DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 10/27/2024.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-20 are new claims.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites causing display of the first vehicle performance level and the first vehicle performance level. The limitation of the “first vehicle performance level” is recited twice. Claims 11 and 18 are objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of the first performance metric in the first and second lines of claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation of the “first vehicle performance level;” therefore, the limitations of claim 5 that recite “the first performance metric” should instead recite “the first vehicle performance level.” Claims 12 and 19 are objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kislovskiy et al. (US 2018/0342033 A1), hereinafter Kislovskiy.
Claim 1
Kislovskiy discloses the claimed method (see Figure 10A) comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and via telemetry sensors associated with a vehicle, telematics data captured while the vehicle used a first autonomous driving algorithm (see ¶0066, regarding that AV software management system receives and stores log data 291 including telemetry data and correlation data indicating which software version(s) were in use during operation of the recorded data from the AVs);
determining, based on the telematics data, a first vehicle performance level (i.e. risk threshold) associated with the first autonomous driving algorithm (see ¶0059-0060, regarding that a software version is run through an initial set of simulations for pre-certification using recorded trip logs 242, where pre-certification is based on a set of performance metrics, such as a sequence of nominal ranges that the software version must be within in order to be pre-certified for training a trip classifier to establish risk thresholds for the software version, as described in ¶0138-0139, with respect to Figure 9; ¶0131, regarding that the trip classifiers establish risk thresholds for each software version).
Kislovskiy further discloses that the claimed method comprises after determining that the first vehicle performance level is below a threshold performance level (i.e. remaining aggregate risk exceeds risk thresholds associated with the current software version in step 1015 of Figure 10A) and that a second autonomous driving algorithm associated with a second vehicle performance level that is higher than the first vehicle performance level (i.e. verified software version has higher risk thresholds in step 1030 of Figure 10A) is available for the vehicle, communicating an indication that the second autonomous driving algorithm is available for installation on the vehicle (see ¶0143, with respect to Figure 10A, regarding that the on-trip monitoring system transmits a switch command to the AV to cause the AV to switch to the selected software version in step 1035 when the remaining aggregate risk exceeds the risk thresholds associated with the current software version and a verified software version is available with a higher risk threshold). The “first autonomous driving algorithm” is taught by the current software version that the AV uses during operation, such that the “second autonomous driving algorithm” is taught by the verified software version that is selected when (1) the remaining aggregate risk (i.e. “threshold performance level”) exceeds risk thresholds (i.e. “first vehicle performance level”) associated with the current software version and thus, the “first vehicle performance level is below a threshold performance level,” and (2) a verified software version having a higher risk threshold (i.e. “second vehicle performance level”) than the current software version is available and thus, “a second autonomous driving algorithm associated with a second vehicle performance level that is higher than the first vehicle performance level is available.”
Claims 5, 12, and 19
Kislovskiy further discloses determining the first performance metric comprises:
determining the first performance metrics based at least in part on environmental conditions of the vehicle during one or more periods at which the telematics data was taken by the vehicle (see ¶0058-0060, regarding that the recorded trip logs include sensor data showing the weather and road conditions, such that a software version is run through an initial set of simulations for pre-certification using recorded trip logs 242, where pre-certification is based on a set of performance metrics, such as a sequence of nominal ranges that the software version must be within in order to be pre-certified for training a trip classifier to establish risk thresholds for the software version, as described in ¶0138-0139, with respect to Figure 9; ¶0131, regarding that the trip classifiers establish risk thresholds for each software version).
Claims 6, 13, and 20
Kislovskiy further discloses receiving telematics data captured while the vehicle used the first autonomous driving algorithm comprises:
receiving telematics data captured by telemetry sensors located in the vehicle (see ¶0066, regarding that the AVs transmit log data that includes live telemetry data indicating the vehicle’s position, orientation, velocity, and current trajectory).
Claims 7 and 14
Kislovskiy further discloses that receiving telematics data captured while the vehicle used the first autonomous driving algorithm comprises:
receiving telematics data captured by telemetry sensors of a smartphone located in the vehicle (see ¶0141, regarding that the AV telemetry data includes AV’s location, velocity, direction of travel, route plan, and/or trajectory, where the driver device 600 defined as a smartphone includes sensors for indicating acceleration, velocity, and orientation, as described in ¶0115-0116).
Claim 8
Kislovskiy discloses the claimed computing device (i.e. computer system 1900 in Figure 19) comprising one or more processors (i.e. processor 1910), and one or more storage devices (i.e. main memory 1920, ROM 1930, storage device 1940) in communicating with the one or more processors that store instruction code executable by the one or more processors (see ¶0192-0197) to cause the computing device to perform the method discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15
Kislovskiy discloses the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instruction code (see ¶0042) that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, causes the computing device to perform the method discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislovskiy in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2020/0233654 A1), hereinafter Matsumoto.
