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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on September 9, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 12, and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 19 and 20 were added. Claims 3 and 14 were cancelled.
Applicant has made adequate amendments to claim 12 in order to eliminate the terms “central computing device of the vehicle configured to fully automatically or partially automatically execute the arising vehicle function”, “monitoring unit for monitoring a functional capability of the computing device in order to detect a manifesting diminished performance of the computing device, the monitoring unit being configured, on occasion of a manifesting diminished performance, to determine at least one performance variable that is characteristic of a still-available functional capability of the computing device” and “compensating apparatus being configured, when the performance of the vehicle function task is at risk, to determine at least one compensation function for substitutive execution” that could be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, these claim interpretations are withdrawn. Subsequently, the associated rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8452465) in view of Pink, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10481603).
Regarding claim 1, Sinha, et al. teaches: A method for compensating for a diminished performance of a computing device of a vehicle, a multiplicity of computing units, wherein the computing device is configured for data processing sensor data acquired by a multiplicity of sensor devices of the vehicle and for taking the sensor data as a basis for determining at least one control variable for executing the vehicle function, (Col. 8, lines 55-60: "…during normal operation, according to the instructions of the task applications (202), the ECUs (104) [computing units] perform their respective tasks to control certain of the electrical components (105) (e.g., actuators) based on input from certain of the electrical components (105) (e.g., sensors) [sensor data from sensors is used to control vehicle functions].")
the method comprising: utilizing all of the multiplicity of computing units during a normal mode in which a functional capability of the computing device is undiminished; (Col. 7, lines 29-32: "A first column (450) shows exemplary primary copies of tasks (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (shown with solid lines) running on three ECUs (104"), (104"), (104") respectively during normal operation [multiplicity of computing units running in normal mode]")
monitoring a functional capability of the computing device in order to detect a manifesting diminished performance of the computing device (Step (302), Col. 9, lines 12-19: "…failure detection step (302) of the reconfiguration method (300), according to the instructions of the failure detection application (230), the reconfiguration manager (130) receives or monitors aliveness messages (418) and fault signals (416) of the ECUs (104). The failure detection application (230) detects failure of an ECU (104) when an aliveness message (418) is not received within a certain time period or if a fault signal (416) is received [monitoring computing devices in order to determine manifesting diminished performance].")
and, when a manifesting diminished performance is detected, determining at least one performance variable that is characteristic of a still-available functional capability of the computing device (Step (304), Col. 9, lines 20-31: "…on-board reconfiguration step (304), according to the instructions of the on-board reconfiguration application (232), upon detection of failure of one or more tasks or one or more ECUs (104) [manifesting diminished performance of computing unit of computing device is detected], the reconfiguration manager (130) generates and executes a first on-board reconfiguration strategy (420). The reconfiguration manager (130) geherates the on-board reconfiguration strategy (420) according to one of the methods described above to reconfigure safety-critical tasks, which need to be completed to bring the vehicle (100) and electrical systems (102) to a safe state for a stipulated time period [determining performance variable of still-available functional capacity of computing device].")
and determining at least one error variable that is characteristic of an error type relating to the diminished performance of the computing device (Step (310), Col. 9, lines 51-56: "…cause step (310), according to the instruction of the cause application (250), the remote unit (114) receives the health data (412) from the on-board unit (112) and accesses fault models (154) from the memory (442) or a server database. The remote unit (114) determines the root cause (424) of the failure as a function of the health data (412) and the fault models (154) [determining specific type of error relating to diminished performance of computing device].").
