DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Remarks and Claim amendments filed on March 03, 2026.
Claims 1-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending and are presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to amendments
The objection of the specification (CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICTONS, TITLE and ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The objection of claims 1-15 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have argued that Ishigooka along with the remaining arts of record, does not teach the newly added limitations of independent claims 1 and 14-5 (Remarks, pages 10-12). Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made as set forth in details below. See Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0318267), art being made of record as applied herein.
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) is/are: “a computation unit that executes a computation of first control software when a vehicle is in a first state, the computation unit executing a computation of second control software when the vehicle is in a second state;”, “a saving unit that saves input data input from a sensor to the first control software and to the second control software, the saving unit saving output data that the first control software and the second control software output as a result of a computation executed with the input data as input;” and “an evaluation unit that compares pieces of the output data output respectively from the first control software and the second control software, the output data being read from the storage unit, to evaluate performance of the second control software.” in claim 1; “a selecting unit that selects the input data and the output data that the evaluation unit uses to evaluate the second control software, from the input data input to the first control software and the output data output from the first control software, and that stores the selected 58 input data and the selected output data in the saving unit.” in claim 2; “a state determining unit that determines whether the vehicle is in the first state or the second state, based on availability of computation resources on which the computation unit operates;” and “a switching unit that when the state determining unit determines that no available computation resources is present, specifies the first control software as control software with which the computation unit executes computation, and that when the state determining unit determines that available computation resources are present, switches the control software with which the computation unit executes computation, to the second control software.” in claim 4; “an execution instruction unit that instructs the computation unit to execute computation using the second control software that is the switched software resulting from switching by the switching unit, with the input data stored as the important scenario in the saving unit being processed as input.” in claim 5; “an important scenario specifying unit that receives an evaluation result from the evaluation unit, the input data and the output data selected by the selecting unit, and the output data output from the second control software, and specifies data to be stored in the saving unit, as an important scenario, based on the evaluation result.” in claim 6; “a computation unit that executes a computation of second control software;”, “an evaluation unit that compares operation data on a driver, the operation data being input as the vehicle is traveling, with output data output as a result of computation executed using input data input from a sensor to the second control software, and evaluates performance of the second control software.” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
35 USC § 101
As set forth above, claims 1-2, 4-6 and 15 have been interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Therefore, they are interpreted as including the hardware disclosed in the specification (figure 15). It should be noted that if the claims were not interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), then they would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed “units” may be fairly interpreted as software. See MPEP § 2106.01.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0318267 – hereinafter Zhang) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2020/012239 – IDS 01/19/2024).
With respect to claim 1 (currently amended), Zhang teaches a vehicle control system comprising: a computation unit that executes a computation of first control software when a vehicle is in a first state, the computation unit executing a computation of second control software when the vehicle is in a second state, wherein the first state comprises an autonomous driving state of the vehicle, and the second state comprises manual driving state (See paragraphs [0032], [0047], “server 103 may include driving statistics 123 and environment data 124. As discussed in more detail herein below, a data collector (e.g., data collector 308 of FIG. 3A) automatically collects and stores driving statistics 123 and environment data 124 onto server 103 while autonomous vehicle 101 is operating or driven in a manual driving mode by a human driver. In one embodiment, driving statistics 123 may describe vehicle states of vehicle 101 and include information indicating the driving commands (e.g., throttle, brake, steering commands) issued and/or responses of the vehicle (e.g., speed, accelerations, decelerations, directions, acceleration changing rate) captured by sensors of the vehicle at different points in time. Environment data 124 may include information describing a driving environment at different points in time, such as, for example, routes (including starting and destination locations), MPOIs, road conditions, weather conditions, obstacle information, etc.”. Examiner notes: collecting driving statistics for manual and/or autonomous mode). a saving unit that saves input data from a sensor to the first control software and to the second control software, the saving unit saving output data that the first control software and the second control software output as a result of a computation executed with the input data as input to the computation (See paragraphs [0032], [0047], “server 103 may include driving statistics 123 and environment data 124. As discussed in more detail herein below, a data collector (e.g., data collector 308 of FIG. 3A) automatically collects and stores driving statistics 123 and environment data 124 onto server 103 while autonomous vehicle 101 is operating or driven in a manual driving mode by a human driver. In one embodiment, driving statistics 123 may describe vehicle states of vehicle 101 and include information indicating the driving commands (e.g., throttle, brake, steering commands) issued and/or responses of the vehicle (e.g., speed, accelerations, decelerations, directions, acceleration changing rate) captured by sensors of the vehicle at different points in time. Environment data 124 may include information describing a driving environment at different points in time, such as, for example, routes (including starting and destination locations), MPOIs, road conditions, weather conditions, obstacle information, etc.”. Examiner notes: collecting driving statistics via data collector and sensors being stored in server 13). Zhang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Yamamoto teaches: an evaluation unit that compares pieces of the output data outputted respectively from the first control software and the second control software, the output data being read from a storage unit, to evaluate performance of the second control software (See abstract and paragraphs [0008], [00012], [0135], [0143], [0151], “the information processing apparatus includes: a holding unit that holds a behavior verification scenario that defines the order of operation to be invoked; and an evaluation unit that compares operation that the program sequentially invokes with the behavior verification scenario to perform evaluation or verification of the program. The program execution control unit drives the program according to environment information input from the outside, the evaluation unit compares operation sequentially invoked by the program execution control unit according to the environment information with an order of operation defined in the behavior verification scenario to evaluate or verify the program.”. Examiner notes: evaluation process of controller/software). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’s teaching, which set forth a system and method for training a machine learning model, with Yamamoto’s teaching, as Yamamoto would provide an enhanced method for supporting development of software programs (see paragraph [0020]). With respect to claim 2 (currently amended), Zhang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Yamamoto teaches comprising a selecting unit that selects the input data and the output data that the evaluation unit uses to evaluate the second control software, from the input data that is inputted to the first control software and the output data that is outputted from the first control software, and that stores the selected input data and the selected output data in the saving unit (See figures 2-12 and 14 (and related text), selecting units to evaluate data). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’s teaching, which set forth a system and method for training a machine learning model, with Yamamoto’s teaching, as Yamamoto would provide an enhanced method for supporting development of software programs (see paragraph [0020]). With respect to claim 3 (currently amended), Zhang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Yamamoto teaches wherein the selecting unit selects data to be stored in the saving unit as an important scenario for evaluation of the second control software by the evaluation unit, based on the output data that is outputted from the first control software (See figures 2-12 and 14 (and related text) and paragraph [0102], [0106], [0109]-[0110], [0124], [0135], behavior verification scenario).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’s teaching, which set forth a system and method for training a machine learning model, with Yamamoto’s teaching, as Yamamoto would provide an enhanced method for supporting development of software programs (see paragraph [0020]). With respect to claim 14, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the system recited in claim 1, respectively (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 15, the claim is directed to a system that corresponds to the method recited in claim 1, respectively (see the rejection of claims 1); wherein Zhang also teaches such system in figures 1-5 and 9).
Claims 4-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0318267) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2020/012239) and further in view of Ishigooka et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0159180 – previously presented). With respect to claim 4 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches comprising: a state determining unit that determines whether the vehicle is in the first state or the second state, based on availability of computation resources on which the computation unit operates; and a switching unit that when the state determining unit determines that no available computation resources are present, specifies the first control software as control software with which the computation unit executes the computation of the first control sotware, and that when the state determining unit determines that available computation resources are present, switches the control software with which the computation unit executes the computation of the second control software (see the rejection of claim 1 above and figures 2-26 (and related text) and paragraphs [0045]-[0046], [0056], which clearly shows the out of order state for ECU-A (i.e., availability of resources) and switching process of data from ECU-A to ECU-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 5 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches comprising an execution instruction unit that instructs the computation unit to execute the computation using the second control software that is the switched software resulting from switching by the switching unit, with the input data stored as the important scenario in the saving unit being processed as input (see the rejection of claim 1 above and figures 2-26 (and related text) and paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0055], [0133], “When the failure detection unit 122 detects a failure of the ECU-A 11, the failure detection unit 122 changes to a recovery mode and notifies the reconfiguration verification unit 126 of a failure time 1513. The method for detecting a failure may be to determine as a failure when data from the ECU-A 11 do not arrive for a certain period of time, or may be another method. In the present embodiment, a failure means being not in a normal state assumed in the design. Therefore, the failure not only indicates an event in which hardware of the ECU-A 11 is physically broken, but also includes, for example, design failures (bugs) and deadlocks such that the ECU-A 11 is repeatedly reset and does not start. Further, it also includes a network bus failure between ECU-A 11 and ECU-B 12. A method for notification may use an interrupt signal, or the reconfiguration verification unit 126 may monitor an update of the detection time 1513 periodically in advance. The failure detection unit 122 executes the control program fast start unit 123.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 6 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches comprising an important scenario specifying unit that receives an evaluation result from the evaluation unit, the input data and the output data selected by the selecting unit, and the output data that is outputted from the second control software, and specifies data to be stored in the saving unit, as an important scenario, based on the evaluation result (see figures 2-4, 9 (and related text) and paragraphs [0036], [0041], [0046-[0047], [0050]-[0056], “When the failure detection unit 122 detects a failure of the ECU-A 11, the failure detection unit 122 changes to a recovery mode and notifies the reconfiguration verification unit 126 of a failure time 1513. The method for detecting a failure may be to determine as a failure when data from the ECU-A 11 do not arrive for a certain period of time, or may be another method. In the present embodiment, a failure means being not in a normal state assumed in the design. Therefore, the failure not only indicates an event in which hardware of the ECU-A 11 is physically broken, but also includes, for example, design failures (bugs) and deadlocks such that the ECU-A 11 is repeatedly reset and does not start. Further, it also includes a network bus failure between ECU-A 11 and ECU-B 12. A method for notification may use an interrupt signal, or the reconfiguration verification unit 126 may monitor an update of the detection time 1513 periodically in advance. The failure detection unit 122 executes the control program fast start unit 123.”. Furthermore, see paragraphs [0057], [0060]-[0061], [0125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 7 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches wherein the important scenario specifying unit specifies an important scenario including output data from the first control software and output data from the second control software, both the output data being evaluated as unmatching data by the evaluation result (see figures 2-4, 9 (and related text) and paragraphs [0036], [0041], [0046-[0047], [0050]-[0056], “When the failure detection unit 122 detects a failure of the ECU-A 11, the failure detection unit 122 changes to a recovery mode and notifies the reconfiguration verification unit 126 of a failure time 1513. The method for detecting a failure may be to determine as a failure when data from the ECU-A 11 do not arrive for a certain period of time, or may be another method. In the present embodiment, a failure means being not in a normal state assumed in the design. Therefore, the failure not only indicates an event in which hardware of the ECU-A 11 is physically broken, but also includes, for example, design failures (bugs) and deadlocks such that the ECU-A 11 is repeatedly reset and does not start. Further, it also includes a network bus failure between ECU-A 11 and ECU-B 12. A method for notification may use an interrupt signal, or the reconfiguration verification unit 126 may monitor an update of the detection time 1513 periodically in advance. The failure detection unit 122 executes the control program fast start unit 123.”. Furthermore, see paragraphs [0057], [0060]-[0061], [0125] and figures 19-23 (and related text). Examiner notes: using ECU-C). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 8 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches wherein when it is determined that the first control software is running and an output result from the first control software is erroneous, the important scenario specifying unit stores data specified as the important scenario in the saving unit (see paragraphs [0009], [0036], [0051], [0126], [0129]-[0130] and figures 2-26 (and related text)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 9 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches wherein when the selecting unit finds that a result obtained by carrying out a sensor fusion process of fusing together a plurality of pieces of the input data that is inputted from a plurality of types of the sensors does not match the output data that is outputted as a result of the computation executed by the first control software, the selecting unit determines that an output result from the first control software is erroneous (see rejection of claim 1 and paragraph [0043], “The input value 1501 is data which a program refers to for calculation, and is, for example, an input value of a sensor or a result of calculation by another ECU. The control plan value 1503 is information indicating a plan for operating a control target. For example, it is a travel path up to several seconds ahead of the vehicle.”. See paragraph [0046], “The control backup data storage unit 121 of the ECU-B 12 receives the control plan value 1503 and stores a control plan value 1505 in the control plan value backup 161. The control plan value 1503 and the control plan value 1505 may be the same value, or may be converted based on specific rules. Further, the control backup data storage unit 121 receives the input value 1501 and a state value 1504, and stores a state value 1506 and an input value 1507 in the control recovery backup. The state value 1504 and the state value 1506 may be the same value, or may be converted based on specific rules. The input value 1501 and the input value 1507 may be the same value, or the input value 1507 may be a subset of the input direct value 1504 or vice versa. For example, when the input value 1504 is an external recognition result by a laser range sensor and an external recognition result by a camera, the input value 1507 may be only the external recognition result by the camera. The input value 1507 is determined based on an input of control software to be recovered.”. See paragraph [0137], “According to the first embodiment, the reconfiguration verification unit 126 determines whether recovery of the backup control program is successful or not within the reconfiguration deadline ΔT based on the comparison result with the control plan value of the normal control program, but the present invention is not limited thereto. For example, the reconfiguration verification unit 126 may perform the determination by comparing validity of the control plan value of the backup control program with external information obtained from another sensor.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 10 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches wherein when the selecting unit finds that a traveling log of the vehicle acquired by the vehicle does not match the output data that is outputted as a result of the computation executed by the first control software, the selecting unit determines that an output result from the first control software is erroneous (see paragraphs [0039], [0043], “In this example, the ECU-A 11 assumes an automatic driving ECU that calculates a travel path of a vehicle according to surrounding conditions, and the ECU-B 12 assumes a vehicle motion ECU that calculates motion control of the vehicle according to the travel path, and sends control commands to an engine ECU, a brake ECU, and a steering ECU. However, it is not limited thereto. In this embodiment, the network bus 13 is assumed to be a bus type network bus such as controller area network (CAN), controller area network flexible data (CAN-FD), or FlexRay, but is not limited thereto. For example, a one-to-one network bus such as Ethernet may be used. The ECU-A 11 and the ECU-B 12 can communicate data via the network bus 13.”. See paragraph [0060], “FIG. 6 is a state transition diagram of the vehicle system 1 according to the first embodiment. When the vehicle system 1 is activated (key ON), the mode is changed to a system initialization mode 101. In the initialization mode, each ECU program is initialized. When the initialization is completed, the mode is changed to the normal travel mode 1021 of the travel mode 102. In the normal travel mode 1021, when a failure is detected, the mode is changed to the recovery mode 1022. In the recovery mode 1022, when the recovery of the backup control program is successful in time, the mode is changed to the degeneration mode 1023. If the recovery is not successful in time and a predetermined time is exceeded, the mode is changed to the fail safe mode 1024. The predetermined time is the control plan value 1505 stored in the trajectory plan value backup 161, and is determined by a time when it is no longer possible to ensure safety of the control system.”. Furthermore, see paragraph [0125] and figure 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system. With respect to claim 11 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Ishigooka teaches wherein when the selecting unit finds that map data the vehicle has does not match the output data that is outputted as a result of the computation executed by the first control software, the selecting unit determines that an output result from the 61 first control software is erroneous (see figure 17 and paragraph [0125], “FIG. 17 is a comparison between the control plan value 1510 and the control plan value 1511 taking a travel path as an example. A solid line arrow indicates the control plan value 1511 of the control plan value backup 161, and a dotted line arrow indicates the control plan value 1510 of the backup control program 124. An “own vehicle” indicating the current location of the vehicle system is stored in the control plan value 1511 so as to pass through driving points 1-1 to 1-7 on a road. If a time until arrival at 1-7 is a timeout period, the control plan value 1510 is calculated so as to pass through 1-3 to 1-7 in scene 1. Thus, the control plan value matches at the point 1-3, and the mode is changed to the degeneration mode 1023. However, in the case of scene 2, since the control plan value 1510 is calculated so as to pass through 2-3 to 2-7, the recovery does not succeed, and the mode is changed to the fail safe mode 1024 at a time of timeout.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Yamamoto with Ishigooka’s teaching, as Ishigooka would provide an enhanced mechanism to safely managing control program when a failure occurs in a control system.
With respect to claim 13 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Ishigooka is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Yamamoto teaches wherein the computation unit executes a computation of the second control software received from a cloud server via a network, and transmits an evaluation result by the evaluation unit, the evaluation result being specified as the important scenario by the important scenario specifying unit, the input data and the output data that are selected by the selecting unit, and the output data from the second control software, to the cloud server (see abstract, figures 1-14 (and related text) and paragraph [0064], “Each program developer responsible for developing the control program in the main body unit or module unit of the autonomous operation device 100 creates a control program of the main body unit or module unit that he/she is in charge of, using the module development computer. For example, the above-described development tool program is operating on the module development computer. Each module development computer is connected to a network. Then, each program developer may provide a self-developed control program or the like in a shared storage on a cloud server, own dedicated storage (in other words, the main body unit developer storage, the module unit developer storage), or a storage provided in the dedicated server. Furthermore, a control program or the like may be shared by a manager, a developer, a customer, or a user who has an account in a storage such as a server.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang and Ishigooka with Yamamoto’s teaching, as Yamamoto would provide a method for supporting development of a program (see paragraph [0020]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0318267) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2020/012239) in view of Ishigooka et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0159180) and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0316782 – hereinafter Lee). With respect to claim 12 (currently amended), Zhang in view of Yamamoto in view of Ishigooka is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the state determining unit determines whether available computation resources on which the computation unit operates are present, based on at least one of an autonomous service offering range, the vehicle's being charged, the vehicle's being stopped, and load information on a computer incorporated in the vehicle, and determines whether the evaluation unit can execute the evaluation of the second control software (see figures 3, 5-11 (and related text) and paragraph [0099], “If the vehicle is in a stopped state (Y in S720), the control of the additional motor which is being performed continues and, after the control of the additional motor is complete, the sub ECU takes over the right to control the EPS steering motor from the main ECU and performs the fail-safe control on the EPS steering motor (S722, S724).”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zhang, Yamamoto and Ishigooka with Lee’s teaching, as Lee would provide a method for efficiently controlling functionalities among other controllers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192