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 .
Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “another control function” be replaced by “a second control function”, and “the other control function” be replaced by “the second control function”.
The way that claim 1 is presently written, only one input has been mentioned. The same input would be used for each control function. Is this what is intended?
Claim 8 has the same problems as claim 1. First of all, is the same input being used for each control function or does each control function have a different input? Second, it is suggested that “another control function” be replaced by “a second control function”, and “the other control function” be replaced by “the second control function”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains in the first clause the statement “at least one input interface configured to read in an input to be reacted to by controlling the receiving device.” It is ambiguous as to whether the input interface or the input is to be reacted to. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the input is what is being reacted to.
(Claims 2-7 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1).
Claim 5 is ambiguous because it is ambiguous as to what elements of the stated list are required. Are the first three required and the last element optional? For purposes of examination it is assumed the list should be interpreted as “one or more of the following: initial a recalculation of the output data…, initiate a reconfiguration…, initiate a restarting of the control function, and inhibit the control function.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 in lines 7-8 mention “a next opportunity in a normal manner with respect to traffic.” This is not defined in the specification and remains ambiguous, especially since the previous element of the list (“the vehicle, when on a previously planned emergency stop trajectory, is brought to a standstill” ) looks like it could cover an emergency pull-over and stop. For purposes of examination it is assumed that the “the vehicle is removed from public traffic at a next opportunity in a normal manner with respect to traffic” means pulling off onto a private road or driveway.
Claim 10 is also ambiguous because it is unclear as to how many elements of the given list are required. Are the first two required and the last element optional? Or are the first two optional and the last element required? For purposes of examination it is assumed the list should be interpreted as “one or more of the following: a maximum driving speed of the vehicle is reduced….…, the vehicle…is brought of a standstill, and the vehicle is removed from public traffic…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020026598 (Boschi et al., hence Boschi).
As for claim 1, Boschi teaches a control system for at least one receiving device, comprising: at least one input interface configured to read in an input to be reacted to by controlling the receiving device (control system 100 (Fig. 1) Input interface (Sensor 114), will be controlling the actuator.(114));
a plurality of control functions, each of which is configured designed to determine output data for the receiving device from the input which has been read in (control functions (processing logic 116, 126) determining output data 121, 131 via I/O interfaces 124, 128 and control 112, 512 for actuator 114.);
a self-check logic unit for each control function, the self-check logic unit configured being designed to detect a malfunction of each said control function (Error detection 118 and 130 are designed to detect malfunctions of the control functions 116, 126."Returning to FIG. 1, processing logic 116, processing logic 126, and safety monitor 120 are central processing unit (CPU) cores or another type of processing logic ( e.g., see FIGS. 9-18), in accordance with some embodiments. Errors 118, 130, and 122 monitor the die 1 115, secondary device 104, and die 2 125, respectively, for errors. Such detected errors may be software, firmware, or hardware errors. Errors 118, 130, 122 are implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or software. Errors may be detected based on checks with the hardware, firmware, and/or software such as error correction codes (ECC), parity, CRC, built-in self-test (BIST), etc.'[0037]);
at least one cross-check logic unit configured to check whether output data determined by a control function of the plurality of control functions are consistent with (i) output data determined by another control function of the plurality of control functions, (ii) internal information from the other control function, and/or (iii) the input used by the this other control function, wherein information relating to each control function of the plurality of control function is fed into the at least one cross-check logic unit ("Cross-comparison data 123, 133 is data that is generated by processing logic 116, 126, respectively. For example, processing logic 116, 126 may receive input data 119, 129 from sensor and actuator I/O 114 and generate a cycle redundancy code (CRC) from the input data 119, 129. The cross-comparison data may be the CRC. The cross-comparison data 123, 133 may include data that is based on the input data 119, 129, and the output data 121, 131. The cross-comparison may include multiple CRCs and/or other data that may be used to determine whether the input data 119, 129 received by processing logic 116 and processing logic 126 is the same. Additionally, the cross-comparison data 123, 133 may include data that may be used to determine whether the output data 121, 131 from processing logic 116 and processing logic 126, respectively is the same or likely the same. Again, CRCs may be determined as well as other data. The cross-comparison data 123, 133 may be a form of compression of the output data to facilitate comparing the output data 121 of application 117 (processing logic 116) with the output data 131 of application 127 (processing logic 126)." [0044]; figures 1 and 5. Input data 119/129, output data 121/131 and error data 123/133 of the control functions 116, 126 are conveyed to cross-monitoring logic unit 120));
at least one output interface configured to output data, the at least one output interface operably able to be connected to an actuator (Actuator 114 in Figs. 1, 5, connected to I/O interfaces (which act as output interfaces) 128, 124.)
and a changeover logic unit configured to switch the output data determined by one or more of the control functions to the at least one output interface based on the findings of the self-check logic units and findings of the at least one cross-check logic unit. (Figures 1, 5, 6 and 8; paragraphs [0045] to [0048] and [0057] to [0060]: System safe logic 106/506 and control 112 are together designed to transmit, depending on the findings of the self-monitoring logic unit 118, 130 and of the cross-monitoring logic unit 120, one item of output data 121, 131 or no output data to the actuator 114).