Claims 2, 9, and 16
While Kislovskiy further discloses communicating the indication that the second autonomous driving algorithm is available for installation on the vehicle the indication (see ¶0094, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that the software switch command 462 is transmitted to the AV over network 480), Kislovskiy does not further disclose that the “communicating” step comprises communicating the indication to a display device of the vehicle. However, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to display the information received by the vehicle on an on-board display, in light of Matsumoto.
Specifically, Matsumoto teaches the known technique of communicating information related to the update of the in-vehicle terminal software (similar to the indication taught by Kislovskiy) to a display device of vehicle 40 (similar to the vehicle taught by Kislovskiy) (see ¶0109, with respect to Figure 10, regarding that display device 110 displays information related to the update of the in-vehicle terminal software based on information acquired from server 30).
Since the systems of Kislovskiy and Matsumoto are directed to the same purpose, i.e. installing software on a vehicle capable of performing automatic driving functions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kislovskiy, so as to further perform communicating the indication to a display device of the vehicle, in light of Matsumoto, with the predictable result of requiring preapproval by the user of the vehicle (¶0109 of Matsumoto) prior to expanding automatic driving functions and adding new functions (¶0002 of Matsumoto).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislovskiy in view of Kushwaha et al. (US 2020/0218531 A1), hereinafter Kushwaha.
Claims 3, 10, and 17
Kislovskiy further discloses that communicating the indication that the second autonomous driving algorithm is available for installation on the vehicle comprises communicating an indication that causes the vehicle to install and execute the second autonomous driving algorithm (see ¶0053-0055, regarding that new software versions are distributed to AVs operating within a given region and are configured for AV operation). However, Kislovskiy does not further disclose that the “communicating” step further causes the vehicle to uninstall the first autonomous driving algorithm. However, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to uninstall the old software version, in light of Kushwaha.
Specifically, Kushwaha teaches the known technique in which an OTA update manager 110 sends an update plan 722 to a vehicle 120 (similar to communicating an indication taught by Kislovskiy) that causes vehicle 120, defined as an autonomous vehicle in ¶0031 (similar to the vehicle taught by Kislovskiy) to uninstall an old software component (similar to the first autonomous driving algorithm taught by Kislovskiy) (see ¶0060, regarding that the update plan 722 includes removing an old software component and installing an updated software component).
Since the systems of Kislovskiy and Kushwaha are directed to the same purpose, i.e. installing software on a vehicle capable of performing automatic driving functions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified communicating an indication of Kislovskiy so as to further cause the vehicle to uninstall the first autonomous driving algorithm, in light of Kushwaha, with the predictable result of removing old software components (¶0060 of Kushwaha) that may address recalls, customer complaints, or other issues (¶0003 of Kushwaha).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislovskiy in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0174470 A1), hereinafter Park.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
While Kislovskiy further discloses communicating the indication that the second autonomous driving algorithm is available for installation on the vehicle (see ¶0094, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that the software switch command 462 is transmitted to the AV over network 480), Kislovskiy does not further disclose that the “communicating” step comprises causing display of the first vehicle performance level and the first vehicle performance level. However, Kislovskiy teaches the display of driver’s risk values (see ¶0097); therefore, it would be reasonable to include the display of risk thresholds associated with the current software version (i.e. “first vehicle performance level”), in light of Park.
Specifically, Park teaches the known technique of causing display of a message indicating the current autonomous driving level with respect to the autonomous driving level of the road on which the vehicle is traveling (similar to the first vehicle performance level taught by Kislovskiy) (see ¶0099-0101, with respect to Figures 5 and 6, regarding the display of the autonomous driving level of the vehicle with respect to the autonomous driving level of the road).
Since the systems of Kislovskiy and Park are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining whether an autonomous vehicle can safely operate using its current control operations on a given route, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kislovskiy so as to further cause display of the first vehicle performance level and the first vehicle performance level, in light of Park, with the predictable result of warning a driver of autonomous driving risks on a current road (¶0099 of Park), thereby improving the driving safety of the autonomous vehicle (¶0111 of Park).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Sampigethaya et al. (US 10,102,687 B1) teaches the distribution of selected software components to a ground vehicle based on received information from the ground vehicle (see abstract), and Bigio et al. (US 2019/0311559 A1) teaches the display of metrics associated with the autonomous driving benefits of a journey (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661