DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims in application 18/773,299 filed on 7/15/2024.
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application # 63/514,926 with a priority date of 7/21/2023.
The Pre-Grant publication # 20250025081 is published on 1/23/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claimed invention is a computer system apparatus (1-8) and to a process (claim 9-20). Thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 9 are directed to computer program code instructions, to receive a selection vehicle operation faults of one or more vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode.
Operation faults are injected and subsequent driver response is detect. A driver reaction time is determined as a measure of time it takes for safety driver to respond to the one or more vehicle operation faults injected into the one or more vehicle systems of the autonomous vehicle. This selection, detection and reaction time measurement are actions of sending, receiving, extracting, outputting of faults and detection thereof falls within a “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas subject to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The analysis of fault detection skills and operation output of reaction time by operators using some verified algorithm is use of existing mathematical relationships, formulas. Hence a mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite one or more groupings of abstract idea(s). (Step 2A; Prong One: Yes).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “a computer system with interface display”, “a processor’, “a memory’, "interactive safety driver interface", "databases of digital content with autonomous safety driver” are merely use of generic computer functions and computer parts. That is simply selecting portions of faults and addressing with reaction time calculation for response evaluation are not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in art. Fig.4,5,6,7 of the instant specification depict autonomous vehicle fault determination safety model implemented here. As an example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be computer functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
Depended Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function of fault and reaction time determination in a pre- or post-solution manner . In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or computer and do not improve the performance of the autonomous vehicle fault detection process or computer itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, the underlying computing elements remain the same. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons, it appears that claims 15, 17-19, and 21 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210181733 A1 to et al. (Nagavalli) .
Claim 1. teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions (Fig.8 element 802), the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to:
receive a selection of one or more vehicle operation faults from a plurality of vehicle
operation faults (Para 0006 predefined fault), wherein the plurality of vehicle operation faults is configured to impact an operation of one or more vehicle systems of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode ;
inject the one or more vehicle operation faults to the one or more vehicle systems of the
autonomous vehicle (Para 0002 automatically injecting faults into an autonomous vehicle);
detect one or more driver responses executed by a safety driver in response to the one or
more vehicle operation faults (Para 0030 failures of some aspect of the AV's autonomy system or theoretical AV behavior that is not in compliance with the AV's operational design domain; Para 0031 response mechanisms that detect and react to the given theoretical fault) ; and
determine a reaction time associated with the one or more driver responses detected to be
executed by the safety driver, wherein the reaction time is a measure of time it takes the safety
driver to respond to the one or more vehicle operation faults injected into the one or more vehicle
systems of the autonomous vehicle (Para 0030 Reaction time by safety driver ).
Claim 2. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of vehicle operation faults comprises at
least one of one or more steering faults, acceleration faults, deceleration faults, braking faults,
stopping procedure faults, or vehicle trailer faults ( Para 0035 steering, braking faults ).
Claim 3. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein each vehicle operation fault of the plurality of vehicle operation faults is associated with a predefined fault injection duration (Fig.2A test mission fault at various location could include duration calculations).
Claim 4. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the computer program code instructions configured to detect the one or more driver responses executed by the safety driver further cause the apparatus to: determine one or more driver input values associated with the one or more respective driver responses to the one or more vehicle operation faults, wherein the one or more driver input values are associated with one or more respective controls associated with the one or more vehicle systems of the autonomous vehicle (Para 0006 input values associated respective controls)
Claim 5. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the one or more driver responses comprise at least one of a steering response, a braking response, an acceleration response, a deceleration response, or a gear shifting response (Para 0035 response time on steering, braking etc.).
Claim 6. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more driver responses causes the autonomous vehicle to disengage from the autonomous driving mode and switch to a manual driving mode (Para 0032 switching an autonomous mode to a manual mode i.e. disengaging).
Claim 7. The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the computer program code instructions further cause
the apparatus to: generate, in response to injecting the one or more vehicle operation faults, one or more fault event tags, wherein the one or more fault event tags comprise one or more portions of data
related to at least one of a fault event tag identifier, vehicle operation fault injection timestamp
data, the one or more vehicle operation faults, the one or more driver responses executed by the
safety driver in response to the one or more vehicle operation faults, one or more reaction times
associated with the safety driver, one or more driver input values, or one or more autonomous
driving mode disengagement methods (Fig.2A identified by fault markers 201, 202, and 203 as event tags) when associated with reaction time are fault event tag) .
Claim 8. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the computer program code instructions further cause
the apparatus to: generate an AV safety driver training session report, wherein the AV safety driver training session report comprises at least one of one or more fault event tags, one or more portions of image data associated with the safety driver, one or more portions of video data associated with the safety driver, or one or more portions of audio data associated with the safety driver, and wherein the
safety driver training session report is associated with a respective AV safety driver training
session of the safety driver (Fig.2b sessions associated with safety driver session report).
Claim 9. teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a selection of one or more vehicle operation faults from a plurality of vehicle
operation faults, wherein the plurality of vehicle operation faults is configured to impact an
operation of one or more vehicle systems of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous
driving mode;
injecting the one or more vehicle operation faults to the one or more vehicle systems of the
autonomous vehicle;
detecting one or more driver responses executed by a safety driver in response to the one
or more vehicle operation faults; and
determining a reaction time associated with the one or more driver responses detected to
be executed by the safety driver, wherein the reaction time is a measure of time it takes the safety
driver to respond to the one or more vehicle operation faults injected into the one or more vehicle
systems of the autonomous vehicle.
{Para 0002, 0006 predefined fault automatically injecting faults into an autonomous vehicle; Para 0030 failures of some aspect of the AV's autonomy system or theoretical AV behavior that is not in compliance with the AV's operational design domain; Para 0030, 0031 response mechanisms that detect a given theoretical fault reaction}.
Claim 10. teaches the method of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of vehicle operation faults comprises at least one of one or more steering faults, acceleration faults, deceleration faults, braking faults, stopping procedure faults, or vehicle trailer faults (Para 0035 steering, braking faults).
Claim 11. teaches the method of Claim 9, wherein each vehicle operation fault of the plurality of vehicle operation faults is associated with a predefined fault injection duration (Fig.2A test mission fault at various location could include duration calculations).
Claim 12. The method of Claim 9, wherein detecting the one or more driver responses executed by
the safety driver comprises:
determining one or more driver input values associated with the one or more respective
driver responses to the one or more vehicle operation faults, wherein the one or more driver input
values are associated with one or more respective controls associated with the one or more vehicle
systems of the autonomous vehicle (Para 0006 control fault into data; Para 0082 input as user interface activation).
Claim 13. The method of Claim 9, wherein the one or more driver responses comprise at least one of
a steering response, a braking response, an acceleration response, a deceleration response, or a
gear shifting response (Para 0035 response time on steering, braking etc.). .
Claim 14. teaches the method of any of Claim 9, wherein at least one of the one or more driver responses
causes the autonomous vehicle to disengage from the autonomous driving mode and switch to a
manual driving mode((Para 0032 switching an autonomous mode to a manual driving mode i.e. disengaging).
Claim 15. teaches the method of any of Claim 9, further comprising: generating, in response to injecting the one or more vehicle operation faults, one or more fault event tags, wherein the one or more fault event tags comprise one or more portions of data related to at least one of a fault event tag identifier, vehicle operation fault injection timestamp data, the one or more vehicle operation faults, the one or more driver responses executed by the safety driver in response to the one or more vehicle operation faults, one or more reaction times associated with the safety driver, one or more driver input values, or one or more autonomous driving mode disengagement methods (Fig.2A identified by fault markers 201, 202, and 203 as event tags) when associated with reaction time are fault event tag).
Claim 16. teaches the method of Claim 9, further comprising: generating an AV safety driver training session report, wherein the AV safety driver training session report comprises at least one of one or more fault event tags, one or more portions of image data associated with the safety driver, one or more portions of video data associated with the safety driver, or one or more portions of audio data associated with the safety driver, and wherein the safety driver training session report is associated with a respective AV safety driver training session of the safety driver (Fig.2b sessions associated with safety driver session report).
Claim 17. A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable
storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the
computer-executable program code instructions comprising program code instructions
configured to:
receive a selection of one or more vehicle operation faults from a plurality of vehicle
operation faults, wherein the plurality of vehicle operation faults is configured to impact an
operation of one or more vehicle systems of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous
driving mode;
inject the one or more vehicle operation faults to the one or more vehicle systems of the
autonomous vehicle;
detect one or more driver responses executed by a safety driver in response to the one or
more vehicle operation faults; and
determine a reaction time associated with the one or more driver responses detected to be
executed by the safety driver, wherein the reaction time is a measure of time it takes the safety
driver to respond to the one or more vehicle operation faults injected into the one or more vehicle
systems of the autonomous vehicle
{Para 0002, 0006 predefined fault automatically injecting faults into an autonomous vehicle; Para 0030 failures of some aspect of the AV's autonomy system or theoretical AV behavior that is not in compliance with the AV's operational design domain; Para 0030, 0031 response mechanisms that detect a given theoretical fault reaction}.
Claim 18. The computer program product of Claim 17, wherein the plurality of vehicle operation
faults comprises at least one of one or more steering faults, acceleration faults, deceleration faults,
braking faults, stopping procedure faults, or vehicle trailer faults (Para 0035 steering, braking faults).
Claim 19. teaches the computer program product of Claim 17, wherein each vehicle operation fault of the
plurality of vehicle operation faults is associated with a predefined fault injection duration (Fig.2A test mission fault at various location could include duration calculations).
Claim 20. teaches the computer program product of Claim 17, wherein the program code instructions configured to detect the one or more driver responses executed by the safety driver comprise program code instructions configured to: determine one or more driver input values associated with the one or more respective driver responses to the one or more vehicle operation faults, wherein the one or more driver input values are associated with one or more respective controls associated with the one or more vehicle systems of the autonomous vehicle (Para 0006 input values associated respective controls).
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230271633 A1 Sun; Ashton et al. duration, time interval
Safety Control Method and Apparatus for Autonomous Driving Assistance System
US 20210407313 A1 Urano; Hiromitsu et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DRIVER TRAINING DURING OPERATION OF AUTOMATED VEHICLE SYSTEMS
US 20190283672 A1 Daman; Laith
SYSTEM AND METHOD TO CONTROL A VEHICLE INTERFACE FOR HUMAN PERCEPTION OPTIMIZATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 April 3, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715