DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/7/26 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-12, 15-18 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, at least one argument remains relevant to the current rejection.
With respect to the 112(d) rejection of claim 11, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new 112(d) rejection of claim 11 is issued in view of the claim amendment.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 9 and 11, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new 112(b) rejection of claims 9 and 11 is issued in view of the claim amendment.
With respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejection as anticipated by Boz, Applicant asserts Boz fails to disclose “obtaining sensor status information indicating a sensor is in a "degraded state," explicitly defined as a state in which sensing performance of the at least one sensor is reduced relative to a normal operating state” (Amend. 13). However, Boz explicitly teaches obtaining sensor status information indicating the sensing performance of the at least one sensor is reduced relative to a normal operating state (i.e., step 202, FIG. 2 “check sensors for operativeness”; ¶¶ 7 sensor operativeness includes both faults or curtailments; 14 sensor curtailment causes a driving function to operate at less than full functional scope; 36 sensor curtailment means the sensor is “only partially operative”; 43 “in the event a sensor is assessed as being non-operative or only partially operative”).
Applicant asserts sensor performance reduced relative to a normal operating state excludes sensor performance that is curtailed, partially operative and non-operative (Amend. 13-14). However, plain ordinary meaning of the term “reduced” is “less than before or less than usual”1. The various terms used by Boz including curtailed, partially operative, and non-operative all indicate sensor performance being less than a normal operating state performance. Even a sensor with an operating performance of zero is “reduced” relative to a fully functional sensor performance. Applicant further appears to indicate that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain ordinary meaning of the term “reduced” must include “the sensor continues to provide data but with reduced sensing performance relative to normal” (Amend. 13). However, this is not the plain ordinary meaning of reduced. Applicant points to Spec. ¶ 138 where degradation is caused by “water, blocking by dirt or the like”. However this passage has no bearing on whether the term “reduced” requires that a sensor continues to provide data. Furthermore, even if a degraded sensor required that the sensor be operational, Boz still would disclose this feature based on the terms “curtailed” and “partially operative”. Boz also discloses the same sensor degradation example as the instant application, i.e., ¶ 41 sensor visibility obstructions vs. Spec. ¶ 138 a sensor blocked by dirt.
Applicant further asserts Boz fails to disclose a “running condition” or a “working status” of an autonomous driving function. Applicant points to Spec. ¶ 8 which says running conditions refer to various "working statuses or conditions” of the autonomous driving function which explicitly includes “turning”. Applicant then goes on to say that Boz’s disclosure of a “turning function” is not a working status because it is merely a driving maneuver. The examiner disagrees. It is unclear how turning could be explicitly mentioned as a running condition in the specification but cannot be a running condition as disclosed by Boz. Moreover, other examples disclosed by the specification could also be considered a maneuver such as lane changing, starting, stopping, etc. such that any attempt cast individual vehicle maneuvers outside of a “running condition” is inconsistent with the specification. Accordingly, Applicants arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 20 as anticipated by Boz is unpersuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 20 as anticipated by Wang, Applicant asserts Wang fails to disclose “obtaining sensor status information indicating that at least one sensor is in a degraded state” because Applicant asserts Wang has a binary assessment of diagnosing a sensor as “normal” (normal operating state) or “abnormal” (less than normal operating state, i.e., including a failed state). Assuming arguendo this is true, Wang would still disclose the claim language since an abnormal state is a degraded state. The highlighted claim language does not exclude a binary determination.
Applicant further asserts Wang does not disclose "implementing, based on the sensor status information and the currently running autonomous driving function, a driving policy corresponding to the running condition" (Amend. 15-16) because “Wang's "longitudinal control function" is a specific system capability related to vehicle speed and braking. It is not a working status of an autonomous driving function such as cruising, lane keeping, or lane changing”. However, the specification indicates “running conditions refer to various working statuses or conditions of the autonomous driving function, for example, cruising, vehicle following, lane keeping, lane changing, turning, starting/stopping, reverse parking, and parallel parking” (Spec. ¶ 8). A mere status or condition of an autonomous driving function is extremely broad and the examples provided are merely examples and not limiting. A working condition appears to be nearly any aspect that contributes to autonomous driving under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The examples provided in Spec. ¶ 8 are also specific system capabilities such that Applicants purported limiting definition is not consistent with the specification. FIG. 4 of Wang clearly shows three separate conditions of an autonomous driving function including lane change control, longitudinal control and lateral control. There is no limiting aspect of the specification that can preclude these as a status or condition of an autonomous driving function.
Applicant further asserts “The currently running condition of the autonomous driving function does not appear anywhere in Wang”. However, the independent claims do not require this feature. Rather the claims require that the autonomous driving function is currently running whereas the running condition is a status of that currently running autonomous driving function. Accordingly, such are insufficient to rebut the prima facie anticipation found by the Examiner. See MPEP § 2145, VI (“Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)”); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations on which appellant relied were not stated in the claims; the specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms.). In Wang, the currently running autonomous driving function can be a level 3 autonomous driver assistance function. FIG. 9 shows the L3 and ACC column as OK or unavailable depending on whether various sensors and correspondent working conditions are available. For example, if a GPS sensor is degraded “fail source” = “GPS error”, then the running condition of a localization function is failed. In this cause this causes the L3 currently running autonomous driving function to fail. Similarly the sensor to working condition to autonomous driving function is shown in FIG. 4. Moreover, the diagnosis occurs “real time” during vehicle driving and based on the diagnosis “the target vehicle is continued to be assisted in driving according to the driver-assistance strategy” (abstract). For example, if the L3 currently running autonomous driving function fails, the driver may be required to takeover based on the failure condition (¶ 40).
Accordingly, Applicants arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 20 as anticipated by Wang are unpersuasive.
With respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 18 and 19 as being unpatentable over Boz in view of Wang, Applicant asserts Wang does not apply because Wang relies on a mapping table established in advance whereas the claims require real time determinations. As noted above, Wang does disclose real time determinations (see also, Wang, ¶¶ 106, 114 claim 12 “real time . . . continuing to assist in the driving of the target vehicle according to the driver assistance strategy"; claim 13 real time diagnosis . . . determining a driver-assistance strategy of the target
vehicle according to the failure condition of the driver assistance function of the target vehicle, and continuing to assist in driving the target vehicle according to the driver-assistance strategy”). In addition, nothing in claims 4 or 15 prohibit mapping tables established in advance, that are followed according to the diagnosed sensors, which occur real time during autonomous driving. Rather, both Wang and the instant application both used stored predetermined tables with predetermined relationships, i.e., certain failures map to maintaining, partially disabling or exiting an autonomous driving function depending on the relationships found in the predetermined policies (claims 1-2; Tables 1-31; ¶ 7 “driving policy corresponding to the failure”; Spec. ¶197 – instant application also has predetermined logical relationships for various sensors, i.e., front facing cameras are logically parallel, i.e., they provide backup support for one another for a vehicle function, i.e., if one front facing camera degrades another front facing camera can replace it such that the vehicle function can continue. This is precisely the same disclosure in Wang shown in FIG. 4, i.e., if one of the primary camera, secondary camera or front radar degrades, then the vehicle function can continue as they are logically parallel, i.e., they provide backup support for one another for a vehicle function).
Applicant further asserts “there is no motivation to combine Boz and Wang” (Amend. 20). However, Applicant failed to address with any particularity why the motivation supplied in the non-final action was insufficient. Applicant goes on to note various differences between Boz and Wang commenting that combining “would require a fundamental re-design”. The examiner disagrees. Wang is disclosed for teaching a use case of maintaining a currently running ADF despite determining a sensor is degraded. Wang teaches this in part by providing the concept of logical redundancy of vehicle sensors in case one fails, i.e., FIG. 4, sensors combined with logical OR symbol (¶126 units are divided according to function logic) allows for one camera failing and still continuing a particular function. As noted in the office action this provides improved fault tolerance capability and improves the stability of the driver assistance system at least in part through “primary-secondary redundancy” (Wang, ¶ 67, 104).
Specification
The title of the invention, “VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS” is not descriptive and could apply to nearly all inventions submitted to the Examiners’ Art Unit. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is not required but merely suggested as a possibility: “UPDATING AUTONOMOUS FUNCTIONS IN VIEW OF SENSOR DEGRADATION”. Amendments to the title fall under the requirements of 37 CFR 1.21 (b)(1); a corrected application data sheet alone is insufficient to overcome an objection to the title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, or for reciting a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. See MPEP 608.01(n), section III “test for proper dependency” (“a claim in dependent form shall contain . . . (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed . . . if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.”)
Claim 11 consists entirely of a contingent limitation, i.e., performing an action “when” multiple conditions occur, wherein the claims do not require both conditions occur, i.e., the sensor affects the running condition and there is on other sensor configured to provide substitute data for maintaining the running condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The previous rejection of claims 5-11 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
However, at least one new 112(b) rejection results from the amended claim language.
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.
Claims 4-10 and 15-19 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.
With respect to claims 4-5 and 9, the broadest reasonable interpretation of what is and is not required in the limitations:
Claim 1, and similarly claim 12: “obtaining sensor status information indicating at least one sensor among one or more sensors of a vehicle is in a degraded state . . . implementing, based on the sensor status information . . . a driving policy”;
Claim 5, and similarly claim 16: “implementing the driving policy further comprises:
determining that the degraded state of the one or more sensors affects a target recognition sub-function required for the running condition; and
in response, partially disabling the currently running autonomous driving function, wherein partially disabling comprises disabling one or more sub-functions while maintaining at least one other sub-function of the currently running autonomous driving function”;
Claim 9: “wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least one sensor in the degraded state configured to provide sensor data for a target recognition sub-function, and
wherein the at least one sensor in the degraded state is the only sensor among the one or more sensors that is in a degraded state and is configured to provide sensor data for the same target recognition sub-function;
are unclear and indefinite because they conflict with one another and constitute unclear antecedent characterization rendering the claim incomprehensible.
For example, claim 1 establishes:
there are “one or more sensors” associated with or “of” a vehicle and
there is “an at least one sensor” in a degraded state among the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle.
Claim 5 requires “the degraded state of the one or more sensors”. This requires that all of the sensors of the vehicle are degraded. For example, if 10 sensors are associated with or “of” the vehicle, the “one or more sensors” refers to all 10 sensors such that claim 5 is requiring determining the degraded state of all 10 sensors of the vehicle affects a target recognition sub-function. However, this conflicts with “maintaining at least one other sub-function of the currently running ADF” since autonomous functions would not persist with all sensors of the vehicle degraded. Did applicant intend to refer back to, i.e., “the degraded state of the at least one sensor”? or more clearly recited, “the at least one degraded sensor” from among the one or more vehicle sensor? Because it is unclear if “the one or more sensors” in claim 5 is referring back to the claim 1 recitation of the overall sensor set of the vehicle or the at least one degraded sensor, claim 5 is rejected as indefinite and for unclear antecedent characterization. In addition, claim 1 requires the sensor status information is an indication of the at least one degraded sensor rather than the “one or more sensors of a vehicle” and that the implemented driving policy is based on the at least one degraded sensor rather than the “one or more sensors of the vehicle” such that the claim 5 requirement “wherein implementing the driving policy further comprises” the states of the “one or more sensors” rather than the at least one degraded sensor constitutes unclear antecedent characterization.
Claims 4, 6-10 and 15-19 are similarly rejected as unclear for unclear antecedent characterization for the same reason or on the basis of dependency with respect to the terms “the one or more sensors”, “the one or more sensors comprises at least one sensor in a degraded state”; “the sensor in a degraded state”, “the degraded state of the one or more sensors”, respectively and on the basis of dependency.
For example, with respect to claim 9, the limitation “the one or more sensors comprises at least one sensor in the degraded state” is indefinite because it is unclear because it fails to refer back to the claim 1 recitation of “at least one sensor among one or more sensors of a vehicle is in a degraded state”, i.e., the claim 9 recitation would recite “the at least one sensor in a degraded state”. Is this an additional degraded sensor not previously recited? A further limitation on the claim 1 degraded sensor? As written without antecedent basis, the language requires an additional degraded sensor. However, claim 9 also states “the at least one sensor in the degraded state is the only sensor among the one or more sensors that is in a degraded state” such that the claim conflicts with itself and is incomprehensible. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected for the same reason for the recitation “the one or more sensors comprises at least one sensor in a degraded state”.
Accordingly, with respect to claim 9, a great degree of uncertainty and confusion exists regarding the proper interpretation of the claim in light of the multiplicity and scope of rejections set forth under 35 USC §112(b) above and their interrelation with one another. Considerable speculation is required to interpret the intended meaning of the claim and what the claim is intended to encompass. As such, the examiner is unable to interpret the meaning and scope of this claim with substantial certainty that would be required to attempt to apply prior art to reject the claim. Therefore, the examiner will not attempt to apply prior art to reject this claim because unreasonable and speculative assumptions as to the proper interpretation of claimed limitations that would be required to reject the claim on the basis of prior art would be improper. (See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), MPEP §2143.03(I), MPEP §2173.06(II)¶2; “it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions”; “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”).
Similarly, with respect to claim 8, the limitation “the sensor in a degraded state” is unclear antecedent characterization as it depends from the unclear claim 7, unclear claim 4 and also from claim 1, and as written, claims 1, 4 and 7 require multiple sensors in degraded state such that the limitation constitutes unclear antecedent characterization.
Claim 11, depending from claim 1 provides relatively more clear antecedent characterization stating “the degraded state of the at least one sensor” referring back to the claim 1 recitation “at least one sensor among one or more sensors of a vehicle is in a degraded state” rather than “the degraded state of the one or more sensors”, i.e., in claim 5.
It is recommended to clearly distinguish between references to the at least one degraded sensor, whether there is more than one degraded sensor, and the entire set of sensors of the vehicle. For example, specifying the condition of specific sensors and their impact on a currently running autonomous driving function would be helpful in clarifying the claim language, i.e., in FIG. 2 (Lidar, mmw, ultrasonic, fisheye, front facing camera, rear camera and lateral camera), i.e., determining a front facing camera is degraded while a currently running condition of reverse parking occurs and maintaining an automated parking autonomous driving function; or if two sensors are determined to be degraded, specifying Lidar and mmw are the degraded sensors and further reciting the impact on the autonomous driving function.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180297609 to Bozsik et al. (Boz)
With respect to claims 1, 12 and 20 Boz discloses a vehicle control method, comprising:
(FIG. 1-2 and corresponding description)
obtaining sensor status information indicating that at least one sensor among one or more sensors of a vehicle is in a degraded state, wherein the degraded state comprises a state in which sensing performance of the at least one sensor is reduced relative to a normal operating state;
(202, FIG. 2 “check sensors for operativeness”; 102, FIG. 1 “check group of sensors for operativeness” ¶¶ 7 checking the sensors for their operativeness, system faults or curtailments may be detected quickly; 32 If in checking the sensors, it is determined that a sensor is only curtailed or is non-operative; 35 In step 202, sensors present in the vehicle are again checked for their operativeness, especially the camera and the ultrasonic sensors)
obtaining autonomous driving function information comprising a currently running autonomous driving function2 and a running condition3 wherein the running condition is a working status of the currently running autonomous driving function; and
(i.e., ¶¶ 34 current autonomous driving mode is autonomous route based navigation, with running conditions including a turning function and a passing function; and object detection (monitoring); 39 “guided in automated fashion . . . automatic parking maneuver”)
implementing, based on the sensor status information and the currently running autonomous driving function, a driving policy corresponding to the running condition.
(¶ 36 “if it is determined that the camera is no longer operative, the passing function and turning function are modified. To avoid having to deactivate the functions completely, the measurement data of the camera are replaced by the measurement data of the operative ultrasonic array. Because the range of the ultrasonic sensors is smaller, the corresponding driving functions are curtailed, so that driving maneuvers controlled or monitored by them may be carried out only at low speeds, for example. If both the camera and the ultrasonic array fail, for instance, and no further measurement data are available that make it possible to at least maintain a function to a limited extent, corresponding driving functions are completely deactivated”)
(¶ 41 sensors fail which supply essential measurement data for driving functions that permit a forward movement of the vehicle. In this event, the corresponding driving functions must be deactivated, so that it is no longer possible to continue driving forward. In this case, a new destination is determined, which is reachable with the remaining driving functions . . . shortly before the failure, the vehicle has passed a parking space or a suitable location for parking the vehicle which is no longer able to be detected by the sensors at the instant of the failure, e.g., because of visibility obstructions, the recorded measurement data may be utilized for determining a new destination. Since the driving functions for driving in reverse are not affected by the failure of the sensors, it is possible to head for a destination by driving in reverse, and a parking maneuver may be executed at this destination)
(¶ 42 exit autonomous route based navigation, emergency stop maneuver, only perform feasible maneuvers; ¶ 43 in the event a sensor is assessed as being non-operative or only partially operative, it is possible to output a warning signal to a driver . . . with a corresponding indication as to which sensor is involved and which driving function is or could thereby be affected. Warnings may also only be output if driving functions are modified. Alternatively, warnings may also only be output when functions are curtailed by the modification or must be deactivated completely; claim 20 generating a warning signal for an occupant of the vehicle when at least one of: (i) at least one sensor is assessed as curtailed or non-operative, and (ii) at least one driving function is modified or deactivated; claims 13-21)
With respect to claims 2 and 13 Boz discloses the driving policy comprises:
maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function;
partially disabling the currently running autonomous driving function; or
exiting the currently running autonomous driving function.
(¶ 36 “if it is determined that the camera is no longer operative, the passing function and turning function are modified. To avoid having to deactivate the functions completely, the measurement data of the camera are replaced by the measurement data of the operative ultrasonic array. Because the range of the ultrasonic sensors is smaller, the corresponding driving functions are curtailed, so that driving maneuvers controlled or monitored by them may be carried out only at low speeds, for example. If both the camera and the ultrasonic array fail, for instance, and no further measurement data are available that make it possible to at least maintain a function to a limited extent, corresponding driving functions are completely deactivated”)
(¶ 41 sensors fail which supply essential measurement data for driving functions that permit a forward movement of the vehicle. In this event, the corresponding driving functions must be deactivated, so that it is no longer possible to continue driving forward. In this case, a new destination is determined, which is reachable with the remaining driving functions . . . shortly before the failure, the vehicle has passed a parking space or a suitable location for parking the vehicle which is no longer able to be detected by the sensors at the instant of the failure, e.g., because of visibility obstructions, the recorded measurement data may be utilized for determining a new destination. Since the driving functions for driving in reverse are not affected by the failure of the sensors, it is possible to head for a destination by driving in reverse, and a parking maneuver may be executed at this destination)
(¶ 42 exit autonomous route based navigation, emergency stop maneuver, only perform feasible maneuvers; claims 13-21 modifying or deactivating at least one driving function . . . measurement data of an at least partially redundant sensor of the sensors are substituted for measurement data of a curtailed or non-operative sensor of the sensors . . . substituted measurement data are used to modify the at least one driving function . . . recalculating route . . . new destination . . . automatic parking maneuver is executed at the newly calculated destination)
With respect to claim 3, Boz discloses wherein implementing the driving policy is further based on determining that either
a loss or degradation of one or more sub-functions causes inability to implement the running condition;
a loss or degradation of one or more target recognition functions does not affect implementation of a sub-function other than a target recognition sub-function corresponding to the running condition; or
a loss or degradation of one or more sub-functions does not affect the running condition.
(i.e., ¶ 41 for a currently running autonomous driving function of autonomous navigation, if sensors that supply essential measurement data for driving functions that permit a forward movement of the vehicle the corresponding driving functions of autonomous navigation must be deactivated, so that it is no longer possible to continue driving forward)
(i.e., ¶ 36 driving function for which the sensor is supposed to supply measurement data is modified or, if necessary, deactivated . . . if it is determined that the camera is no longer operative, the passing function and turning function are modified . . . measurement data of the camera are replaced by the measurement data of the operative ultrasonic array. Because the range of the ultrasonic sensors is smaller, the corresponding driving functions are curtailed)
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Boz discloses wherein implementing the driving policy further comprises:
determining that failed or degraded state of the one or more sensors affects a target recognition sub-function in the running condition; and
in response, partially disabling the currently running autonomous driving function.
(i.e., ¶ 36 driving function for which the sensor is supposed to supply measurement data is modified or, if necessary, deactivated . . . if it is determined that the camera is no longer operative, the passing function and turning function are modified . . . measurement data of the camera are replaced by the measurement data of the operative ultrasonic array. Because the range of the ultrasonic sensors is smaller, the corresponding driving functions are curtailed; 41-42; claims 13-21 modifying or deactivating at least one driving function . . . measurement data of an at least partially redundant sensor of the sensors are substituted for measurement data of a curtailed or non-operative sensor of the sensors . . . substituted measurement data are used to modify the at least one driving function)
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Boz discloses implementing the driving policy further comprises:
determining that the degraded state of the one or more sensors affects the running condition; and
in response, exiting the currently running autonomous driving function.
(¶ 41 sensors fail which supply essential measurement data for driving functions that permit a forward movement of the vehicle. In this event, the corresponding driving functions must be deactivated, so that it is no longer possible to continue driving forward. In this case, a new destination is determined, which is reachable with the remaining driving functions . . . shortly before the failure, the vehicle has passed a parking space or a suitable location for parking the vehicle which is no longer able to be detected by the sensors at the instant of the failure, e.g., because of visibility obstructions, the recorded measurement data may be utilized for determining a new destination. Since the driving functions for driving in reverse are not affected by the failure of the sensors, it is possible to head for a destination by driving in reverse, and a parking maneuver may be executed at this destination)
(¶ 42 exit autonomous route based navigation, emergency stop maneuver, only perform feasible maneuvers; claims 13-21 modifying or deactivating at least one driving function . . . measurement data of an at least partially redundant sensor of the sensors are substituted for measurement data of a curtailed or non-operative sensor of the sensors . . . substituted measurement data are used to modify the at least one driving function . . . recalculating route . . . new destination . . . automatic parking maneuver is executed at the newly calculated destination)
With respect to claim 10, Boz discloses
at least one sensor in a degraded state configured to provide data for a target recognition sub-function and at least one sensor configured to sense an ambient environment, wherein the sensing performance of the at least one sensor configured to sense an ambient environment is not reduced relative to a normal operating state.
(i.e., a failed or degraded camera and an ultrasonic sensor that senses an ambient environment, i.e., external to the vehicle; i.e., ¶ 36 driving function for which the sensor is supposed to supply measurement data is modified or, if necessary, deactivated . . . if it is determined that the camera is no longer operative, the passing function and turning function are modified . . . measurement data of the camera are replaced by the measurement data of the operative ultrasonic array. Because the range of the ultrasonic sensors is smaller, the corresponding driving functions are curtailed; 41-42; claims 13-21 modifying or deactivating at least one driving function . . . measurement data of an at least partially redundant sensor of the sensors are substituted for measurement data of a curtailed or non-operative sensor of the sensors . . . substituted measurement data are used to modify the at least one driving function).
With respect to claim 11, Boz discloses all limitations because as noted in the 112(d) section above, claim 11 consists entirely of a contingent limitation.
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.
Claims 4, 7-8, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boz in view of US 20240375668 to Wang et al. (Wang).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Boz fails to disclose all limitations.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining that degraded state of the one or more sensors does not affect the running condition and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function.
(i.e., FIG. 4 and corresponding description, failed or degraded primary camera while all other inputs to longitudinal control are working does not affect the running condition of the longitudinal control function and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function, i.e., primary camera, secondary camera, front radar fault are all connected in parallel such that they can serve as a backup for one another; FIG. 9 and corresponding description, i.e., row 6, camera, front sensor error, longitudinal control function OK; ¶¶ 61-67 “the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are all connected to the longitudinal control function link in parallel, so that . . . any one device or both devices of the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are abnormal, the longitudinal control function corresponding to the longitudinal control function link is determined to be valid”; 57)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to determining that the failed or degraded state of the one or more sensors does not affect the running condition, as taught by Wang, such that the currently running autonomous driving function as disclosed by Boz is maintained in order to provide improved fault tolerance capability and improve the stability of the driver assistance system (Wang, ¶ 67, 104).
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Boz in view of Wang disclose at least one sensor in a degraded state configured to provide data for a sub-function and at least one operational sensor configured to provide data for the same sub-function, wherein the sensing performance of the operational sensor is not reduced relative to a normal operating state
(Boz, ¶¶ 32, 36)
(Wang, FIG. 4, FIG. 9 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶¶ 60-67, 95-104; claims 3-4)
With respect to claim 8, Boz in view of Wang disclose the degraded sensor does not affect the running condition.
(Wang, FIG. 4, FIG. 9 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶¶ 60-67, 95-104; claims 3-4)
(i.e., FIG. 4 and corresponding description, failed or degraded primary camera while all other inputs to longitudinal control are working does not affect the running condition of the longitudinal control function and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function, i.e., primary camera, secondary camera, front radar fault are all connected in parallel such that they can serve as a backup for one another; FIG. 9 and corresponding description, i.e., row 6, camera, front sensor error, longitudinal control function OK; ¶¶ 61-67 “the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are all connected to the longitudinal control function link in parallel, so that . . . any one device or both devices of the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are abnormal, the longitudinal control function corresponding to the longitudinal control function link is determined to be valid”; 57)
With respect to claim 14 Boz discloses wherein when the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer program, the vehicle control apparatus is further enabled to implement the driving policy further based on:
one or more sub-functions, wherein a loss of the one or more sub-functions causes inability to implement the running condition;
(i.e., ¶ 41 for a currently running autonomous driving function of autonomous navigation, if sensors that supply essential measurement data for driving functions that permit a forward movement of the vehicle the corresponding driving functions of autonomous navigation must be deactivated, so that it is no longer possible to continue driving forward)
one or more non-key sub-functions, wherein a loss of the non-key sub-function does not affect implementation of a sub-function other than the non-key sub-function in the running condition; and
(i.e., ¶ 36 driving function for which the sensor is supposed to supply measurement data is modified or, if necessary, deactivated . . . if it is determined that the camera is no longer operative, the passing function and turning function are modified . . . measurement data of the camera are replaced by the measurement data of the operative ultrasonic array. Because the range of the ultrasonic sensors is smaller, the corresponding driving functions are curtailed)
Boz fails to disclose a driving policy based on one or more auxiliary sub-functions, wherein a loss of the auxiliary sub-function does not affect the running condition.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining that the failed or degraded state of the one or more sensors does not affect the running condition and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function.
(i.e., FIG. 4 and corresponding description, failed or degraded primary camera while all other inputs to longitudinal control are working does not affect the running condition of the longitudinal control function and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function, i.e., primary camera, secondary camera, front radar fault are all connected in parallel such that they can serve as a backup for one another; FIG. 9 and corresponding description, i.e., row 6, camera, front sensor error, longitudinal control function OK; ¶¶ 61-67 “the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are all connected to the longitudinal control function link in parallel, so that . . . any one device or both devices of the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are abnormal, the longitudinal control function corresponding to the longitudinal control function link is determined to be valid”; 57)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to determining that the failed or degraded state of the one or more sensors does not affect the running condition, as taught by Wang, such that the currently running autonomous driving function as disclosed by Boz is maintained in order to provide improved fault tolerance capability and improve the stability of the driver assistance system (Wang, ¶ 67, 104).
With respect to claim 19, Boz in view of Wang disclose the one or more sensors further comprises a sensor configured to provide data for a sub-function different from the target recognition sub-function
(Boz, ¶¶ 32, 36)
(Wang, FIG. 4, FIG. 9 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶¶ 60-67, 95-104; claims 3-4)
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20240375668 to Wang et al. (Wang).
With respect to claims 1, 12 and 20 Wang discloses a vehicle control method, comprising:
obtaining sensor status information indicating that at least one sensor among one or more sensors of a vehicle is in a degraded state wherein the degraded state comprises a state in which sensing performance of the at least one sensor is reduced relative to a normal operating state;
obtaining autonomous driving function information comprising a currently running autonomous driving function and a running condition, wherein the running condition is a working status of the currently running autonomous driving function; and
implementing, based on the sensor status information and the currently running autonomous driving function, a driving policy corresponding to the running condition.
(i.e., FIG. 4 and corresponding description, failed or degraded primary camera while all other inputs to longitudinal control are working does not affect the running condition of the longitudinal control function and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function, i.e., primary camera, secondary camera, front radar fault are all connected in parallel such that they can serve as a backup for one another; FIG. 9 and corresponding description, i.e., row 6, camera, front sensor error, longitudinal control function OK; ¶¶ 61-67 “the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are all connected to the longitudinal control function link in parallel, so that . . . any one device or both devices of the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are abnormal, the longitudinal control function corresponding to the longitudinal control function link is determined to be valid”; 57; FIG. 4, FIG. 9 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶¶ 60-67, 95-104; claims 3-4))
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Wang discloses the driving policy comprises:
maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function;
partially disabling the currently running autonomous driving function; or
exiting the currently running autonomous driving function.
(i.e., FIG. 4 and corresponding description, failed or degraded primary camera while all other inputs to longitudinal control are working does not affect the running condition of the longitudinal control function and in response, maintaining the currently running autonomous driving function, i.e., primary camera, secondary camera, front radar fault are all connected in parallel such that they can serve as a backup for one another; FIG. 9 and corresponding description, i.e., row 6, camera, front sensor error, longitudinal control function OK; ¶¶ 61-67 “the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are all connected to the longitudinal control function link in parallel, so that . . . any one device or both devices of the primary camera, the secondary camera and the front radar are abnormal, the longitudinal control function corresponding to the longitudinal control function link is determined to be valid”; 57; FIG. 4, FIG. 9 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶¶ 60-67, 95-104; claims 3-4)
Previously Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application No. 20220204006 is cited to disclose change of modality and running conditions based on the type of sensor failure detected (Fig. 5-6)
U.S. Patent Application No. 20200339151 is cited to disclose modifying, exiting or maintaining an autonomous driving function depending on the number and type of sensor failures detected (FIG. 14-15)
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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 See Cambridge dictionary, definition of “reduced”, available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reduced
2 No limiting definition is provided.
3 No limiting definition is provided for “running condition” and the term does not appear to have a well known definition in the industry.
Prosecution Insights