Sinha, et al. does not teach wherein the computing device is a central computer used to automatically execute a vehicle function for performing a vehicle function task and the computing device; when a performance of the vehicle function task is at risk, determining at least one compensation function for substitutive execution instead of the vehicle function on a basis of the at least one determined performance variable and/or the at least one error variable and on a basis of the vehicle function task to be performed; and causing, with the computing device, the compensation function to be performed in the vehicle while the computing device functions with the diminished performance.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated driver assistance), Pink, et al. teaches: wherein the computing device is a central computer used to automatically execute a vehicle function for performing a vehicle function task and the computing device (Fig. 2, Steps (201-203), Col. 6, lines 22-30: "…step (201) the vehicle is automatically guided by a control device. In a step (203) a monitoring device monitors the control device for a fault while the control device is automatically guiding the vehicle in accordance with step (201). If the monitoring device does not recognize a fault, it does not take over guidance of the vehicle from the control device. Instead, the control device continues to control the car automatically [automatically executes vehicle function of fault recognition using computing device].")
when a performance of the vehicle function task is at risk, determining at least one compensation function for substitutive execution instead of the vehicle function on a basis of the at least one determined performance variable and/or the at least one error variable and on a basis of the vehicle function task to be performed (Col. 7, lines 15-28: "The monitoring device briefly overrides the system (vehicle) in a context of small deviations. 2. The monitoring system overrides the system on a long-term basis in a context of larger and hazardous deviations (for example, brings the system (vehicle) into a safe state, or takes over until the driver takes over, or takes over until the control device is again demonstrably working correctly). 3. The monitoring device overrides the system on a long-term basis in a context of small and larger and hazardous deviations (for example, brings the system (vehicle) into a safe state, or takes over until the driver takes over, or takes over until the control device is again demonstrably working correctly) [determines performance risk issues and substitutes judgment of monitoring device in place of control device based on identified performance variable]." ; Col. 7, line 65 to Col. 8, lines 1-7: "Functions that are encompassed by the minimum function inventory are, for example, trajectory-based collision identification, recognizing the traffic flow and the associated intention (oncoming traffic, own lane, adjacent lane, cross traffic, . . . ) [examples of performance variables used in compensation function for substitutive execution]") and causing, with the computing device, the compensation function to be performed in the vehicle while the computing device functions with the diminished performance (Col. 7, lines 23-26: "The monitoring device overrides the system on a long-term basis in a context of small and larger and hazardous deviations (for example, brings the system (vehicle) into a safe state [compensation function is performed in vehicle while computing device functions with diminished performance (e.g., safe state)]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sinha, et al. to include the teaching of Pink, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of automated guidance of a vehicle during a fault situation (Pink, et al. Col. 1, line 66 to Col 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 2, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the computing device is a central computing device of the vehicle configured to fully automatically or partially automatically execute the arising vehicle function (Pink, et al. Fig. 1, Col. 5, lines 62-67: "Apparatus (101) furthermore encompasses a monitoring device (105) [central computing device] that is configured to monitor control device (103) for a fault during automated guidance of the vehicle by control device (103), and upon recognition of a fault to take over automated guidance of the vehicle from control device (103) [automatically execute arising vehicle function]" ; Pink, et al. Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 31-35: "The method starts again at step (201). If the monitoring device recognizes a fault in the control device, however, then in a step (205) the monitoring device takes over guidance of the vehicle from the control device. In a step (207) the monitoring device then controls the vehicle [method steps].").
Regarding claim 4, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle function is a driving function (Sinha, et al. Fig. 2, Col. 3, lines 24-33: "…referring to FIG. 2, safety critical ECUs (104) and electrical components (105) are shown with solid lines and non-safety-critical ECUs (104) and electrical components (105) are shown with dashed lines. For example, Safety-critical tasks control the motion of the vehicle (100) in one or more of its degrees of freedom (e.g. longitudinal acceleration is affected by the powertrain, longitudinal deceleration is affected by the braking, lateral control is affected by the steering, and vertical control is affected by the suspension [critical driving functions].").
Regarding claim 5, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the error type is an error type selected from the group consisting of a failure or restriction of an electronic component, a failure of at least one sensor device, a loss of sensor signals of at least one sensor device, a restriction or failure of a computing unit, a failure of an interface to the vehicle, and combinations thereof (Sinha, et al. Step (302), Col. 9, lines 12-19: "…failure detection step (302) [error] of the reconfiguration method (300), according to the instructions of the failure detection application (230), the reconfiguration manager (130) receives or monitors aliveness messages (418) and fault signals (416) of the ECUs (104). The failure detection application (230) detects failure of an ECU (104) when an aliveness message (418) is not received within a certain time period or if a fault signal (416) is received [failure of electronic component].").
Regarding claim 6, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein during normal operation, when the functional capability of the computing device is undiminished, a utilization level of all of the components of the computing device is substantially evenly distributed (Sinha, et al. Method (300), Figs. 6-7, Col. 8, lines 53-60: "…FIGS. 6 and 7, an exemplary method (300) performed by the reconfiguration system (110) is now described in further detail. As provided, during normal operation [normal operation], according to the instructions of the task applications (202), the ECUs (104) perform their respective tasks to control certain of the electrical components (105) (e.g., actuators) based on input from certain of the electrical components (105) (e.g., sensors) [utilization level of components of computing device is evenly distributed based on specific task assignment].").
Regarding claim 7, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 6, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 6, wherein during normal operation, the utilization level of the computing units remains evenly distributed (Sinha, et al. Method (300), Figs. 6-7, Col. 8, line 61 to Col. 9, lines 1-3: "…instructions of the task state applications (204), the ECUs (104) take a snapshot of the states (414) of their tasks and send the check-pointed task states (414) to be stored for retrieval in the shared memory (132). According to the instructions of the state saving application (220), the check pointed task states (414) are saved in an assigned location of the shared memory (132) (partitioned and allocated) by the memory controller (134). According to the instructions of the health data application (212), the ECUs (104) send health data (412) to be stored for retrieval in the shared memory (132) [utilization level is computing units is equally shared (evenly distributed)].").
Regarding claim 8, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, which comprises, when a manifesting diminished performance of a computing unit of the computing device is detected, reconfiguring the data streams for a remaining computing unit (Sinha, et al. Step (304), Col. 9, lines 20-31: "…on-board reconfiguration step (304), according to the instructions of the on-board reconfiguration application (232), upon detection of failure of one or more tasks or one or more ECUs (104) [manifesting diminished performance of computing unit of computing device is detected], the reconfiguration manager (130) generates and executes a first on-board reconfiguration strategy (420). The reconfiguration manager (130) generates the on-board reconfiguration strategy (420) [reconfiguring data] according to one of the methods described above to reconfigure safety-critical tasks, which need to be completed to bring the vehicle (100) and electrical systems (102) to a safe state for a stipulated time period [reconfigure data streams for remaining computing unit].").
Regarding claim 9, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, which comprises altering at least one predefined application limit for a permissibility of an execution of a compensation function and/or a vehicle function based on the performance variable and/or the error variable (Sinha, et al. Step (306), Col. 9, lines 39-45: "…safe state step (306), according to the instructions of the safe state application (234), the reconfiguration manager (130) brings the vehicle (100)/electrical systems (102) to a safe state [alters predefined application limit to "safe" level]. The reconfiguration manager (130) disables (or signals the driver to disable) the: tasks (features/functions) originally executed on the failed ECU (104) to place the vehicle systems (e.g. electrical systems (102)) in safe mode [permissibility of execution of vehicle function based on error variable].").
Regarding claim 11, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the compensation function comprises setting an operation of the vehicle with a reduced maximum speed for the vehicle (Pink, et al. Col. 8, line 65 to Col. 9, lines 1-3: "…a completely defined (i.e. predefined) deceleration to a standstill, or a defined (i.e. predefined) deceleration to a specific reduced speed, i.e. in particular to an acceptable speed and/or a situation-adapted reduced speed, is carried out by way of the monitoring device [setting vehicle to reduced maximum speed of vehicle].").
Regarding claim 12, Sinha, et al. teaches: An apparatus comprising; (on-board unit (112) is compensating apparatus/ECU (104) is computing device, Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 29-36: "…FIG. 2, the on-board unit (112) [compensating apparatus] is a unit that continues to operate in the event of failure of one of the electrical systems (102).”)
a computing device having a multiplicity of computing units configured for data processing sensor data acquired by a multiplicity of sensor devices of the vehicle and for taking the sensor data as a basis for determining at least one control variable for executing the vehicle function; (Sinha, et al. Col. 8, lines 55-60: "…during normal operation, according to the instructions of the task applications (202), the ECUs (104) [computing units] perform their respective tasks to control certain of the electrical components (105) (e.g., actuators) based on input from certain of the electrical components (105) (e.g., sensors) [sensor data from sensors is used to control vehicle functions].")
wherein all of the multiplicity of computing units are utilized during a normal mode in which a functional capability of the computing device is undiminished, (Col. 7, lines 29-32: "A first column (450) shows exemplary primary copies of tasks (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (shown with solid lines) running on three ECUs (104"), (104"), (104") respectively during normal operation [multiplicity of computing units running in normal mode]")
a monitoring unit for monitoring the functional capability of the computing device in order to detect a manifesting diminished performance of the computing device, (reconfiguration system (110), Figs. 1-3, Col. 3, lines 42-45: "…FIGS. 1-3, a reconfiguration system (110) [monitoring unit] is configured to reconfigure the tasks of the ECUs (104) in the event of failure of one or more of the tasks or one or more of the ECUs (104) [functional capability to detect manifesting diminished performance of computing device].")
the monitoring unit being configured, on occasion of detecting the diminished performance, to determine at least one performance variable that is characteristic of a still-available functional capability of the computing device (Col. 4, lines 1-2: "The reconfiguration system (110) includes an on-board unit (112) [part of monitoring unit]." ; Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 29-36: "Referring to FIG. 2, the on-board unit (112) is a unit that continues to operate in the event of failure of one of the electrical systems (102). The on-board unit (112) is configured to detect ECU (104) failure and individual task failure, generate and execute a robust on-board reconfiguration strategy, bring the vehicle (100) to a safe state, send health data to the remote unit (114), and execute an optimized reconfiguration strategy that is generated by and received from the remote unit (114) [determines still-available functional capability of computing device as a function of manifesting diminished performance].")
and at least one error variable that is characteristic of an error type relating to the diminished performance of the computing device ,wherein the monitoring unit is a processor (Col. 4, lines 1-2: "…reconfiguration system (110) includes an on-board unit (112) and a remote unit (114) [contained within monitoring unit]." ; Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 1-12: "…FIG. 3, the remote unit (114) is configured to generate the off-line reconfiguration strategy (422) (see FIG. 7). The remote unit (114) includes a processor (440), memory (442), and software applications that are described in further detail below. The memory (442) includes a database of fault models (154) and a database of system models (vehicle architecture) (156). Fault models (154) contain information about possible hardware or software component failures (e.g., faults or bugs at one or more sensors, actuators, ECU processors, ECU memories, wiring harnesses, communication busses, and/or software applications), their relative likelihood of occurrence, and their dependencies [types of errors - diminished performance of computing device].").
