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 .
Status of Application
Claims 11, and 14-19 are pending. Claim 11 is the independent claim. Claims 12-13 are cancelled. Claims 1-10 had been previously cancelled. Claim 11 has been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 01/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/27/2026 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims filed on 01/27/2026, the rejections of claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) and the rejections of claims 11-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/27/2026, see last paragraph on page 7 and see page 8, with respect to the rejections of claims 11, 12 and 13 (claims 12 and 13 are presently cancelled), under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C § 103, have been fully considered. Applicant has amended claim 11 and incorporated the amended limitations of claim 12 and 13 (presently cancelled) into the claim 11. The applicant’s argument toward Halder based upon the newly amended limitation of “one of the automated systems is adapted to change the operation of the motor vehicle until the one of the automated systems is assigned the positive or zero score”, is persuasive. However, the newly presented features in claim 1, have changed the metes and bounds of the invention, therefore, new ground of rejection has been applied (See Office Action below).
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels (See Figs. 1-4). Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels, MPEP 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
This correction is requested for the benefit of the Applicant. should the application issue as a patent, inclusion of descriptive text labels in the Figures will permit an Examiner to more quickly ascertain whether the issued patent constitutes prior art against applications filed in this field of art in the future. This provides the Examiner with more context during patentability evaluations and renders this application (and potential patent) for consideration as prior art with greater ease and efficiency.
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 11, 14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al., US 12017668 B1, hereinafter “Lopez”, in view of Tang et al., US 20230152791, hereinafter “Tang”.
Regarding claim 11, Lopez discloses A method for supervising operation of a motor vehicle comprising an ordered set of at least two automated systems (Col 2, Lines 16-19, “a vehicle configured for autonomous operation may include one or more controllers configured to monitor respective sets of components.”, Col 2, Lines 38-44, “to monitor associated sets of components. In at least one example, a first controller may be configured to monitor a first set of components associated with autonomous operation of the vehicle and a second controller may be configured to monitor a second set of components associated with motion of the vehicle (e.g., battery systems, drive systems, etc.).”), the method comprising: activating supervision of the ordered set of automated systems; iterations of supervising an automated system, each iteration being applied successively, in an order of the ordered set, to one of the automated systems, the supervising comprising measuring a performance of the automated system under supervision (Col 2, Lines 16-19, “monitor respective sets of components.”, Col 18, Lines 13-16 “the motion control component 106 processes sensor data from the sensor(s) and/or data associated with a performance (or function) of the motion control component 106.”, __according to Col 2 of the reference, respective sets of component being monitored, reads on supervision of the ordered set of automated systems. Also, the aforementioned reference implicitly teaches the activating the supervising operation as claimed and it is an inherent step of the monitoring step as disclosed in the reference__);
Lopez doesn’t explicitly teach assigning a positive, negative or zero score to the automated system under supervision depending on the measured performance, wherein, when the negative score is assigned to one of the automated systems, the iterations of the supervising are interrupted such that the one of the automated systems is adapted to change the operation of the motor vehicle until the one of the automated systems is assigned the positive or zero score; and updating at least one automated system of the ordered set depending on the positive, negative or zero score assigned to the at least one automated system, the updating including saving data or switching between subsystems for the at least one automated system.
However, Tang teaches
assigning a positive, negative or zero score to the automated system under supervision depending on the measured performance ([0004], “One or more anomalies are detected based on residual scores generated by [] anomaly detection” “defects are identified based on a generated overall defect score [] being above a predetermined defect score threshold.”, [0029], Fig. 4 block 408, [0062], also Fig. 2 block 222 and [0055], “Weights can be determined and/or applied in block 222 to generate weighted features in block 224, in accordance with aspects of the present invention. An anomaly detection engine 226 can determine whether a received weighted feature 224 includes “no abnormality” 228, a “known abnormality” 232, and/or an “unknown abnormality” 236, and upon such a determination, can recommend and/or execute a corresponding command”, __Note: both defect score being above a predetermined threshold and also generating weighted features regarding the detected abnormality as taught in paragraph [0055] can read on assigning a positive, negative or zero score to a system under supervision as recited in the claim__),
wherein, when the negative score is assigned to one of the automated systems, the iterations of the supervising are interrupted such that the one of the automated systems is adapted to change the operation of the motor vehicle until the one of the automated systems is assigned the positive or zero score (at least [0029] “if the score is larger than a predefined threshold, a defect can be reported to an end user and/or a controller can automatically adjust navigation (or other vehicle tasks) to account for the defect,”, “For example, [] if the car does not execute a braking action upon entering a branching point, and thus the speed value remains the same, it should be identified as a defect, reported to the user, and or initiate corrective action during vehicle operation” and [0055], “if a known abnormality is identified in block 232, the controller 208 may make a corrective action (e.g., executing a lane change, braking, accelerating, etc.)”, __Note: since the defect detection process disclosed by Tang, is performed iteratively (See for example paragraph [0083]), and the corrective action is initiated when a defect is identified, it is inherent that the corrective process will be continued until the defect is removed which meet on changing the operation until the automated system is assigned the positive or zero score. Further, the controller adjust a vehicle task in response to the detected defect, therefore, it is implicitly clear that the iterations of the supervising are interrupted in order to perform corrective action__); and
updating at least one automated system of the ordered set depending on the positive, negative or zero score assigned to the at least one automated system, the updating including saving data or switching between subsystems for the at least one automated system (at least [0058], [0059], [0083], “any of a plurality of operations (e.g., accelerating, turning, braking, adjusting lighting or other vehicle features, etc.) of a vehicle can be automatically controlled based on the detected anomalies and/or the generated total defect score.”, __Note: any operation like accelerating, braking, etc. in response to the detected anomalies as disclosed by Tang, would read on switching between subsystems for the automated system as recited in the claim__ ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring the components of a vehicle as taught by Lopez to include assigning positive/negative score to the performance of the system under supervision and make corrective action in the operation of a system, if a defect is identified, as taught by Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving a fault detecting system so that the system can iteratively supervise the subsystem and take corrective action in response to a detected anomaly. This would enhance the reliability and performance of such system in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Lopez discloses the supervising method as claimed in claim 11, and teaches wherein the ordered set of at least two automated systems is formed, in order, of the following systems: a system configured to control movement of the vehicle (Fig 1, block of First controller unit 102, Col 18, Lines 14-17, “the motion control component 106 processes sensor data from the sensor(s) and/or data associated with a performance (or function) of the motion control component 106. In some examples, the motion control component 106 may provide performance data to the motion controller 104 as the first data 204.”), then a decision-making system (Col 30, Lines 21-24, “For example, the vehicle computing system may determine that a new fault is detected in association with a planner system configured to facilitate autonomous operation.”, Col 36, Lines 28-32 “the planner component 924 may determine a path for the vehicle 902 to follow to traverse through an environment. For example, the planner component 924 may determine various routes and vehicle trajectories and various levels of detail.”), then a system configured to process perception data (Col 32 last paragraph and Col 33 first paragraph, Col 36, first paragraph “perception component”) (__according to Col 37 Lines 45-57, “the operations performed by the various components may be combined or performed in any other component.”, __the monitoring operation is performed in any components as disclosed in the aforementioned reference reads on forming supervising in the systems as recited in the claim and also mapped with the reference).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lopez teaches the supervising method as claimed in claim 11, however, Lopez doesn’t teach wherein the updating at least one automated system comprises implementing a reinforcement learning algorithm or a switching system.
Tang teaches wherein the updating at least one automated system comprises implementing a reinforcement learning algorithm or a switching system ((at least [0058], [0059], [0083], “any of a plurality of operations (e.g., accelerating, turning, braking, adjusting lighting or other vehicle features, etc.) of a vehicle can be automatically controlled based on the detected anomalies and/or the generated total defect score.”, __Note: any operation like accelerating, braking, etc. in response to the detected anomalies as disclosed by Tang, would read on a switching system as broadly recited in the claim and in the instant specification__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring the components of a vehicle as taught by Lopez to include performing correction actions (e.g. accelerating, braking, etc.)/switching system, if a defect is identified in the supervised system/component, as taught by Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving a fault detecting system so that the system can iteratively supervise the subsystem and take corrective action by changing an operation of a system or switching between systems, in response to a detected anomaly. This would enhance the reliability and performance of such system in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Lopez teaches A device for supervising operation of a motor vehicle, the vehicle being equipped with an ordered set of at least two automated systems, the device comprising hardware and/or software elements configured to implement the supervising method as claimed in claim 11 (Col 2, Lines 16-22, Col 4, second paragraph “a remote computing device configured to monitor operations of the vehicle”, Col 4, third paragraph, Col 41, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Lopez discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute the supervising method as claimed in claim 11 (Col 41, Lines 23-28).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of Tang, further in view of Le Henaff et al., US 12258027 B1, hereinafter “Henaff”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lopez discloses the supervising method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the motor vehicle comprises communication systems including vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems and/or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems (Col 38, Lines 46-58, “enabling communication with various other devices over the network”), the motor vehicle further being equipped with a human-machine interface (Fig. 5, Col 1, last paragraph, “user interface”)
Lopez doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the activating supervision comprises receiving an evaluation of a behavior of the motor vehicle either from the human-machine interface or from the communication systems.
However, Henaff teaches wherein the activating supervision comprises receiving an evaluation of a behavior of the motor vehicle either from the human-machine interface or from the communication systems (Col 10, Lines 18-39 “the simulation results 130 to be presented via a user interface 132 on the computing device. [] the simulation results 130 include a first time associated with fault detection [] For example, the simulation results 130 may include [], a component associated with the evaluation, a component associated with fault detection and/or mitigation, or the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system for monitoring the components of a vehicle as taught by modified Lopez with the step of receiving an evaluation of a behavior of the vehicle as taught by Henaff, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the results of supervising based on the evaluation of the vehicle’s behavior.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of Tang, further in view og Henaff, and further in view of Nordbruch, US 10515490 B2, hereinafter Nordbruch and Verma et al., US 20250178631, hereinafter “Verma”.
Regarding claim 16, Lopez in view of Henaff teaches the supervising method as claimed in claim 15 (See rejection for claim 15), however, Lopez in view of Henaff doesn’t teach following receipt of an evaluation of a behavior from the communication systems, determining that the vehicle is being controlled in a first way when the vehicle is being controlled by a human driver, or determining that the vehicle is being controlled in a second way when the vehicle is being controlled by the set of at least two automated systems, then when the vehicle is being controlled in the first way, transmitting, to the human- machine interface, a score assigned to the human driver, the score being determined based on the evaluation of the behavior of the motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, Nordbruch teaches determining that the vehicle is being controlled in a first way when the vehicle is being controlled by a human driver, or determining that the vehicle is being controlled in a second way when the vehicle is being controlled by the set of at least two automated systems (at least Abstract, Col 8, Lines 6-33, “a method is provided for determining whether a motor vehicle is instantaneously driven manually or automatically, [] first operating mode in which the motor vehicle may be driven manually, and [] second operating mode in which the motor vehicle may be driven automatically,”, Col 4, Lines 18-23, “In the second operating mode, the motor vehicle may travel autonomously,”, __second operating mode (travelling autonomously) reads on the vehicle is being controlled by the set of at least two automated systems__ ),
Nevertheless, Verma teaches following receipt of an evaluation of a behavior from the communication systems ([0061], [0142]), then when the vehicle is being controlled in the first way, transmitting, to the human- machine interface, a score assigned to the human driver, the score being determined based on the evaluation of the behavior of the motor vehicle (Fig 16, Abstract, [0009]-[0010], “transmitting alerts based on monitored behavior of a driver.” “Calculating a driver score for the driver based on a set of driving events”, [0085], [0187])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system for monitoring the components of a vehicle as taught by modified Lopez with the step of determining if the vehicle is controlled manually as taught by Nordbruch and further with assigning a score to the drive’s behavior is vehicle being controlled manually as taught by Verma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the results of supervising based on the evaluation of the driver’s behavior.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights