DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/24/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/9/2026 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-12 and 16-20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, at least one argument remains relevant to the current rejection.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 20, as anticipated by Boz, Applicant asserts Boz fails to anticipate the amended claim language because “Boz does not explicitly teach detecting a degraded state condition from failed as claimed” (Amend. 13). However, because the claim uses the term “or” (“failed or degraded”), it does not require obtaining status information indicating at least one sensor is in a degraded state as asserted by Applicant. If Applicant desires for obtaining status information indicating at least one sensor is in a degraded state to be a requirement it is recommended to amend the claims to recite “obtaining status information indicating at least one sensor is in a degraded state”.
In addition, Applicant asserts Boz fails to disclose “implementing, based on the sensor status information and the currently running autonomous driving function, a driving policy corresponding to the running condition” because “[t]here is nothing in Boz that discloses dynamically selecting different driving policies based on what autonomous driving function is currently running when the sensor failure or degradation is detected” (Amend 13). However, Boz operates in the same manner as the instant invention. For example, per the specification, an autonomous driving function can be a navigation cruise assist mode that guides a vehicle to a destination and includes running conditions like lane keeping, lane changing and turning (Spec. ¶¶ 142, 145). Similarly, Boz discloses an autonomous driving function of automated vehicle route based guidance to a destination including automatically parking at the destination (¶¶ 32 vehicle may continue to be guided in automated fashion; 34 carrying out route based navigation; 39 vehicle guided in automated fashion and automatic parking maneuver is executed at the destination; i.e., FIG. 2, steps 201, 205, 206 if maintaining currently running autonomous driving function, i.e., 205 “guide vehicle in automated fashion”) which includes running conditions like turning, passing, object distance detection, object detection (monitoring), lane changing maneuvers, longitudinal control (forward movement) (¶¶ 34-41), which largely overlap with the running conditions for the route based guidance function disclosed by Applicant (Spec. ¶ 145). Furthermore, Boz discloses an example of implementing a driving policy corresponding to the running condition, based on the sensor status and currently running AVDF would be implementing the policy of replacing a camera determined to be a failed or degraded with an operative ultrasonic sensor array corresponding to a modified running condition where speed is lowered (Boz, ¶ 36). In another example, Boz discloses partially modifying a currently running AVDF based on sensor failure or degradation by selecting a new destination and exiting a currently running AVDF through an immediate emergency stop (Boz, ¶¶ 38-42). Accordingly, Applicants arguments as to this point are unpersuasive.
With respect to the arguments directed to Ushiba, this reference has been replaced with Wang, as detailed below.
Specification
The objection to the title of the invention has been withdrawn as a result of the amendment to the specification with the replacement title: “UPDATING AUTONOMOUS FUNCTIONS IN VIEW OF SENSOR FAILURE”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
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 recites a limitation that replaces a limitation in a parent claim (i.e., claim 6, exit the currently running autonomous driving function in response to determining the failed or degraded state of the one or more sensors affects the running condition, wherein claim 11 changes the requirements for exiting the currently running ADF after the exit has already occurred, i.e., additionally requiring “there is no other sensor that is not failed or degraded and is configured to provide substitute data”).
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 9 and 11 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 claim 9, the broadest reasonable interpretation of what is and is not required in the limitation “wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least one failed or degraded sensor configured to provide data for a target recognition sub-function, and wherein there is no other failed or degraded sensor configured to provide data for the same target recognition sub-function” is unclear and indefinite. The double negative no other non-functional nature of the limitation is unclear under a BRI as to whether this limitation is requiring another functional sensor for the same target recognition function or if it is requiring that no other target recognition capability exists, or if it means simply that there cannot be two failed or degraded target recognition sensors. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that at a given moment there are not two sensors that are failed or degraded that are both providing the same target recognition sub-function.
With respect to claim 11, the broadest reasonable interpretation of what is and is not required in the limitation “the one or more sensors comprises at least one failed or degraded sensor that affects the running condition, and wherein there is no other sensor that is not failed or degraded and is configured to provide substitute data for maintaining the running condition” is unclear and indefinite for multiple reasons. First, “the one or more sensors comprises at least one failed or degraded sensor” constitutes unclear antecedent characterization since claim 1 previously requires at least one failed or degraded sensor such that it is unclear if this failed or degraded sensor is being referenced or is a new second failed or degraded sensor is being introduced. If it is the same, “the failed or degraded sensor” should be recited. If it is a second additional failed or degraded sensor, the claim should clearly indicate this is a second failed or degraded sensor in addition to the first recitation. In addition, claim 6 already requires there is a failed or degraded sensor that affects the running condition such that is unclear why claim 11, which depends from claim 6 is requiring there is at least one failed or degraded sensor that affects the running condition. Claim 11 is further indefinite because the limitation “wherein there is no other sensor that is not failed or degraded and is configured to provide substitute data for maintaining the running condition”. The double negative no other non-functional nature of the limitation is unclear under a BRI as to whether this limitation is requiring another functional sensor for the same target recognition function or if it is requiring that no other target recognition capability exists, or if it means simply that there cannot be two failed or degraded target recognition sensors. Under a BRI, this appears to include not having a second sensor that is both simultaneously failed or degraded that affects the running condition and is configured to provide substitute data for maintaining the running condition. In addition, claim 11 appears to conflict with claim 6 since claim 6 requires currently running autonomous driving function has already been exited, i.e., the ADF is no longer currently running, while claim 11 requires determining whether there is an additional failed or degraded sensor that affects the already exited running condition rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
Accordingly, with respect to claim 11, 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.”).
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, 9-10, 12-13, 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 failed or degraded 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 function1 and a running condition2; 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 failed or 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 9, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, the claim is requiring that at a given moment there are not two sensors that are simultaneously failed or degraded that are both providing the same target recognition sub-function.
Boz discloses this feature since Boz does not disclose the scenario where there are two simultaneously failed or degraded that are both providing the same target recognition sub-function and because Boz discloses the features of claim 5, i.e., the ultrasonic sensors are operational
(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 10, Boz discloses at least one failed or degraded sensor configured to provide data for a target recognition sub-function and at least one sensor that is not failed or degraded and that is configured to sense an ambient environment.
(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).
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 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 claims 7 and 18, Boz in view of Wang disclose at least one failed or degraded sensor 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 operational sensor is not failed or degraded
(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 failed or 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 failed or degraded state;
obtaining autonomous driving function information comprising a currently running autonomous driving function3 and a running condition4; 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
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 No limiting definition is provided.
2 No limiting definition is provided for “running condition” and the term does not appear to have a well known definition in the industry.
3 No limiting definition is provided.
4 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