As for claim 3, Boschi teaches wherein different control functions of the plurality of control functions (i) are configured to process the input in different ways to determine the output data, and/or ii)are implemented on independent hardware platforms. (Boschi discloses different ways of the processors 116, 126 processing data in paragraph [0031] ("diversely implemented applications 117, 127"). Processor 116 is implemented on device 102 and processor 126 is implemented on independent device 104.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boschi in view of Asavametha, A., Ayyavu P., Scaffidi, C. (2011) No Application Is an Island: Using to Transform Strings during Data Transfer, hereafter Asvametha.
As for claim 2, Boschi teaches different input interfaces of the at least one input interface are assigned to the plurality of control functions, and the different input interfaces are configured to read in incongruent inputs. (This is known in the art, where incongruent inputs are normalized or transformed into a common format (done at an interface) before being fed into a control function, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Asavametha Abstract, which demonstrates the use of “topes” to provide a common interpretation of different string formats to handle the exchange of data between applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use Topes to transform strings during data transform of Asavametha, in the system of Boschi. The motivation would be to make sure that data in a variety of formats can be automatically used. )
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boschi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. 2019/283768 (Das).
As for claim 4, Boschi does not specifically teach wherein the self-check logic units and the at least one cross-check logic unit are implemented on hardware that has a higher quality class with respect to functional safety than the control functions of the plurality of control functions. However, Das teaches wherein the self-check logic units and the at least one cross-check logic unit are implemented on hardware that has a higher quality class with respect to functional safety than the control functions of the plurality of control functions. (Das: "The first control unit can be implemented with a comparatively low ASIL, for example an ASIL of A to C, and fully control the motor vehicle normally and in trouble-free operation. The first control unit can, for example, fully control all actuators/functions of the motor vehicle on the one hand and be implemented efficiently, in particular cost efficiently, on the other hand due to the comparatively low ASIL." [0011]; "he control monitoring unit can be implemented with a comparatively high ASIL, for example an ASIL of C or D, and check at least a portion of the control commands issued by the first control unit, which are relevant for road-safe operation of the motor vehicle, for their correctness and their plausibility. If the control monitoring unit detects a malfunction of the first control unit, the actuators can be controlled directly by the control monitoring unit. To this end the emergency control commands of the control monitoring unit can overwrite the control commands issued by the first control unit and/or the control monitoring unit can deactivate the first control unit, so that only the emergency control commands are transmitted to the at least one actuator controller."[0012])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use higher-level quality units for the cross-check and self-check units, as taught in Das, in the system of Boschi. The motivation would be to improve quality for the more important parts of the system.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boschi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Control Reconfiguration”, attached as NPL-Wiki-control-reconfig.pdf, henceforth “Control”.
As for claim 5, Boschi teaches wherein at least one of the self-check logic units or the at least one cross-check logic unit , in response to finding that a control function of the plurality of control functions is malfunctioning, is configured to initiate a recalculation of the output data in the control function, initiate a reconfiguration of the control function, initiate a restarting of the control function, and/or inhibit the control function. (Boschi: Discloses inhibiting the controllers 116, 126 in the event of detected faults; see figures 3 and 6. Restart, reconfiguration and recalculation are routine measures to remedy detected faults and would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See Control for an explanation of how a reconfiguration of a control function (in this case, a processor) is carried out.)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boschi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0094830 (Nishikawa et al., hence Nishikawa).
As for claim 7, Boschi does not specifically teach the actuator is included in a vehicle driven in an least partially automated manner. However, having a control unit being used in a vehicle is known in the art (see Nishikawa [0033], which mentions an example of the interface unit 130 having “an in-vehicle LAN”, which implies the control system is mounted in a vehicle.), i.e. at least a partially self-driving vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the system of Boschi, which is a control system linked up to an actuator, in the same circumstance as Nishikawa, whose system is mounted in a vehicle. The motivation would be to use the system of Boschi in a broader environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are allowed.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights