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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 6/17/2024. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and claims 1, 12, and 13 are the independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 9, it recites “wherein the plurality of modules are implemented to be driven independently from each other.” The examiner would like to point out that as the “plurality of modules” are included in an autonomous driving solution platform and are used to provide functions of advanced driver assistance systems, as seen in claim 1, the modules may be considered code modules that provide functions (for example, claim 10 recites: wherein the plurality of modules include perception, fusion, planning, control, interaction, sensing, visualization, security, a high definition (HD) map, or localization), which are not typically referred to as being “driven” (ex: the module may be a HD map as seen in claim 10, and a map is not something that is normally referred to as being “driven” as recited in claim 9), and as such, for clarity/grammar/etc. the examiner would like to recommend the wording/phrasing “wherein the plurality of modules are implemented such that they are implemented to be executed independently from each other”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
As per independent claims 1, 12, and 13, they recite “…are predefined to derive the remaining module linked to an operation of the detailed module among the plurality of modules…”. Examiner would like to point out that the claims do not previously recite “a remaining module” and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. They further recite “…using the developed and examined detailed module using the remaining modules and…”. The examiner would like to point out that while the claims previously recite a singular “…remaining module…” and previously recites “…providing an infrastructure environment for development or examination of the detailed module…”, the claim does not previously recite multiple “remaining modules” or that the “detailed module” has actually been both “developed and examined” or that a “detailed module” which has been developed and examined is “using” remaining modules, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…using a master protocol to derive remaining modules of the plurality of modules that are linked to an operation of the detailed module, wherein a type and timing of information to be transmitted and received between the plurality of modules and a condition for transmitting and receiving the information are predefined in the master protocol; providing an infrastructure environment for development and examination of the detailed module; developing and examining the detailed module to generate a developed and examined detailed module, wherein the developed and examined detailed module uses the remaining modules; and implementing and providing one or more functions of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) using the developed and examined detailed module using the remaining modules and the infrastructure environment, wherein the one or more functions of ADAS are requested by a client of the client terminal.”
As per dependent claims 2-11, they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which they depend, and fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1. Therefore claims 2-11 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it further recites “The operation method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing a first detailed specification for the detailed module included in the development query and a second detailed specification for a corresponding detailed module among the plurality of modules based on the master protocol…”, however the examiner would like to point out that while claim 1 previously recites “receiving a request from a client terminal for a development query required to develop a detailed module, which is a part of a plurality of modules included in the autonomous driving solution platform”, and as such previously states that the “development query” is “required to develop a detailed module”, it does not explicitly previously recite that the detail module is “included in the development query”, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “The method of claim 1, wherein the detailed module is included in the development query, and further comprising: comparing a first detailed specification for the detailed module included in the development query…”.
As per claims 4-6, they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 3, upon which they depend, and fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 3. Therefore claims 4-6 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 3, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
As per claim 12, it recites “A computer program stored in a computer readable recording medium, wherein the computer program is programmed to…” and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim may be interpreted as claiming the computer program itself, which is software per-se, and software per-se is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The examiner would like to recommend the phrasing “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program having instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:…”.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render an obviousness of receiving a request from a client terminal for a development query required to develop a detailed module, which is a part of a plurality of modules included in the autonomous driving solution platform; using a master protocol in which a type and timing of information to be transmitted and received between the plurality of modules and a condition for transmitting and receiving the information are predefined to derive the remaining module linked to an operation of the detailed module among the plurality of modules; providing an infrastructure environment for development or examination of the detailed module; and using the developed and examined detailed module using the remaining modules and the infrastructure environment to implement and provide one or more of functions of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) requested by a client of the client terminal, as required by the independent claims.
The prior art of record (Konrardy et al. US Patent 11,242,051 B1, Gammelgard et al. US Patent 11,753,040 B1, Jobanputra et al. US PG Pub. 2020/0073385 A1, and Totale et al. US Patent 10,884,730 B2) teaches that software/application/program/etc. may have/consist of/etc. a plurality of/multiple/etc. modules/elements/components/etc. that are implemented to provide functions of the software/application/program/etc. and which may be searched/queried/etc. and developed/maintained/created/generated/etc., that the modules/elements/components may communicate with/transmit information between/have dependencies on/etc. each other, that an environment/engine/server/ computer/etc. may be used/provided/etc. to develop and examine/test/analyze the modules/components/software/etc., and that software/application/program/etc. may be a driver assistance system/self-driving software/autonomous vehicle operation software/etc.. However, the prior art of record fails to render an obviousness of using a master protocol in which a type and timing of information to be transmitted and received between a plurality of modules and a condition for transmitting and receiving the information are predefined to derive remaining module linked to an operation of a detailed module among the plurality of modules, providing an infrastructure environment for development or examination of the detailed module, and using the developed and examined detailed module using the remaining modules and the infrastructure environment to implement and provide one or more of functions of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) requested by a client of a client terminal; after receiving a request from the client terminal for a development query required to develop the detailed module, which is a part of the plurality of modules which are included in an autonomous driving solution platform, as required by the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights