Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2024 and 03/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner notes that this application appears to be a direct translation from a foreign application, with indefinite language as detailed below. For means of examination, examiner believes the indefinite “the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable” to be a redundant sensor of similar capabilities i.e. when the first sensor fails, a different sensor in the second subsystem is capable of operating the vehicle. Additionally, examiner fully considered 35 U.S.C § 101 applied to claim 16 under “software per se” but found the means plus function language lends structure to the claims. Additionally, examiner considered the application under MPEP 608.01(b) for being more than one paragraph. However, as the language and format is proper and a single paragraph is only generally recommended, no objection was made at this time. However, examiner believes it would be more appropriate to amend the abstract to be in a single paragraph format.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a processing unit that executes predetermined processing” in claim 1, 15, and 16 as interpreted as a CPU, VCU, or ECU from the specification [0368] [0070-0071]
“A sensor resource management unit that causes” in claim 1-5, 7-8, 13-16 as interpreted as a portion of the CPU or ECU from the specification [0070-0071]
“a sensing result storage unit that stores” in claim 7 interpreted as a portion of the storage for the computer system [0093]
“a correlation analysis unit that analyzes” in claim 7, 9 interpretated as a portion of the vehicle control system including the ECU [0069-0071] [0271]
“a malfunction detection unit that analyzes” in claim 10-12
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in a case where a malfunction of the sensor is detected in a first subsystem among the plurality of subsystems, a second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem and includes the sensor that detects” making it unclear if the sensor that is malfunctioning is intended to be the same sensor that is being used by the second subsystem. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-3, 7, 13, 15-16 are rejected for similar reasons as those found above.
Claim 2 is additional rejected for reciting the limitation “information of the respective sensors” wherein it is unclear if the plurality of “sensors” is determined to be a first sensor in a first subsystem and a second sensor in a second subsystem as the independent claims appear to only refer to a single shared sensor as currently presented. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3-4 and 7-12 are rejected for similar reasons as those found above.
Additionally claim limitation “a malfunction detection unit ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification generally discusses detecting when a sensor is malfunctioning, all recitations of the “malfunctioning detection unit” do not appear to relate to a specific hardware system of the vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochida et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2021/0163026 A1 hereinafter “Ochida”).
Regarding claim 1 Ochida discloses:
An information processing device, comprising: a plurality of subsystems each including a sensor that detects a sensing result related to control of automated driving, (Ochida fig. 1 element 102, 202 [0154] wherein the system includes two subsystems with similar sensors to operate the vehicle) and a processing unit that executes predetermined processing related to the automated driving on a basis of the sensing result detected by the sensor; (Ochida [0112-0113] [0143] wherein the vehicle operates based on the sensed information without faults, or in response to the degraded system) and a sensor resource management unit that causes, in a case where a malfunction of the sensor is detected in a first subsystem among the plurality of subsystems, (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors) a second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem. (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth).
Regarding claim 2 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing units in the plurality of subsystems notify the sensor resource management unit of sensor resource information of the respective sensors provided in the subsystems, (Ochida [0138-0139] wherein when the system determines a degraded state of the sensor to the opposite controller for continued operation) and the sensor resource management unit causes the second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth) on a basis of the sensor resource information of the plurality of subsystems. (Ochida [0137-0139] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth for when an issue occurs in a system).
Regarding claim 3 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the sensor resource management unit sets the sensors of which the sensing results are substitutable as a sensor pair among the respective sensors of the plurality of subsystems on a basis of the sensor resource information, (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar) and generates a substitutable map indicating that the sensing results are substitutable for each of the sensor pairs, (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller) and causes the second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth) on a basis of the substitutable map. (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller).
Regarding claim 4 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the sensor resource information includes a sensor type, (Ochida [0086] wherein the system determines sensors based on the same or similar type of sensor) a data type, (Ochida [0130] wherein various styles of data information is output in a predetermined manner i.e. format) an installation position, (Ochida [0036-0038] [0097-0099] wherein the installation positions of the sensors are determined) a sensing area, (Ochida [0036] wherein the field of the sensors is determined, such as a forward position for a front mounted camera) and a measurement characteristic for each of the sensors, (Ochida [0083] wherein the system is able to determine the performance of the sensors) and the sensor resource management unit sets the sensors of which the sensing results are substitutable as a sensor pair depending on whether the sensor type, (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar) the data type, (Ochida [0130] wherein various styles of data information is output in a predetermined manner i.e. format) the installation position, (Ochida [0036-0038] [0097-0099] wherein the installation positions of the sensors are determined) the sensing area, (Ochida [0036] wherein the field of the sensors is determined, such as a forward position for a front mounted camera) and the measurement characteristic are same or similar on a basis of the sensor resource information, (Ochida [0083] wherein the system is able to determine the performance of the sensors) and generates a substitutable map indicating that the sensing results are substitutable between the sensors of the set sensor pair. (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller).
