DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Remarks and Claim Amendments filed on August 25, 2026.
Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 11-20 have been newly added.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered. The amendments to the specification, the abstract and the title have been entered and have been reviewed and found not to introduce new matter.
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn in view of the substitute abstract filed August 25, 2026.
The objections to claims 1-10 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The rejections of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth below with respect to claims 4, 11 and 16. These new grounds are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment and by the addition of new claims 11-20.
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 4, 11 and 16-17 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 4, the claim recites the limitation “in response to determining that the current user has the access permission”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 as amended recites “an accessing user” and thereafter “the accessing user”, and the previously recited “a current user” has been deleted by the amendment; accordingly, the claim provides no antecedent for “the current user”. It is therefore unclear whether “the current user” is the same as, or different from, the recited accessing user. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “the current user” as referring to the same user as “the accessing user”.
Claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “wherein obtaining the comprehensive test evaluation result comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and claim 10 recites evaluating a test process and generating a test evaluation report but does not recite obtaining a comprehensive test evaluation result; the recited comprehensive test evaluation result is instead set forth in claim 9, from which claim 11 does not depend. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 11 as depending from claim 9, such that “the comprehensive test evaluation result” refers to the comprehensive test evaluation result recited in claim 9.
Claim 16, the claim recites “generating, by a first digital twin module, virtual test scenario data” and thereafter recites “generating, by a scene data input module, virtual test scenario data”. It is unclear whether the virtual test scenario data generated by the scene data input module is the same as, or different from, the virtual test scenario data generated by the first digital twin module, and it is further unclear which of the two recited sets of data is referred to by the intervening limitation “a virtual test environment according to the test scenario data”. Because the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the virtual test scenario data generated by the scene data input module as the same virtual test scenario data generated by the first digital twin module.
Claim 17, the claim depends from claim 4 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite by virtue of its dependency.
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 1-3, 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches an automatic driving test method, comprising: (Stefan discloses a method for testing the software of autonomous vehicles by means of loop simulation in response to a work order given by a user (Stefan, paragraphs [0006]; [0008]).) acquiring test configuration information input by a user (Stefan discloses a work order that comprises configuration instructions, environment instructions, operating instructions, data acquisition instructions and/or test condition and reporting instructions (Stefan, paragraph [0010]), the work orders being defined and transmitted by test engineers at client devices (Stefan, paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).)
allocating the test cases to corresponding test types, the corresponding test types comprising a virtual simulation test, a whole vehicle in-loop test, a closed site test, and an open road test (Stefan discloses a cloud server allocating, organizing and queueing the work orders across a plurality of simulation terminals, fleets of autonomous vehicles, and different road environments (Stefan, paragraph [0014]), wherein the corresponding test types are taught as follows: a virtual simulation test, in which a simulation is planned in a virtual environment using a virtual version of the test track (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]; [0021]; [0023]); a whole vehicle in-loop test, taught as X-in-the-loop / hardware-in-the-loop simulation (Stefan, paragraph [0009]) in which the entire vehicle is simulated by the simulation terminal without moving (Stefan, paragraphs [0023]; [0007]); a closed site test, taught as testing on a road in the real world on a test track in a dedicated test facility (Stefan, paragraph [0017]; extra-urban, urban and freeway test tracks, paragraph [0014]); and an open road test, taught as testing on a particular reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraph [0017]).)
under each test type, testing a vehicle to be tested based on the corresponding test cases to obtain test results corresponding to each test type, wherein the test results comprise a simulation test result, a whole vehicle in-loop test result, a closed road test result, and an open road test result (Stefan discloses planning and coordinating the performance of software tests and test drives for an autonomous vehicle (Stefan, paragraph [0006]), uploading the software and test instructions to the simulation terminals, downloading data from the vehicles and simulation terminals during the tests, and generating a test report after the tests (Stefan, paragraph [0011]), the report summarizing the result of the test pursuant to the reporting instructions (Stefan, paragraph [0020]), the tests being carried out across the virtual, in-loop, test-track and public-road environments identified above (Stefan, paragraphs [0014]; [0017]; [0023]).)
Stefan is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Stefan2 teaches generating test cases according to the test configuration information (Stefan2 discloses the automatic generation of test cases for autonomous vehicles at the system level (Stefan2, paragraph [0009]), wherein a generated test case comprises a test case title and a description in higher-level programming language with formal test instructions (Stefan2, paragraph [0011]) and is generated from identified driving situations together with acceptance criteria (Stefan2, paragraph [0015]), the generation being carried out according to the engineer’s defined system application cases and test scenario (Stefan2, paragraphs [0023]; [0032]) by a central test planning system arranged to generate and query test cases suitable for autonomous vehicles (Stefan2, paragraph [0029]), which complete set of test cases is then used for carrying out the tests (Stefan2, paragraph [0030]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test platform of Stefan to generate the test cases according to the user-input configuration information as taught by Stefan2. Both references are by the same inventive entity, are assigned to the same assignee, were filed on the same date, and are directed to the same problem of system-level verification and validation of autonomous-vehicle software. The combination is the use of a known technique (automatic generation of suitable test cases, Stefan2, paragraphs [0009]; [0012]) to improve a similar method (the multi-environment test allocation and execution platform of Stefan) in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a populated set of test cases for distribution and execution across the virtual, in-loop, closed-site and open-road test types of Stefan.
With respect to claim 2 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches performing a simulation test on the vehicle to be tested in different virtual test scenarios to obtain the simulation test result (Stefan discloses planning and running a simulation in a virtual environment (Stefan, paragraphs [0021]; [0023]) using a virtual version of the test track (Stefan, paragraph [0017]), with different scenarios defined by the operating instructions, including injected events and restrictions (Stefan, paragraph [0018]).)
performing a whole vehicle in-loop test on the vehicle to be tested on a ring test platform, and obtaining the whole vehicle in-loop test result of the vehicle to be tested (Stefan discloses hardware-in-the-loop / X-in-the-loop testing (Stefan, paragraph [0009]) at a simulation terminal embodied as a hardware-in-the-loop device (Stefan, paragraph [0007]), wherein the entire vehicle is simulated by the simulation terminal without moving (Stefan, paragraph [0023]), the results being downloaded and reported (Stefan, paragraphs [0011]; [0020]).)
testing the vehicle to be tested in a closed road test site, and obtaining the closed road test result of the vehicle to be tested (Stefan discloses testing on a road in the real world on a test track in a dedicated test facility (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]; [0014]), the data being downloaded and reported (Stefan, paragraphs [0011]; [0020]).)
testing the vehicle to be tested in an open road test site, and obtaining the open road test result of the vehicle to be tested (Stefan discloses testing on a particular reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraph [0017]), the data being downloaded and reported (Stefan, paragraphs [0011]; [0020]).)
With respect to claim 3 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches acquiring virtual test scenario data of the vehicle to be tested (Stefan discloses environment instructions that describe the simulation environment, including a virtual version of the test track, and operating instructions describing the route and events (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]-[0018]).)
constructing a virtual test scenario of the vehicle to be tested according to the test scenario data (Stefan discloses producing a virtual version of the test track that may also be automatically produced on the basis of characteristic features of roads in the real world and loading the simulation environment onto the terminal (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]; [0022]).)
performing a vehicle modeling operation on the vehicle to be tested to generate a virtual model of the vehicle to be tested for the virtual test scenario (Stefan discloses simulating the vehicle in the virtual environment, wherein the entire vehicle is simulated by the simulation terminal (Stefan, paragraph [0023]) and the vehicle is characterized by configuration instructions describing the ECU, vehicle instrumentation and hardware-in-the-loop characteristic data (Stefan, paragraph [0016]).)
performing a simulation test on the virtual model of the vehicle to be tested in the virtual test scenario to obtain the simulation test result (Stefan discloses planning and running the simulation in the virtual environment to obtain the result (Stefan, paragraphs [0021]; [0023]).)
With respect to claim 8 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches performing a visual presentation on a test process (Stefan discloses generating user-specific reports that summarize the result of the test pursuant to the reporting instructions (Stefan, paragraph [0020]), wherein a test report can be generated after the tests and transmitted to the user (Stefan, paragraph [0011]) for presentation at the user’s client device (Stefan, paragraph [0014]).)
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches obtaining a comprehensive test evaluation result of the vehicle to be tested based on the simulation test result, the whole vehicle in-loop test result, the closed road test result, and the open road test result (Stefan discloses generating, after the tests have been carried out across the several environments, a test report that summarizes the result of the test and is transmitted to the user (Stefan, paragraphs [0011]; [0020]), the report aggregating the results obtained from the virtual, in-loop, test-track and public-road tests (Stefan, paragraphs [0014]; [0017]; [0023]).)
With respect to claim 19 (New), Stefan teaches providing a user interface for the user to input and/or select the test configuration information (Stefan discloses client devices that make it possible for test engineers to define a set of work orders and to transmit said set of work orders to the system (Stefan, paragraphs [0015]; [0014]).)
wherein the test configuration information comprises at least one of: test vehicle information; test road information; and vehicle sensor information (Stefan discloses that the work order comprises [c]onfiguration instructions that describe the hardware (ECU, vehicle instrumentation, HiL characteristic data etc.) needed to process a work order and the calibration required for this hardware (Stefan, paragraph [0016]), which is test vehicle information; and environment instructions that describe the simulation environment, including the test track and a reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraph [0017]), which is test road information. The claim recites the test configuration information in the alternative and the prior art need teach only one alternative.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented) and further in view of Datta (US Pub. No. 2019/0058728, hereinafter “Datta” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 4 (Currently Amended), Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Datta teaches verifying identity information of an accessing user to obtain an identity verification result (Datta discloses a two-level authentication in which a backend server receives user identification data, generates a unique token on the basis of the user identification data, and verifies the user-entered token and a subsequently generated one-time password (Datta, paragraphs [0016]; [0039]-[0043]), in contrast to an ordinary system in which a user is given full access without any authenticity check (Datta, paragraph [0037]).)
determining whether the accessing user has an access permission according to the identity verification result (Datta discloses that the IVI system compares the user-entered password with the password received from the backend server and, if they are found to be matching, starts an operating system container, access being withheld otherwise (Datta, paragraphs [0043]; [0053]).)
in response to determining that the current user has the access permission, allowing the accessing user to access a test system configured to perform the automatic driving test method (Datta discloses that upon a successful match the system creates a secure container within the IVI system for access by the user (Datta, paragraphs [0016]; [0027]; [0064]), access being granted only after successful verification and otherwise withheld.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user identity verification and access-permission control of Datta into the test platform of Stefan in view of Stefan2, in order to ensure that only authorized users are permitted to access the test system and to secure the data and integrity of the testing (Datta, paragraph [0014]), which is the application of a known access-control technique to a known system to yield the predictable result of controlled user access.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented) in view of Boulton et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0345926, hereinafter “Boulton” – previously presented) and further in view of Ricci (US Pub. No. 2018/0126951, hereinafter “Ricci” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 5 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches configuring closed road test information (Stefan discloses environment instructions that configure the real-world test-track environment (Stefan, paragraphs [0010]; [0015]; [0017]).)
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Ricci is silent to disclose “receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in the closed road test site”; however, in an analogous art, Boulton teaches:
receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in the closed road test site (Boulton, in the field of testing connected-vehicle systems, discloses a roadside unit, namely a communication transceiver installed alongside traffic networks which may communicate with Connected Vehicles (Boulton, paragraph [0020]), wherein roadside infrastructure broadcasts and receives data including the state of traffic lights (Boulton, paragraph [0007]) and the roadside unit sends messages to a vehicle on-board unit (Boulton, paragraph [0047]) within a connected-vehicle test conducted at a test track (Boulton, paragraphs [0009]; [0066]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closed-site test of Stefan in view of Stefan2 to receive roadside-device information as taught by Boulton, in order to supply vehicle-to-infrastructure data, such as traffic-signal state, to the vehicle under test so that connected and autonomous driving functions that depend on roadside information are exercised and validated during the closed-site test. Boulton is expressly directed to testing connected-vehicle systems including roadside units (Boulton, paragraphs [0004]; [0066]), and the modification is the use of a known technique to improve a similar testing method in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a closed-site test that includes roadside-device data exchange.
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Boulton is silent to disclose “performing identity authentication on the vehicle to be tested in the closed road test site”; however, in an analogous art, Ricci teaches:
performing identity authentication on the vehicle to be tested in the closed road test site (Ricci, in the field of autonomous-vehicle control, discloses an authentication system that authenticates occupants and individuals and computing devices associated with the vehicle, which Ricci states is important in performing an autonomous operation (Ricci, paragraph [0097]), wherein Ricci provides for access to be granted only after an authentication mechanism successfully verifies the relevant information, access being denied otherwise (Ricci, paragraphs [0098]; [0085]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Stefan, Stefan2 and Boulton to perform an identity authentication on the vehicle under test as taught by Ricci, in order to ensure that only an authenticated and authorized vehicle, and its associated computing device, is admitted to and operated within the closed test site. Ricci teaches that such authentication is important before an autonomous operation is performed (Ricci, paragraph [0097]), and the modification adds a known authentication and access-control technique to the test process, yielding the predictable result of preventing an unauthenticated vehicle from accessing the closed test site.
With respect to claim 6 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches configuring open road test information (Stefan discloses environment instructions configuring a test on a particular reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]; [0010]).)
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Ricci is silent to disclose “receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in the open road test site”; however, in an analogous art, Boulton teaches:
receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in the open road test site (Boulton discloses roadside infrastructure that broadcasts and receives data and communicates with connected vehicles over traffic and road networks (Boulton, paragraphs [0007]; [0020]; [0009]), the roadside unit being connected and tested (Boulton, paragraph [0066]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open-road test of Stefan in view of Stefan2 to receive roadside-device information as taught by Boulton, in order to supply vehicle-to-infrastructure data, such as traffic-signal state, to the vehicle under test so that connected and autonomous driving functions that depend on roadside information are exercised and validated during the open-road test. Boulton is expressly directed to testing connected-vehicle systems including roadside units (Boulton, paragraphs [0004]; [0066]), and the modification is the use of a known technique to improve a similar testing method in the same way, yielding the predictable result of an open-road test that includes roadside-device data exchange.
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Boulton is silent to disclose “performing identity authentication on the vehicle to be tested in the open road test site”; however, in an analogous art, Ricci teaches:
performing identity authentication on the vehicle to be tested in the open road test site (Ricci discloses an authentication system that authenticates individuals and computing devices associated with the vehicle and grants access only after successful verification (Ricci, paragraphs [0097]; [0098]; [0085]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Stefan, Stefan2 and Boulton to perform an identity authentication on the vehicle under test in the open road test site as taught by Ricci, in order to ensure that only an authenticated and authorized vehicle, and its associated computing device, is admitted to and operated in the open road test. Ricci teaches that such authentication is important before an autonomous operation is performed (Ricci, paragraph [0097]), and the modification adds a known authentication and access-control technique to the test process, yielding the predictable result of preventing an unauthenticated vehicle from being operated in the open road test.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented) and further in view of Jin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0005633, hereinafter “Jin” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Jin teaches: encrypting the simulation test result, the whole vehicle in-loop test result, the closed road test result, and the open road test result (Jin discloses a cloud platform configured to provide data security systems providing data storage security, transmission security, and/or application security (Jin, paragraph [0060]), privacy protection comprising one-way encryption, bidirectional encryption (Jin, paragraph [0041]), and a software component providing data rectify, data format convert, firewall, encryption, and decryption methods (Jin, paragraph [0055]).)
performing a data backup in the event of a system error (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the operative step recited is performing a data backup, and the phrase “in the event of a system error” states the purpose for which the backup is performed; limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claims (see MPEP 2111.01). A person of ordinary skill in the art understands the purpose of a data backup to be the preservation of data so that it may be restored should an error or failure occur, and the recited purpose is therefore the inherent, well-understood purpose of a data backup. Jin discloses performing a data backup, namely a cloud-infrastructure data collection component configured to pull data or feedback from infrastructure units for further analysis and backup (Jin, paragraph [0034]), and the provision of backup redundancy (Jin, paragraph [0044]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data-security and data-backup teachings of Jin into the test platform of Stefan in view of Stefan2, in order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the recorded test-result data (Stefan, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]) during storage and transmission, and to preserve that data so that it may be restored should an error or failure occur. This is the application of known data-security and data-backup techniques to the known recorded test data of Stefan, yielding the predictable result of secured and recoverable test-result data.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented) in view of Shijie Zhao et al. (“An objective evaluation method for automated vehicle virtual test”, hereinafter “Zhao” – previously presented) and further in view of Minami et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0027423, hereinafter “Minami” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), Stefan teaches evaluating a test process from aspects of [[intelligence, security, comfort, efficiency, energy consumption, and]] defects, and generating a test evaluation report (Stefan evaluates the test process for defects by way of its test condition and reporting instructions that report whether the system complied with conditions such as no deadlock situations, no collision and no movement outside defined ranges during the test, a report being generated after the tests (Stefan, paragraphs [0020]; [0011]).)
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Minami is silent to disclose evaluating a test process from aspects of intelligence, security, comfort, efficiency; however, in an analogous art, Zhao teaches:
evaluating a test process from aspects of intelligence, security, comfort, efficiency, [[energy consumption, and defects,]] and generating a test evaluation report (Zhao discloses an objective evaluation method for automated-vehicle virtual tests that establishes an evaluation index system evaluating automated vehicles from four aspects: driving safety, ride comfort, intelligence and efficiency (Zhao, contributions, p. 2; section 3.2), corresponding respectively to the claimed security (i.e., safety), comfort, intelligence and efficiency, and that produces a comprehensive evaluation comprising category and index scores (Zhao, Table 7), corresponding to generating a test evaluation report.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhao’s multi-dimensional evaluation of intelligence, safety, comfort and efficiency into the test reporting of Stefan in view of Stefan2, in order to provide an objective, comprehensive evaluation of the tested vehicle’s performance rather than a mere pass/fail result. Zhao is directed to evaluating automated vehicles from these aspects in order to objectively assess autonomous-driving quality (Zhao, contributions, p. 2), and the combination is the use of a known evaluation technique to improve a known test-reporting method, yielding the predictable result of a multi-dimensional test evaluation report.
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Zhao is silent to disclose evaluating a test process from aspects of energy consumption; however, in an analogous art, Minami teaches:
evaluating a test process from aspects of [[intelligence, security, comfort, efficiency,]] energy consumption [[and defects, and generating a test evaluation report]] (Minami discloses a system for evaluating fuel economy and other vehicle operating conditions (Minami, paragraph [0002]) that determines whether an operation worsening fuel economy has been performed and computes the excess fuel consumption based on the vehicle’s operating conditions (Minami, paragraphs [0010]; [0011]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate Minami’s energy-consumption evaluation into the combination of Stefan, Stefan2 and Zhao, in order to add an energy-consumption dimension to the evaluation of the tested vehicle. Zhao itself recognizes that, beyond its four aspects, additional evaluation aspects remain to be considered and should be extended in future work (Zhao, section 7, Conclusion), thereby suggesting the addition of further evaluation dimensions such as the energy consumption taught by Minami. The combination is the application of a known vehicle energy-consumption evaluation technique to the multi-dimensional evaluation of the combination, yielding the predictable result of an evaluation that additionally accounts for energy consumption.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented) in view of Shijie Zhao et al. (“An objective evaluation method for automated vehicle virtual test”, hereinafter “Zhao” – previously presented) and further in view of Wei Wang et al. (“An Evaluation Method for Automated Vehicles Combining Subjective and Objective Factors”, hereinafter “Wang”).
With respect to claim 15 (New), Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Wang is silent to disclose “wherein the objective evaluation comprises scoring test results from different evaluation dimensions based on quantified evaluation indexes, and determining weights of the different evaluation dimensions through an analytic hierarchy process”; however, in an analogous art, Zhao teaches:
wherein the objective evaluation comprises scoring test results from different evaluation dimensions based on quantified evaluation indexes, and determining weights of the different evaluation dimensions through an analytic hierarchy process (Zhao discloses an objective automated-vehicle evaluation method whose quantitative evaluation framework comprises an evaluation index system evaluating the vehicle from four aspects, namely driving safety, ride comfort, intelligence and efficiency, and an evaluation method (Zhao, contributions, p. 2), wherein the methodology combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method and the improved criteria importance though intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) method to determine the weight of the evaluation index and thereafter implements a grey relational analysis algorithm to evaluate the performance of the automated vehicle from the quantified indexes (Zhao, Abstract; section 3.2), producing category and index scores (Zhao, Table 7).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the comprehensive test evaluation result of Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Wang by scoring the test results from different evaluation dimensions based on quantified evaluation indexes and determining the weights of those dimensions through an analytic hierarchy process as taught by Zhao, in order to produce an objective, reproducible evaluation of the tested vehicle rather than a mere pass/fail result. Zhao teaches that reasonable test scenarios and objective evaluation methods could rapidly promote the development of autonomous technology (Zhao, Abstract), and the combination is the use of a known weighting and scoring technique to improve a known test-evaluation method in the same way, yielding the predictable result of an objectively weighted comprehensive evaluation.
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Zhao is silent to disclose “performing the evaluation through a combination of objective evaluation and subjective evaluation” and “wherein the subjective evaluation comprises scoring by experts, and obtaining a subjective comprehensive evaluation according to a predetermined proportion”; however, in an analogous art, Wang teaches:
performing the evaluation through a combination of objective evaluation and subjective evaluation (Wang discloses an evaluation method for automated vehicles combining subjective and objective factors, wherein the analytic hierarchy process (AHP, subjective) and improved criteria importance though intercriteria correlation (CRITIC, objective) methods are used to determine the weight of the indicators, and a two-level fuzzy comprehensive (subjective and objective) evaluation method is adopted to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the automated vehicles (Wang, Abstract; sections 3, 3.2).)
wherein the subjective evaluation comprises scoring by experts, and obtaining a subjective comprehensive evaluation according to a predetermined proportion (Wang discloses that, constructing the judgment matrix requires h experts to score the indicators, and that, [d]ue to the different technical levels of the experts, this paper evaluates the comprehensive ability of experts from m aspects to determine the weighting coefficient of the experts and obtain the final judgment matrix (Wang, section 3.3), the evaluation weight coefficient of each expert being computed and applied to the experts’ scores to obtain the comprehensive evaluation (Wang, section 3.3, Equations (18)-(19); Figure 12).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the comprehensive test evaluation result of Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Zhao through a combination of objective evaluation and subjective evaluation, the subjective evaluation comprising scoring by experts and obtaining a subjective comprehensive evaluation according to a predetermined proportion, as taught by Wang. Wang teaches that qualitative evaluation methods exhibit a lack of subjectivity in determining the weight of evaluation indicators while some quantitative evaluation methods do not consider the subjective will of decision makers, so that it is necessary to design a subjective and objective evaluation method for automated vehicles (Wang, section 1.1), and that combining the two yields more reasonable vehicle performance test results and a more comprehensive and effective evaluation (Wang, section 1.3). The combination is the use of a known evaluation technique to improve a known test-evaluation method in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a comprehensive evaluation that accounts for both measured data and expert judgment.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented)
and further in view of Xiaowei Chen et al. (“Research on Automatic Driving Simulation Test System Based on Digital Twin”, hereinafter Chen).
With respect to claim 16 (New), Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Chen teaches:
generating, by a first digital twin module, virtual test scenario data (Chen discloses an automatic driving simulation test system based on digital twin technology in which the real traffic scene in the digital space re-emerged, the digital twin generating the virtual counterpart of the real traffic scene used for the test (Chen, Abstract; the section describing the overall architecture, Figure 3).)
generating, by a whole vehicle in-loop test bench, a virtual test environment according to the test scenario data (Chen discloses that the real tested vehicle in the actual test site is mapped to the virtual environment so as to completes the real-time synchronization of virtual and real state and to realize the X-in-loop real-time simulation test, wherein vehicle in the loop (VIL) is to test the vehicle in the laboratory environment (Chen, Abstract; the section describing the automatic driving digital twin simulation test model, Figure 3).)
generating, by a hardware data simulation module, virtual hardware analog signals (Chen discloses that the system supports the hardware that supported by X-in-loop testing, including CAN bus tool, real-time system, sensor simulation equipment, driving simulator, etc., the sensor simulation equipment supplying the simulated sensor signals to the vehicle under test (Chen, the section describing the automatic driving digital twin simulation test model, Figure 3).)
generating, by a scene data input module, virtual test scenario data (Chen discloses that the autonomous driving test simulation platform includes scene restoration, sensor simulation, vehicle dynamics simulation, parallel computing, edge computing, create test case, etc. to realize the vehicle in-loop test by use of sharing data between simulation platform and real tested autonomous vehicle, the scene restoration supplying the scene data to the vehicle in-loop test (Chen, the section describing the automatic driving digital twin simulation test model and scene building, Figures 3-4).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the whole vehicle in-loop test of Stefan in view of Stefan2 using a digital twin module, a whole vehicle in-loop test bench, a hardware data simulation module and a scene data input module as taught by Chen. Chen teaches that the digital-twin simulation test system combines traditional vehicle test technology and virtual simulation technology and overcomes the long time, high cost, low safety and low repeatability of the test environment associated with real vehicle road or field testing, while the hardware-in-the-loop test suffers from the deficiency that only the controller under test is real and the remaining vehicle dynamics, road and tire parameters are virtual (Chen, the section describing the automatic driving digital twin simulation test model). The combination is the use of a known digital-twin in-loop test architecture to improve a similar in-loop test in the same way, yielding the predictable result of an in-loop test in which the vehicle under test is exercised with synchronized virtual scenario data and simulated hardware signals.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter “Stefan” – previously presented) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter “Stefan2” – previously presented) in view of Datta (US Pub. No. 2019/0058728, hereinafter “Datta” – previously presented) and further in view of Jin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0005633, hereinafter “Jin” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 17 (New), Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Jin is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Datta further teaches verifying, by a user identity verification module, identity information of the accessing user (Datta discloses a backend server that receives user identification data, generates a unique token on the basis of the user identification data and verifies the user-entered token together with a subsequently generated one-time password (Datta, paragraphs [0016]; [0039]-[0043]).)
Datta further teaches controlling, by an access permission control module, access permissions of the accessing user according to an identity verification result (Datta discloses that the IVI system compares the user-entered password with the password received from the backend server and, upon a successful match, creates a secure container within the IVI system for access by the user, access being withheld otherwise (Datta, paragraphs [0043]; [0016]; [0027]; [0064]).) See motivation in claim 4 to combine Datta.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user identity verification and access-permission control of Datta into the test platform of Stefan in view of Stefan2, in order to ensure that only authorized users are permitted to access the test system and to secure the data and integrity of the testing (Datta, paragraph [0014]), which is the application of a known access-control technique to a known system to yield the predictable result of controlled user access.
Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Datta is silent to disclose “encrypting, by a data encryption module, test data and test results” and “performing, by a fault-tolerant backup module, data backup in an event of a system error”; however, in an analogous art, Jin teaches:
encrypting, by a data encryption module, test data and test results (Jin discloses a cloud platform configured to provide data security systems providing data storage security, transmission security, and/or application security (Jin, paragraph [0060]), privacy protection comprising one-way encryption, bidirectional encryption (Jin, paragraph [0041]), and a software component providing data rectify, data format convert, firewall, encryption, and decryption methods (Jin, paragraph [0055]).)
performing, by a fault-tolerant backup module, data backup in an event of a system error (Jin discloses a cloud-infrastructure data collection component configured to pull data or feedback from infrastructure units for further analysis and backup (Jin, paragraph [0034]) and an adaptive power supply module configured to provide backup redundancy (Jin, paragraph [0044]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data-encryption and data-backup teachings of Jin into the test platform of Stefan in view of Stefan2 in view of Datta, in order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the recorded test data and test results (Stefan, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]) during storage and transmission, and to preserve that data so that it may be restored should an error or failure occur. This is the application of known data-security and data-backup techniques to the known recorded test data of the combination, yielding the predictable result of secured and recoverable test data and test results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest a test case generation module configured to automatically generate test cases according to the test configuration information, read a type identifier of each of the test cases, and allocate the test cases to corresponding test types based on the type identifier, in combination with the remaining limitations recited in claim 20. While the prior art of record teaches allocating work orders and test cases among a plurality of test environments on the basis of resource availability and on the basis of the requirements of the test case, the art of record does not teach or suggest reading a type identifier carried by each test case and allocating that test case to its corresponding test type on the basis of the read type identifier.
Claims 12-14 and 18 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 on five grounds, each of which is addressed in turn below.
First, Applicant argues that the present invention is directed to a standardized comprehensive test architecture in which the vehicle to be tested is required to undergo each of four mandatory test types, whereas Stefan is directed to resource scheduling for globally distributed test facilities in which the four environments are optional resources selected on the basis of availability. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Claim 1 as amended does not recite a “standardized comprehensive test architecture”, does not recite that the four test types are “mandatory pillars”, and does not recite that the test types are anything other than the types to which the generated test cases are allocated. The features upon which Applicant relies are recited only in claim 20, which is indicated as being free of the prior art of record as set forth above. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see MPEP 2111.01), and arguments must be commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim 1 requires allocating the test cases to corresponding test types comprising the four recited types, and testing under each test type to obtain the four recited test results; Stefan discloses allocating work orders across simulation terminals, fleets of autonomous vehicles and different road environments (Stefan, paragraph [0014]) comprising a virtual environment, an X-in-the-loop simulation, a real-world test track and a reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraphs [0009]; [0017]; [0023]), and generating a report of the results of the tests so carried out (Stefan, paragraphs [0011]; [0020]). The claim as written is therefore met.
Second, Applicant argues that Stefan does not disclose the claimed standardized comprehensive test architecture, and in particular does not disclose allocating the test cases to corresponding test types based on a type identifier. This argument is likewise not commensurate in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 contains no type-identifier limitation; that limitation appears only in claim 20, and, as set forth above, claim 20 is indicated as being free of the prior art of record for that reason. With respect to claim 1, allocation is required only to be to “corresponding test types”, which Stefan discloses by allocating and queueing work orders across the several test environments (Stefan, paragraph [0014]).
Third, Applicant argues that Stefan’s in-the-loop simulation is not the claimed whole vehicle in-loop test because, when the claimed term is construed in light of the specification, the claimed test requires a physical, real-world vehicle placed on a ring test platform with virtual signals injected into it, whereas Stefan simulates the entire vehicle. This argument is not persuasive because neither claim 1 nor claim 2 recites that the vehicle to be tested is a physical, real-world vehicle, or that the vehicle is real rather than simulated. Claim 1 recites only a “whole vehicle in-loop test” as one of the recited test types, and claim 2 additionally recites that the whole vehicle in-loop test is performed “on a ring test platform”. Applicant’s argument imports into the claims a physical-vehicle limitation that appears only in the specification, and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see MPEP 2111.01). Moreover, Applicant’s own specification states that the virtual simulation test and the whole vehicle in-loop test are tests performed in a virtual test scenario (specification, paragraph [0082]), which is consistent with the mapping set forth above. Stefan discloses X-in-the-loop and hardware-in-the-loop simulation (Stefan, paragraph [0009]) performed at a simulation terminal embodied as a hardware-in-the-loop device (Stefan, paragraph [0007]) at which the entire vehicle is simulated by the simulation terminal without moving (Stefan, paragraph [0023]), which meets the claim as written.
Fourth, Applicant argues that Stefan does not disclose the claimed closed site test and open road test because the claimed “closed” site denotes a physically enclosed, access-controlled site and the claimed “open” road denotes a public road with real, uncontrolled traffic, whereas Stefan’s test tracks are not necessarily closed and Stefan’s reserved section of a public road is not necessarily open. This argument is not persuasive for the same reason. The claims recite only “a closed site test” and “an open road test” (claim 1) and testing “in a closed road test site” and “in an open road test site” (claim 2); the claims do not define those sites as physically enclosed and access-controlled, or as exposed to real uncontrolled traffic, and those characterizations appear only in the specification. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Stefan’s test track which is available on any testing site or in a dedicated test facility is a closed road test site, and Stefan’s particular reserved section of a public road is an open road test site (Stefan, paragraph [0017]). Applicant’s contention that Stefan’s test tracks may be shared among users does not distinguish the claims, because the claims place no exclusivity or enclosure requirement on the recited closed site.
Fifth, Applicant argues that Stefan2 does not bridge the gap and that the Examiner’s motivation to combine Stefan and Stefan2 is insufficient because the shared inventive entity, assignee and filing date do not establish that the combination would result in the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive. Stefan2 is relied upon only for generating test cases according to the test configuration information, which Stefan2 expressly discloses (Stefan2, paragraphs [0009]; [0011]; [0015]; [0029]; [0030]); it is not relied upon to supply a standardized comprehensive test architecture, a type identifier, or a physical-vehicle in-loop test, none of which is recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the shared inventive entity, assignee and filing date are not the sole basis of the articulated reasoning. As set forth in the rejection above, the combination is the use of a known technique, namely the automatic generation of suitable test cases (Stefan2, paragraphs [0009]; [0012]), to improve a similar method, namely the multi-environment test allocation and execution platform of Stefan, in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a populated set of test cases for distribution and execution across the test types of Stefan. That reasoning is supported by a rational underpinning and does not require any redesign of Stefan’s operational principles, because Stefan already allocates and executes work orders across the several test environments and expressly contemplates the test instructions being supplied to those environments (Stefan, paragraphs [0011]; [0014]).
Applicant’s remaining argument that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claim from which they depend, except with respect to those claims indicated as allowable or as containing allowable subject matter in the Allowable Subject Matter section set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nico Steimle et al. (“Toward Generating Sufficiently Valid Test Case Results: A Method for Systematically Assigning Test Cases to Test Bench Configurations in a Scenario-Based Test Approach for Automated Vehicles”) discloses a method for classifying test benches and test bench configurations according to whether each element is simulated, emulated or real, and a method for systematically assigning test cases to test bench configurations on the basis of that classification and the requirements arising from the test case.
Zhao et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0004769) discloses constructing autonomous driving test scenes based on primitive scenes, including extracting primitive scenes from real traffic scenes, estimating the distribution of description variables using a Gaussian Mixture Model, generating test primitive scenes by an importance sampling based Monte Carlo method, and recombining the test primitive scenes according to the parameters of the elements of a test scene determined according to a test task.
Zhu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0191396) discloses a method for monitoring safety of an autonomous driving vehicle in which a vehicle controller receives error messages generated by an autonomous driving system from a patrol module, evaluates a status of the autonomous driving system based on the error messages, and keeps the vehicle in the autonomous mode or switches it to a manual mode based on the status.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