Sinha, et al. does not teach and wherein the computing device is a central computer; the computing device being configured, when the performance of the vehicle function task is at risk, to determine at least one compensation function for substitutive execution instead of the vehicle function on a basis of the at least one determined performance variable and/or the at least one error variable and on a basis of the vehicle function task to be performed; and the computing device configured to cause the compensation function to be performed in the vehicle while the computing device functions with the diminished performance.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated driver assistance), Pink, et al. teaches: and wherein the computing device is a central computer; (Col. 6, lines 23-24: "…step (201) the vehicle is automatically guided by a control device [central computer]")
the computing device being configured, when the performance of the vehicle function task is at risk, to determine at least one compensation function for substitutive execution instead of the vehicle function on a basis of the at least one determined performance variable and/or the at least one error variable and on a basis of the vehicle function task to be performed; (Col. 7, lines 15-28: "The monitoring device briefly overrides the system (vehicle) in a context of small deviations. 2. The monitoring system overrides the system on a long-term basis in a context of larger and hazardous deviations (for example, brings the system (vehicle) into a safe state, or takes over until the driver takes over, or takes over until the control device is again demonstrably working correctly). 3. The monitoring device overrides the system on a long-term basis in a context of small and larger and hazardous deviations (for example, brings the system (vehicle) into a safe state, or takes over until the driver takes over, or takes over until the control device is again demonstrably working correctly) [determines performance risk issues and substitutes judgment of monitoring device in place of control device based on identified performance variable]." ; Col. 7, line 65 to Col. 8, lines 1-7: "Functions that are encompassed by the minimum function inventory are, for example, trajectory-based collision identification, recognizing the traffic flow and the associated intention (oncoming traffic, own lane, adjacent lane, cross traffic, . . . ) [examples of performance variables used in compensation function for substitutive execution]")
and the computing device configured to cause the compensation function to be performed in the vehicle while the computing device functions with the diminished performance (Col. 7, lines 23-26: "The monitoring device overrides the system on a long-term basis in a context of small and larger and hazardous deviations (for example, brings the system (vehicle) into a safe state [compensation function is performed in vehicle while computing device functions with diminished performance (e.g., safe state)]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sinha, et al. to include the teaching of Pink, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of automated guidance of a vehicle during a fault situation (Pink, et al. Col. 1, line 66 to Col 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 13, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The compensating apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the computing device is a central computing device of the vehicle configured to fully automatically or partially automatically execute the arising vehicle function (Pink, et al. Fig. 1, Col. 5, lines 62-67: "Apparatus (101) furthermore encompasses a monitoring device (105) [central computing device] that is configured to monitor control device (103) for a fault during automated guidance of the vehicle by control device (103), and upon recognition of a fault to take over automated guidance of the vehicle from control device (103) [automatically execute arising vehicle function]").
Regarding claim 15, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The compensating apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the vehicle function is a driving function (Sinha, et al. Fig. 2, Col. 3, lines 24-33: "…referring to FIG. 2, safety critical ECUs (104) and electrical components (105) are shown with solid lines and non-safety-critical ECUs (104) and electrical components (105) are shown with dashed lines. For example, Safety-critical tasks control the motion of the vehicle (100) in one or more of its degrees of freedom (e.g. longitudinal acceleration is affected by the powertrain, longitudinal deceleration is affected by the braking, lateral control is affected by the steering, and vertical control is affected by the suspension [critical driving functions].").
Regarding claim 16, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The compensating apparatus according to claim 12, wherein each of the multiplicity of computing units is at least one component selected from the group consisting of a physical control unit of the vehicle, at least one physical chip within a control unit of the vehicle, at least one processor, and a chiplet within a chip of the vehicle (Sinha, et al. Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 37-38: "…FIG. 2, the on-board unit (112) includes a reconfiguration manager (130)" ; Col. 4, lines 42-52: "The reconfiguration manager (130) is a centralized supervisory controller that is configured to [...] execute on-board reconfiguration strategies (420) and bring vehicle to safe state; facilitate and execute off-line reconfiguration strategies (422) (shown in FIG. 7); confirm execution of off-line reconfiguration strategies (422); and restart the vehicle (100) [component consists of physical control unit of vehicle].").
Regarding claim 17, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: A vehicle, comprising the apparatus according to claim 12 (Sinha, et al. Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 29-31: "Referring to FIG. 2, the on-board unit (112) [compensating apparatus] is a unit that continues to operate in the event of failure of one of the electrical systems (102).").
Regarding claim 18, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle according to claim 17, wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle (Sinha, et al. Col. 2, lines 43-44: "Systems and methods are described herein in the context of a motor vehicle [motor vehicle].").
Regarding claim 19, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The compensating apparatus according to claim 12, wherein only the computing device is provided as a backup for performing data processing operations on the sensor data (Sinha, et al. Col. 3, lines 45-46: "...the reconfiguration system (110) is configured to handle failures in sensors [sensor data]" ; Col. 4, lines 42-51: "The reconfiguration manager (130) is a centralized supervisory controller [only central computing device] that is configured to […] execute on-board reconfiguration strategies (420) and bring vehicle to safe state; facilitate and execute off-line reconfiguration strategies (422) (shown in FIG. 7); confirm execution of off-line reconfiguration strategies (422); and restart the vehicle (100) [performing data processing backup operations on sensor data].").
Regarding claim 20, Sinha, et al., and Pink, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein only the computing device is provided as a backup for performing data processing operations on the sensor data (Sinha, et al. Col. 3, lines 45-46: "...the reconfiguration system (110) is configured to handle failures in sensors [sensor data]" ; Col. 4, lines 42-51: "The reconfiguration manager (130) is a centralized supervisory controller [only central computing device] that is configured to […] execute on-board reconfiguration strategies (420) and bring vehicle to safe state; facilitate and execute off-line reconfiguration strategies (422) (shown in FIG. 7); confirm execution of off-line reconfiguration strategies (422); and restart the vehicle (100) [performing data processing backup operations on sensor data].").
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8452465) and Pink, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10481603) in view of Hu, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10915159).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sinha, et al. and Pink, et al. does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the compensation function comprises setting an operation of the vehicle with a reduced sampling rate for at least one sensor device.
In a similar field of endeavor (vehicle control), Hu, et al. teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the compensation function comprises setting an operation of the vehicle with a reduced sampling rate for at least one sensor device (Fig. 2, Box (110), Col. 8, lines 10-15: "The reduced energy processing strategy may be maintained while the vehicle (20) is operating in the current operating situation. The step of implementing the reduced sampling rate for the subset of sensors (24) and the reduced energy processing strategy is generally indicated by box (110) in FIG. 2 [reduced sampling rate for subset of sensor devices].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sinha, et al. and Pink, et al. to include the teaching of Hu, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the management of sensor data computation in conjunction with operational control of a vehicle (Hu, et al. Col. 1, lines 50-56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claims 1 and 12 were patentable over Sinha, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8452465) in view of Pink, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 1048160) because Sinha, et al. does not teach a computing device that is a central computer and that meets the requirements of the claimed computing device. The examiner disagrees. In Sinha, et al., the multiple ECUs are controlled by a “…reconfiguration system (110) is configured to handle failures in sensors” (Col. 3, lines 45-46) which is run by a “reconfiguration manager (130)”, or “…a centralized supervisory controller that is configured to […] execute on-board reconfiguration strategies (420) and bring vehicle to safe state; facilitate and execute off-line reconfiguration strategies (422) (shown in FIG. 7); confirm execution of off-line reconfiguration strategies (422); and restart the vehicle (100)”, which has the ability to execute a procedure by which a computing device has the ability to provide backup support in case of an emergency (Col. 4, lines 42-51). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Sinha, et al. with Pink, et al. because Pink, et al. teaches a vehicle computing device which has the ability to run a substitute vehicle function while the vehicle runs under a period of diminished performance (Col. 7, lines 15-28 and Col. 7, line 65 to Col. 8, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Sinha, et al. and Pink, et al. teaches a computing device that is a central computer and that meets the requirements of the claimed computing device, as stated in amended claims 1 and 12, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schoenfeld, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190001989) teaches a method for self-checking a driving function of an autonomous vehicle operation after an error message about the driving function in which during one step, a vehicle electronic system and a sensor is restarted, a check is made for the presence of the error message after each restart, and in the event that the error message is not repeated after the restart, the driving function in question is checked during the operation of the autonomous vehicle.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663