Regarding claim 7 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a sensing result storage unit that stores a sensing result of each of the sensors of the plurality of subsystems during traveling by the automated driving; (Ochida [0036-0038] [0057] wherein the vehicle obtains various sensor data for the controllers, which may be stored in various storage devices) and a correlation analysis unit that analyzes a correlation of sensing results between the sensors stored in the sensing result storage unit, (Ochida [0083] wherein the systems and sensor information is compared for performance information to determine which sensor to use)
wherein the sensor resource management unit sets sensors of which the sensing results are substitutable as a sensor pair on a basis of a correlation that is an analysis result of the correlation analysis unit, (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar) and generates a substitutable map indicating that the sensing results are substitutable for each of the set sensor pairs, (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller) and causes the second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem and includes the sensor that detects the sensing result that is substitutable for the sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth) on a basis of the substitutable map. (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller).
Regarding claim 8 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the sensor resource management unit sets sensors having a correlation analyzed by the correlation analysis unit higher than a predetermined threshold as the sensor pair of which the sensing results are substitutable, (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar i.e. the threshold to match the sensors is met) and generates a substitutable map indicating that the sensing results are substitutable for each of the set sensor pairs. (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller).
Regarding claim 9 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the correlation analysis unit analyzes the correlation on a basis of a similarity of sensing results between the sensors (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar i.e. the threshold to match the sensors is met) or a correlation coefficient stored in the sensing result storage unit.
Examiner notes that due to the “or a correlation coefficient” language, only one of the correlation means is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 10 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 7, further comprising: a malfunction detection unit that analyzes a correlation of the sensing results stored in the sensing result storage unit of the sensor pair of which the sensing results are substitutable (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors) in the substitutable map, (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller) and detects a malfunction of the sensors set as the sensor pair on a basis of the correlation that is the analysis result. (Ochida [0083-0085] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors).
Regarding claim 11 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the malfunction detection unit detects a malfunction of at least one of the sensors set as the sensor pair, the correlation that is the analysis result being lower than a predetermined threshold. (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors i.e. when the performance decreases it’s below a threshold).
Regarding claim 12 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the malfunction detection unit analyzes a correlation on a basis of a similarity (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors) or a correlation coefficient of the sensing results stored in the sensing result storage unit of the sensor pair of which the sensing results are substitutable in the substitutable map, and detects a malfunction of the sensors set (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors) as the sensor pair on a basis of the correlation that is the analysis result. (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar i.e. the threshold to match the sensors is met).
Examiner notes that due to the “or a correlation coefficient” language, only one of the correlation means is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 13 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein when a malfunction of the sensor is detected, the processing unit in the first subsystem requests the sensor resource management unit to transfer the sensing result of the sensor of a second subsystem, (Ochida [0153-0156] wherein the system determines a decrease in performance i.e. malfunction in an aspect such as a sensor and communicates redundant sensor information to control the vehicle)
which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to the first subsystem, (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth) and the sensor resource management unit causes the second subsystem to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem in response to a request from the processing unit of the first subsystem. (Ochida [0157] wherein the degradation of the sensors on the first side is overcome with results from a second side).
Regarding claim 14 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 13, wherein the sensor resource management unit requests the second subsystem to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem in response to the request from the processing unit of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0157] wherein the degradation of the sensors on the first side is overcome with results from a second side) and the processing unit in the second subsystem transfers the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem in response to a request from the sensor resource management unit. (Ochida [0157] [0054] wherein the communication between the first and second units are controlled by sensor information and request to transmit information).
Regarding claim 15 Ochida discloses:
An information processing method for an information processing device including a plurality of subsystems each including a sensor that detects a sensing result related to control of automated driving, (Ochida fig. 1 element 102, 202 [0154] wherein the system includes two subsystems with similar sensors to operate the vehicle) and a processing unit that executes predetermined processing related to the automated driving on a basis of the sensing result detected by the sensor, (Ochida [0112-0113] [0143] wherein the vehicle operates based on the sensed information without faults, or in response to the degraded system) and a sensor resource management unit that causes, in a case where a malfunction of the sensor is detected in a first subsystem among the plurality of subsystems, (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors) a second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem, the information processing method comprising: (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth) causing, by the sensor resource management unit, in a case where a malfunction of the sensor is detected in a first subsystem among the plurality of subsystems, the second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem. (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth).
Regarding claim 16 Ochida discloses:
A program for causing a computer to function as: (Ochida [0058] wherein the system is a computer system that runs programming) a plurality of subsystems each including a sensor that detects a sensing result related to control of automated driving, (Ochida fig. 1 element 102, 202 [0154] wherein the system includes two subsystems with similar sensors to operate the vehicle) and a processing unit that executes predetermined processing related to the automated driving on a basis of the sensing result detected by the sensor; (Ochida [0112-0113] [0143] wherein the vehicle operates based on the sensed information without faults, or in response to the degraded system) and a sensor resource management unit that causes, in a case where a malfunction of the sensor is detected in a first subsystem among the plurality of subsystems, (Ochida [0083] wherein the system determines a first side failure decreasing the performance of the sensors) a second subsystem, which is different from the first subsystem (Ochida [0032] wherein the vehicle includes a second control system) and includes the sensor that detects a sensing result that is substitutable for a sensing result of the sensor of the first subsystem, (Ochida [0095] wherein the second system uses the same type of sensor of the first system to operate) to transfer the sensing result of the sensor to the first subsystem. (Ochida [0137] wherein the first and second controllers share information back and forth).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochida in view of Ogawa (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2023/0115290 A1 hereinafter “Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 5 Ochida discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the sensor resource management unit generates a sensor resource … including the sensor type, (Ochida [0009] [0086] [0154] wherein the systems determine replacement controls with systems that are the same or similar) the data type, (Ochida [0130] wherein various styles of data information is output in a predetermined manner i.e. format) the installation position, (Ochida [0036-0038] [0097-0099] wherein the installation positions of the sensors are determined) the sensing area, (Ochida [0036] wherein the field of the sensors is determined, such as a forward position for a front mounted camera) and the measurement characteristic are same or similar on a basis of the sensor resource information, (Ochida [0083] wherein the system is able to determine the performance of the sensors) and sets the sensor pair on a basis of the sensor resource … and generates the substitutable map for each of the set sensor pairs. (Ochida [0137-0139] [0153] [0085-0086] wherein the system determines when sensing results for one portion are down, and substitutes them with the appropriate similar sensor results from the other controller).
Ochida does not appear to disclose “a sensor resource management table” or “the sensor resource management table”
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Ogawa discloses:
“a sensor resource management table” (Ogawa [0095] wherein vehicle sensor information including the data to be transmitted, priority, information from mounted sensors, format, and transmission characteristics are stored in a table) and “the sensor resource management table,” (Ogawa [0095] wherein vehicle sensor information including the data to be transmitted, priority, information from mounted sensors, format, and transmission characteristics are stored in a table)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the table representation of Ogawa with the redundant system of Ochida with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for determining how to operate the vehicle based on the type and information gathered from the sensors (Ogawa [0083-0085] [0095]).
Regarding claim 6 Ochida in view of Ogawa disclose all of the limitations of claim 5 and Ochida further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the substitutable map is graph-type data that specifies the sensor to be a transfer source of the sensing result that is substitutable (Ochida [0149-0151] wherein the system determines an instance when a sensor is malfunctioning and needs to share information with another control system to operate, represented as a graphical diagram similar to applicant’s figure 9, see also fig. 11 [0153-0156]) and the processing unit to be a transfer destination that uses the sensing result transferred from the transfer source as the sensing result that is substitutable and executes predetermined processing related to the automated driving. (Ochida [0083-0086] wherein the system determines which communications are accurate and using said controls to execute a predetermined autonomous control).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0361480 A1 discloses an autonomous vehicle controller with fault condition detection
US 2020/0339151 A1 discloses a sensor failure detection in a vehicle adjusting the capability of the vehicle based on the detection
US 2020/0027286 A1 discloses a sensor management system for a vehicle with matching sensor functions to continue operation
US 2012/0210160 A1 discloses a vehicle sensor operation based on reallocating performance when faults are detected
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656