation strategy. (At Ruiz pg. 164)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Poledna and Ruiz does not explicitly teach, but Yousuf further teaches:
wherein the communication device is configured as a network-on-chip (NoC). (Each of processors 202, 204, 206 includes internal multiple independent bus interfaces 354 ( preferably there are at least two independent CAN bus interfaces 354 to provide independent interfaces to different CAN buses to provide fault tolerance in case a bus fails) – See at least ¶ [0123]; Examiner notes that the presence of individual internal bus interfaces within the processors is a network-on-chip.)
Regarding claim 17, Poledna further teaches:
wherein the verification of the calculated trajectory and of the respective driving command is carried out by a comparison test. (TG1-TG3 each generate a trajectory; these trajectories are passed to VM1-VM4. VM1-VM4 each determine a ranking for the trajectories and the trajectory with the highest ranking is selected. This provides an method that is comparing the trajectories, via a rank, to one another prior to selection – See at least ¶ [0089])
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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/essential-american-english/preferably, (2007), “used to show what you think is the best choice:
Serve the pie with ice cream, preferably vanilla.”