DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 5/6/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGill et al. (US 2019/0092389 A1), hereinafter McGill.
Claim 1
McGill discloses the claimed system (see Figure 2, depicting vehicle system 200), comprising a processor (i.e. processors 204) and a memory (i.e. memory modules 206) communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that (see ¶0031-0033), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to provide a testbench capable of receiving a first input set from a first device set operable by a first driver (see ¶0034, regarding primary driver system 210 includes first steering wheel 110, first accelerator pedal 114, and first brake pedal 116, where signals are received from the steering wheel interface module 112, the accelerator pedal interface unit 214, and the brake pedal interface unit 214, as described in ¶0036-0037), a second input set from a second device set operable by a second driver (see ¶0052, regarding secondary driver system 220 includes second steering wheel 120, second accelerator pedal 122, and second brake pedal 124, where signals are received from the secondary driving system 220), and a third input set from an autonomous driving component (see ¶0038-0039, regarding control signals are received from autonomous controller 230). A “testbench” is known in the art as a combination of hardware and software that applies inputs, monitors outputs, and checks results against unexpected behavior; therefore, McGill teaches a “testbench” associated with vehicle system 200 in Figure 2 in which inputs from multiple systems are evaluated with respect to an optimal path (see ¶0072).
McGill further discloses that the claimed system is configured to:
generate states of operations where each state of operation determines how the first, second, and third input set are able to control a vehicle (see ¶0029, regarding that the vehicle 100 operational in three operational modes that define operation by the primary driver 102, secondary driver 104, and/or autonomous controller);
determine a current state of operation for the vehicle (see ¶0039, regarding the determination of whether the vehicle system 200 needs to operate in an autonomous driving mode during primary driver mode, where the current drive mode of the vehicle 100 is provided, as described in ¶0050-0051); and
configure vehicle control by the first input set, the second input set, and third input set based on the current state of operation (see ¶0029, regarding the operation modes of the vehicle 100 represent particular “inputs” from the primary driver, secondary driver, and/or autonomous controller that are used to control the vehicle 100; ¶0039-0040, regarding that when controller 202 determines that vehicle system 200 needs to operate in autonomous driving mode, autonomous controller 230 and primary driver system 210 may provide control signals to steering ECU 240, brake ECU 250, and/or acceleration ECU 260, where secondary driver system 220 has priority over the operation by primary driver and autonomous controller, as discussed in ¶0052).
Claims 2, 9, and 15
McGill further discloses that to determine the current state of operation for the vehicle includes evaluating whether a guardian interrupt mode is active (see ¶0039, regarding the determination of whether the vehicle system 200 needs to operate in an autonomous driving mode, such that the intervention switch 236 connects autonomous controller 230 with steering ECU 240, brake ECU 250, and/or acceleration ECU 260; ¶0044-0048, regarding examples in which determinations are made to operate in an autonomous driving mode).
Claims 3, 10, and 16
McGill further discloses that the guardian interrupt mode is activated by a guardian interface (see ¶0039, regarding that intervention switch 236 causes the transition to autonomous driving mode).
Claims 4, 11, and 17
McGill further discloses that the guardian interrupt mode is one of a set of guardian interrupt modes (see ¶0039-0040, regarding that autonomous driving mode may completely disable signals from the primary driver system 210 or use combinations of control signals from autonomous controller 230 and primary driver system 210).
Claims 5, 12, and 18
McGill further discloses to configure the vehicle control utilizes a concurrency rule (see ¶0068, with respect to Figure 8D, regarding that vehicle system 200 rotates first steering wheel 110 to align with front wheels, where the actual orientation of the front wheels 106 had been adjusted to the target orientation 820 by vehicle system 200 while first steering wheel 110 is disengaged from the front wheels 106, as described in ¶0061-0069, with respect to Figures 8A-8E). The limitation of “concurrency rule” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, in which control of one component causes the same positional change in another.
Claims 6, 13, and 19
McGill further discloses to configure the vehicle control further utilizes a transition rule (see ¶0044-0048, regarding particular “transition rules” for transitioning from a primary driver mode to an autonomous driving mode, such as when the actual path has deviated from the optimal trajectory, when an obstacle has been identified proximate to the vehicle, when outputs are received from a fog detector sensor, when the vehicle deviates from a target speed, or when the vehicle is following a heavy-traffic route).
Claim 8
McGill discloses the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions (see ¶0031-0033) that when executed by one or more processors (i.e. processors 204) cause the one or more processors to perform the method discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14
McGill discloses the claimed method, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGill over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1), hereinafter Toyoda.
Claims 7 and 20
While McGill teaches the use of control signals from both of the autonomous controller and primary driver system (see ¶0040), McGill does not further disclose that to configure the vehicle control utilizes a weighting function to generate a blended control signal. However, the “blended control signal” does not reference any particular combination of inputs; therefore, prior art may be reasonably combined to teach this known technique of generating a blended control signal.
Specifically, Toyoda teaches a system that receives manual inputs (similar to the first input set and the second input set taught by McGill) and autonomous inputs (similar to the third input set taught by McGill) for controlling a vehicle (similar to the vehicle control taught by McGill) (see ¶0030-0031), which utilizes a weighting function to generate a blended control signal (see ¶0033, regarding control module 220 blends manual inputs with autonomous inputs according to a weighted value in order to generate the collaborative controls for operating the vehicle).
Since the systems of McGill and Toyoda are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling a vehicle using inputs from a driver and an autonomous system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of McGill to further to configure the vehicle control utilizes a weighting function to generate a blended control signal, in light of Toyoda, with the predictable result of preventing erratic maneuvers and provide for a more robust mechanism for controlling the vehicle (¶0032 of Toyoda).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Kim (US 2021/0061313 A1) teaches weighting inputs provided by a driver and an autonomous driving control unit over a blending cycle (see ¶0072) and Pabst et al. (translation of DE 102017202347 A1) teaches validating vehicle functions by changing the signal between a first control unit and a second control unit while the vehicle is driving (see ¶0039).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661