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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “29” (see specification at ¶ 70). 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. 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.
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 2-9, 12, and 14 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 2 refers to “the set of input data . . . in step A;” however, “the set of input data” is not defined in “step A” from parent claim 1, it is defined in “step a” in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3-9 and 12 depend on claim 2; therefore, they are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the data processing system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 refers to “the determined at least one priority in step A);” however, parent claim 1 defines determining at least one priority in step B). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 2019/0004528) and further in view of Hovis (US 2018/0342102).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan teaches: A method for processing sensor data from at least two sensors in a vehicle using a data processing network comprising a plurality of data processing modules (claim 1, “a plurality of autonomous driving modules to process data and control the ADV”), wherein each data processing module comprises at least one data processing component (¶ 26, “The worker thread executes one of the autonomous driving modules triggered or initiated the timer event”) each data processing component being configured for a defined data processing task for processing the sensor data (¶ 56, “a task can be processing sensor data (e.g., LIDAR data) produced by one or more sensors by an autonomous driving module”), each data processing module receiving, as input data, the sensor data and/or output data from further data processing modules (¶ 90, “In operation 1005, processing logic provides input data retrieved from the global store to the worker thread to allow the worker thread to process the input data”) and generating output data which is network output data of the data processing network and/or input data of further data processing modules (¶ 24, “In response to output data generated by any one or more of processing modules such as sensors and the autonomous driving modules, the task scheduler stores the output data in the global store”),
Zhan does not teach, however, Hovis teaches: the at least two sensors subdivided into at least two different resource groups (¶ 6, “assigning a high-level priority to the sensors collecting information contributing to the primary focus region, and assigning a low-level priority to the sensors collecting information contributing to the secondary focus region”), the method comprising:
A) receiving at least one parameter used to determine at least one priority of at least one resource group (¶ 41, “the perception priority manager may allocate greater processing power to the sensors directed rearward of the vehicle as the vehicle is moving rearward into a parking space”);
B) determining the at least one priority for the at least one resource group using the received at least one parameter (¶ 45, “The required focus region 144 is communicated to the perception priority manger in block 142, which in turn the priority manager allocates greater processing power to the sensors directed to the required focus region 144 and allocate greater processing power to the sensors directed”); and
C) activating the plurality of data processing modules according to the determined at least one priority (¶ 63, “The priority manager identifies the external sensors having an effective sensor range that covers the corresponding portion of real-world area and increases processing power to the identified externals sensors to obtain greater fidelity and confidence of information about that corresponding portion of real-world area”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the at least two sensors subdivided into at least two different resource groups, the method comprising: A) receiving at least one parameter used to determine at least one priority of at least one resource group; B) determining the at least one priority for the at least one resource group using the received at least one parameter; and C) activating the plurality of data processing modules according to the determined at least one priority, as taught by Hovis, in the same way to the data processing network, as taught by Zhan. Both inventions are in the field of sensory networks or autonomous driving systems, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “a new and improved system and method for prioritizing and processing information from externa sensors for increased efficiency,” as indicated by Hovis (¶ 5).
Regarding claim 2, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the following steps are performed for at least one data processing module of the plurality of data processing modules after step C): a) receiving a set of input data for performing data processing tasks in the at least one data processing component of the respective data processing module (¶ 24, “the task scheduler provides input data stored in the global store (also referred to as a global state store, a global storage, a global state storage) to the processing module” and ¶ 26, “Input data is retrieved from the global store and provided to the worker thread to allow the worker thread to process the input data”); b) receiving a stimulus for activating the at least one data processing component of the data processing module (¶ 25, “The event loop is usually launched or awakened by an event such as an IO event or a timer event”); c) when the set of input data was received in step A) and the stimulus was received in step b): activating the at least one data processing component of the data processing module and performing the data processing task for which the data processing component is configured with the respective input data to generate output data (¶ 26, “The worker thread executes one of the autonomous driving modules triggered or initiated the timer event”); and d) providing the output data for further data processing and/or as the network output data (¶ 24, “In response to output data generated by any one or more of processing modules such as sensors and the autonomous driving modules, the task scheduler stores the output data in the global store”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the stimulus received in step b) is determined with the at least one priority defined in step B) in order to activate the data processing module in step C) (¶ 72, “if certain events have different priorities, multiple event queues, each being associated with a different priority, may be maintained and utilized for prioritized task dispatches”).
Regarding claim 4, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the stimulus used in step b) is generated using at least one timer that specifies a time grid for regularly repeating the performance of the data processing tasks with the data processing components (¶ 60, “timer module or timer logic 515 periodically generates one or more timer events that will lapse within a predetermined period of time, such as 100 milliseconds”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the stimulus used in step b) is generated using at least one availability signal indicating an availability of data (¶ 69, “a worker thread of an autonomous driving module is launched or awaken in response to an IO event”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein step d) is performed with an output data provisioning module which comprises an output memory in which buffering of output data that is not yet complete takes place (¶ 24, “In response to output data generated by any one or more of processing modules such as sensors and the autonomous driving modules, the task scheduler stores the output data in the global store” and ¶ 56, “After the worker thread finishes the task, either successful or failed, the worker thread notifies task scheduler 511 to write any result (if there is any) to global store 512”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein: the method is performed on a data processing system on which multiple threads are executed in parallel or pseudo-parallel, each data processing module being associated with a thread (¶ 75, “Worker thread pool 604 includes a number of worker threads 641-646, one for each of the processing modules that process data stored in global store 512”), and activating the data processing modules in step c) is performed by activating the respective threads with a respective priority of the determined at least one priority (¶ 72, “if certain events have different priorities, multiple event queues, each being associated with a different priority, may be maintained and utilized for prioritized task dispatches”).
Regarding claim 10, Hovis teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein by defining the determined at least one priority, the computing capacity of a data processing system on which the method is performed is focused on processing data from the at least two sensors in one or more resource groups of the at least two different resource groups (¶ 7, “allocating a greater processing power to process the information collected by the high-level priority sensors than to process the information collected by low-level priority sensors”).
Regarding claim 12, Zhan teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein in step d), an availability signal is additionally generated, the availability signal indicating that the output data has been provided for further processing (¶ 68, “Once the task is completed, the worker thread will notify event loop module 610 via a callback interface”).
Regarding claim 13, Hovis teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the determined at least one priority in step B) is determined depending on a driving situation (¶ 9, “the primary focus region is determined by a perception controller based on predetermined criteria required for the safe operation of the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 14, Hovis teaches: The method according to claim 13, wherein the determined at least one priority in step A) is defined, such that data from the at least two sensors for which increased attention is advantageous depending on the driving situation are preferably processed (¶ 83, “In step 608, a high-level priority is assigned to the sensors collecting information contributing to the primary focus region”).
Claim 15 recites commensurate subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan and Hovis, as applied above, and further in view of Fleming (US 2019/0102179).
Regarding claim 6, Zhan and Hovis do not teach; however, Fleming teaches: step a) is performed with an input data reception module of the data processing module (¶ 216, “Data enters PE 2400 from one of set of local networks, where it is registered in an input buffer for subsequent operation”) which comprises an input memory for buffering input data that is not yet complete (Id., “registered in an input buffer for subsequent operation”) and which performs a completeness check of the set of input data (¶ 256, “PEs may be configured as dataflow operators and once all input operands arrive at the PE, some operation occurs”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of step a) is performed with an input data reception module of the data processing module which comprises an input memory for buffering input data that is not yet complete and which performs a completeness check of the set of input data, as taught by Fleming, in the same way to step (a), as taught by Zhan and Hovis. Both inventions are in the field of data processing systems with buffered inputs, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “a computationally dense yet energy-efficient spatial microarchitecture which far exceeds conventional roadmap architectures,” as indicated by Fleming (¶ 89).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan and Hovis, as applied above, and further in view of Rachlin (US 2016/0239345).
Regarding claim 9, Zhan and Hovis do not teach; however, Rachlin teaches: the data processing system provides an operating system in which the method is carried out (¶ 6, “providing an environment associated with an operating system to execute one or more threads of the plurality of threads”), system priorities are assigned for threads in the operating system (¶ 28, “Actual priorities 220 are priorities provided by the operating system 240”), and the determined at least one priority is converted into system priorities in order to activate the respective threads with the respective priority in step c) (¶ 27, “Virtual priorities 210 are selected by the threads 230 and actual priorities 220 are associated with the operating system 240 and the threads 230”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the data processing system provides an operating system in which the method is carried out, system priorities are assigned for threads in the operating system, and the determined at least one priority is converted into system priorities in order to activate the respective threads with the respective priority in step c), as taught by Rachlin, in the same way to step (c), as taught by Zhan and Hovis. Both inventions are in the field of multi-threaded operating system scheduling based on task priority, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “managing a plurality of threads in an operating system,” as indicated by Rachlin (¶ 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan and Hovis, as applied above, and further in view of Zhao (US 2022/0036668).
Regarding claim 11, Zhan and Hovis do not teach; however, Zhao teaches: the priorities are defined in step B) taking into account at least one utilization parameter, and the at least one utilization parameter takes into account utilization of the data processing system with the processing of sensor data from the at least two sensors from one or more specific resource groups (¶ 8, “by determining the load on the bus, it can be decided what sensor data from which sensors is to be requested with priority, so that this sensor data can subsequently be transferred preferentially to the processing unit”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the priorities are defined in step B) taking into account at least one utilization parameter, and the at least one utilization parameter takes into account utilization of the data processing system with the processing of sensor data from the at least two sensors from one or more specific resource groups, as taught by Zhao, in the same way to step (b), as taught by Zhan and Hovis. Both inventions are in the field of processing vehicle sensor data, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “situation-based processing of sensor data from a motor vehicle,” as indicated by Zhao (¶ 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christie (US 11,526,175) teaches “The prioritization engine is configured to prioritize a transmission of first sensor data from a first sensor group of the array of sensors over transmission of second sensor data from a second sensor group of the array of sensors” (col. 1:37-40), which relates to the disclosed priority-aware concurrent execution.
Kishan (US 2014/0359632) teaches “priority-based scheduling and execution of threads may enable the completion of higher-priority tasks above lower-priority tasks” (abstract), which relates to the disclosed priority scheduling of concurrent threads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights