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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102023205629.1, filed on 06/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 06/11/2024 are presently examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are inconsistent references to the different types of checks in the claims. Independent claims introduce:
Set of predefined checks
The checks (are these the set of predefined checks?)
Checks conducted cyclically
Cyclic checks (are these the checks conducted cyclically?)
Dependent claims recite
The checks being conducted when starting a drive (claim 2, for example). Are these the set of predefined checks?
Particular checks (claim 4, for example). Are these part of the predefined checks? Are all predefined checks conducted when the vehicle is started? Claim 4 also introduces “the checks” being performed while driving slowly and/or when driving.
Cyclically conducted checks (claim 6, for example). Are these checks conducted cyclically or cyclic checks? Are all three types the same type of cyclic check?
Missing checks (claim 8, for example). Are these missing predefined checks from the set of predefined checks?
Selected checks (claim 11, for example). Are these selected from the set of predefined checks?
Better clarity and consistency of the reference to the types of checks being referenced is required. Maintain “predefined checks” and “cyclic checks” where referenced, with the qualifiers being “missing predefined checks,” or “selected predefined checks,” as a non-limiting example. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, claims 2 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming any other intervening rejections such as the 112(b) rejection. Claims 3-5 and 14-16 depend upon objected to claims 2 and 13, and are thus also objected to. Claims 5 and 16 depend upon rejected claims 3-4 and 14-15, which depend upon objected to claims 2 and 13, and are thus objected to. Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12, 14-15, and 20 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.
The term “in the past” in claims 1, 12, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the past” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does “in the past” refer to a specific number of previous cycles? Were those cycles completed in previous drives? Examiner kindly reminds Applicant that broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in light of the specification, but importing narrowness onto claims that are broader than the specification intends is inappropriate.
The term “slowly” in claims and 3-4 and 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does driving slowly constitute driving under a specific speed value? Examiner kindly reminds Applicant that broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in light of the specification, but importing narrowness onto claims that are broader than the specification intends is inappropriate.
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 1, 6, 9, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidoris et al. (DE-102015209976-A1), in view of Bhanuprakash et al. (GB-2618365-A), hereinafter referred to as Lidoris and Bhanuprakash.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, the independent claims recite similar scope and limiations. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim.
Lidoris discloses A method for checking an automated driving vehicle prior to starting a drive, comprising:
conducting a set of predefined checks in an automated manner each time the vehicle is started, wherein the checks are performed at least partly using predefined combinations of a sensor system and an actuator system of the vehicle ([0014] “remote control is activated first, which … starts the initial safety check … checks can also be carried out that require a started drive motor … by prior activation of the remote control.” [0015] “as part of the safety test, several vehicle systems involved in carrying out the driverless driving maneuver are tested for their function … such as the hydraulic service brake system, the on-board power supply, the electric parking brake and the parking lock” [0017] “checking, for example, whether … the supply voltage at an electric pump of the service brake … meets a specific test criterion” [0043] components, including actuators and sensors, of the driverless system that are checked.);
Lidoris fails to disclose verifying whether checks conducted cyclically in the past under predefined conditions were conducted successfully with a required frequency.
However, Bhanuprakash teaches verifying whether checks conducted cyclically in the past under predefined conditions were conducted successfully with a required frequency (teaches checking an engine and the activation or deactivation of said engine [page 8, lines 26-30] “The IUMPR monitors a cumulative ratio of how many times a diagnostic check has been successfully completed versus how many times the diagnostic check has been demanded to be completed” these are cyclic checks in the past [page 13, lines 31-33] “determines whether at least one engine diagnostic engine system check is required. An engine diagnostic system check is required if the engine diagnostic system check has not completed during the current drive cycle 700.” where the number of times demanded to be completed is the required frequency, and the engine check is cyclically done.)
Lidoris discloses enabling a drive of the automated driving vehicle when the checks conducted at the start of the drive have been successfully completed ([0012] “a safety check of the vehicle is carried out, at least with the safety objective of achieving a safe condition for the vehicle. If the safety test is successful, driverless driving will be permitted”).
Lidoris fails to disclose enabling a drive of the automated driving vehicle when the checks conducted at the start of the drive and the cyclic checks have been successfully completed with the required frequency ([0025] “The test of the service brake system, for example, is only considered successful if the following conditions are met; – the measured braking torque reaches a required maximum braking torque within a specified time period, – the partial gradients of the specific values of the braking torque at different times are each greater than a minimum gradient”).
Similarly, Bhanuprakash teaches enabling a different drive mode of the vehicle ([abstract] “receive a request (140) to switch from the first operating mode (120) to the second operating mode (130)” transitioning from combustion to electric driving in a hybrid vehicle) when the checks conducted at the start of a drive mode change request have been successfully completed ([claim 7] “the request to switch from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is based … a requested load falling below a first threshold while electrical energy stored in an energy storage means is above a second threshold”) and the current or previous cyclic checks have been successfully completed with the required frequency ([page 14 lines 11-17] “as the diagnostic check was previously completed in the drive cycle 700 following time period 702, a diagnostic check is not required. Hence, there is no delay in switching from the first operating mode 120 to the second operating mode 130, following receipt of a request 140 to do so, If an engine system diagnostic check is required, the method progresses from block 504 to block 506.” [page 3, lines 15-16] “the engine system diagnostic checks are performed with sufficient regularity so as to satisfy regulatory requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lidoris with Bhanuprakash in order to teach enabling a drive of the automated driving vehicle when the checks conducted at the start of the drive and the cyclic checks have been successfully completed with the required frequency. Lidoris discloses startup checks on a vehicle’s components in order to determine whether or not to enable autonomous driving mode. Bhanuprakash teaches cyclic engine diagnostic checks and checks on the torque requested and battery energy storage level when a request occurs for switching between a first and second driving mode of a combustion electric hybrid vehicle, and also tracking how often the checks are completed against the number of required times they must be completed. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use cyclic checks alongside different live checks in order to only engage in a drive mode when appropriate (Bhanuprakash [page 3, lines 15-16] “an advantage is that the engine system diagnostic checks are performed with sufficient regularity so as to satisfy regulatory requirements” [page 3, lines [25-27] “an advantage is that the switch from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is only made when it is determined that such a switch is both desirable (for example to reduce vehicle emissions) and possible (… sufficient … energy storage)”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Lidoris fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein the checks in the set and the cyclically conducted checks each have a temporal validity, and wherein a check is considered to have been passed if the temporal validity of the check has not yet elapsed.
However, Bhanuprakash teaches the checks in the set and the cyclically conducted checks each have a temporal validity, and wherein a check is considered to have been passed if the temporal validity of the check has not yet elapsed ([page 2, lines 7-11] “an engine system diagnostic check is only run if it is determined that the check is required (for example, the test has not been performed in a current drive cycle), while engine deactivation is only delayed for a time period that is predicted to be sufficient for the check to be completed.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lidoris with Bhanuprakash’s teaching of only performing a check when its required, and if the check was already done in the current cycle, not performing the check. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a temporal validity value for vehicle checks in order to only perform checks when necessary to prevent increased fuel consumption or emissions (Bhanuprakash [page 3, line 7] “An advantage is that vehicle fuel consumption and emissions may be reduced.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lidoris discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising providing an action recommendation based on the results of the checks ([0085] Accurate extrinsic calibration of the 6c camera system is required for measuring the distance to obstacles. If the 6c camera system is decalibrated or misaligned (e.g. displacement due to vibrations or faulty camera replacement), then the parking function will not be activated and user 3 will be advised to visit a workshop.).
Claims 7, 10-11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidoris in view of Bhanuprakash, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, further in view of Augst et al. (DE 102018213011 A1), hereinafter referred to as Augst.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Lidoris fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein a position and/or an orientation suitable for the set of predefined checks are selected when the automated driving vehicle is being parked.
However, Augst teaches a position and/or an orientation suitable for the set of predefined checks are selected when the automated driving vehicle is being parked ([0078] “a test condition may indicate that a test procedure takes place between 2 and 10 seconds after a vehicle start or between the engine start and the driving away of the vehicle 102, or after parking the vehicle 102, etc”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lidoris with Augst’s teaching of performing checks on the vehicle when it is parked. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to perform the checks when the vehicle is parked in order to check the vehicle’s perquisites for a predated usage mode, such as Lidoris’ autonomous driving mode (Augst [0040] “test procedure can be carried out in response to a detection or prediction of a (e.g. also intended) use of the vehicle in a specific usage mode. The at least one test procedure can be selected such that a predetermined condition, e.g. a prerequisite for activation, is met for a predicted usage mode. In particular, the method, in particular one or more of said test procedures, can be used in a parked, e.g. parked, vehicle.”).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Lidoris fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the predefined checks of the set is conducted with the aid of at least one other vehicle and/or at least one infrastructure device in the surroundings of the vehicle.
However, Augst teaches at least one of the predefined checks of the set is conducted with the aid of at least one other vehicle and/or at least one infrastructure device in the surroundings of the vehicle ([0093] In the context of the method 200 … a comparison of a result 112 of a test procedure with one or more, for example further processed, results from the past and/or from other vehicles.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lidoris with Augst’s teaching of the comparison of its test results and other or past vehicle test results. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to compare an ego vehicle’s test results with other vehicles’ test results in order to influence the functionality of an ego vehicle (Augst [0093] “an influencing of a functionality of the vehicle 102 can be carried out depending on the result 112 of the at least one test procedure …” based on the comparison of results from other/past vehicles.).
Regarding claim 11, Lidoris fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein at least selected checks of the set are suspended when starting a drive if at least one blocking condition is met. However, Augst teaches at least selected checks of the set are suspended when starting a drive if at least one blocking condition is met ([0086] “Depending on the state of the user, it is not necessary for a specific test procedure (with respect to a vehicle system or with respect to a vehicle component) to be prompted … Furthermore, it can thus be ensured that (possibly only) such test procedures are carried out (and results are checked), by means of which an increased reliability or a reduced failure probability for specific systems or components of the vehicle 102 can be ensured and/or detected. This is advantageous, for example, in the case of a non-active or sleeping driver in an automatically driving vehicle 102.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lidoris with Augst’s teaching of skipping tests under certain conditions depending on the state of the user. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to skip tests under certain conditions in order to ensure the tests aren’t disturbing or dangerous (Augst [0086] “Thus, it can be ensured with high probability that test procedures are not disturbing or dangerous.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidoris in view of Bhanuprakash, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Liu (US 20240416924 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 8, Lidoris fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising prompting a user to conduct one or more missing checks when it is not possible to conduct at least one of the predefined checks of the set in an automated manner.
However, Liu teaches prompting a user to conduct one or more missing checks when it is not possible to conduct at least one of the predefined checks of the set in an automated manner ([0045] “the warning prompt unit sends a verification failure warning to prompt the driver to adjust the posture and re-collect biometrics, and a verification result and a vehicle startup status are uploaded to the remote management unit through the vehicle-mounted gateway unit.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lidoris with Liu’s teaching of requesting the user to re-collect information for verification when initial verification fails. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to prompt the user to re-collect verification data in a vehicle in order to gate a vehicle mode until the check is verified, and if the initial verification fails, prompt the user so that the user may use the gated vehicle mode after successful verification (Liu [0045] “after the verification succeeds, the ACC switch of the vehicle can be turned on normally: otherwise, the ACC switch of the vehicle cannot be turned on normally”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming any other intervening rejections such as the 112(b) rejection.
Claims 3-5 and 14-16 depend upon objected to claims 2 and 13, and are thus also objected to. Claims 5 and 16 depend upon rejected claims 3-4 and 14-15, which depend upon objected to claims 2 and 13, and are thus objected to. Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 112(b).
Claim 2 recites the same scope as claim 13 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 2 is recited below:
The method according to claim 1, wherein different confidence levels are assigned to the predefined checks in the set, the checks being conducted when starting a drive in the rank order of the confidence levels, and checks having a higher-ranking confidence level only being conducted when the checks of all previous confidence levels have been conducted successfully.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Schroder et al. (US 20200005561 A1):
[0023] “on the basis of the prioritized diagnostic functions as well as the exclusion matrix a test is carried out in the order of decreasing priority … check first on whether the diagnostic function of the second highest priority may be carried out together with the diagnostic function of the highest priority. If this is the case, then these diagnostic functions receive a corresponding release. Next, the diagnostic function with the third-highest priority can be tested for whether it is compatible with the two diagnostic functions released previously” [0037] “a plurality of diagnostic functions to be prioritized in relation to one another”
Schroder does not teach assigning confidence levels to each diagnostic test and prioritizing or ordering the tests based on respective confidence levels of each test, and only running tests with lower priority after higher priority tests have been completed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668