DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on July 31, 2024.
Claims 1-10 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 .
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 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.
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.
Foreign Priority
The foreign priority date considered for this application is August 01, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated July 31, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on July 31, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because begins with “The present disclosure provides…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “generating test cases according to the test configuration information, and allocating the test cases to corresponding test types, wherein the test types comprise a virtual simulation test, a whole vehicle in-loop test, a closed site test, and an open road test;” in lines 4-7. Please incorporate “the” in the claim language as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “testing the to be tested vehicle tested in an open road test site, and the open road test result of the to be tested vehicle is obtained.” in lines 11-12. Please incorporate “to be tested” in the claim language as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 recites “wherein before the step of testing the to be tested vehicle in [[a]] the closed road test site, and obtaining the closed road test result of the vehicle, the method further comprises:” in lines 1-3. Please replace “a” to –the-- as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “configuring closed road test information, and receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in [[a]] the closed road test site;” in lines 4-5. Please replace “a” to –the-- as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein before the step of testing the to be tested vehicle tested in [[an]] the open road test site, and the open road test result of the vehicle is obtained, the method further comprises:” in lines 1-3. Please replace “an” to –the-- as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “configuring open road test information, and receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in [[an]] the open road test site;” in lines 4-5. Please replace “an” to –the-- as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “performing a data backup in [[an]] the event of a system error.”. Please replace “an” to –the-- as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “The automatic driving test method according to claim 1, wherein further comprising: performing a visual presentation on a test process.”. Please incorporate “automatic driving test” in the claim language as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 9-10 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
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 3-6 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 3 recites the limitation "performing a vehicle modeling on the to be tested vehicle to generate the to be tested vehicle for the virtual test scenario." in lines 7-8. It is unclear what is produced by the recited modeling step. The to-be-tested vehicle is already positively recited in claim 1 as the physical vehicle that is tested; a modeling operation cannot "generate" that vehicle, and the claim does not make clear whether the step generates a model, a virtual representation, or some other construct of the to-be-tested vehicle for use in the virtual test scenario. 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. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as generating a virtual model of the to-be-tested vehicle for the virtual test scenario. Claim 3 recites the limitation “acquiring virtual test scenario data of a to be tested vehicle;” in line 4. It is unclear whether “a to be tested vehicle” refers to a new to be tested vehicle or the same previously limited in claim 2. For examination purpose the examiner will interpreted as the same “the to be tested vehicle”. Claim 4 recites the limitation “if the current user has the access permission, the current user is allowed to access.” in line 8. It is unclear what access is allowed to the current user (the test system?). For examination purpose the examiner will interpreted as access to the system.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "performing an identity authentication on the to be tested vehicle tested in the closed road." in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 depends from claim 2 which limits “a closed road test site”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " performing an identity authentication on the to be tested vehicle tested in the open road." in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 2 which limits “a open road test site”.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter Stefan) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter Stefan2).
With respect to claim 1, Stefan teaches an automatic driving test method (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])), wherein the automatic driving test method comprising: acquiring test configuration information input by a user (Stefan discloses a work order, given by a user via client devices, that comprises configuration instructions, environment instructions, operating instructions, data acquisition instructions, and test condition and reporting instructions (paragraphs [0010]; [0006]), the work orders being defined and transmitted by test engineers at client devices (paragraphs [0014]–[0015])). [[generating test cases according to the test configuration information, and]] allocating the test cases to corresponding test types, wherein test types comprise a virtual simulation test, a whole vehicle in-loop test, a closed site test, and an open road test (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” (paragraphs [0017]; [0021]; [0023]); a whole vehicle in-loop test, taught as X-in-the-loop / hardware-in-the-loop simulation (paragraph [0009]) in which “the entire vehicle is simulated by the simulation terminal without moving” (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 (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” (paragraph [0017])) and under each test type, testing a to be tested vehicle based on the corresponding test cases to obtain test results corresponding to each of the test type, and 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 (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 (paragraph [0011]), the report summarizing the result of the test pursuant to the reporting instructions (paragraph [0020]), the tests being carried out across the virtual, in-loop, test-track, and public-road environments identified above (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 (the automatic generation of test cases for autonomous vehicles at the system level (Stefan, paragraph [0009]), wherein a generated test case comprises a test case title and a description in higher-level programming language with formal test instructions (paragraph [0011]) and is generated from identified driving situations together with acceptance criteria (paragraph [0015]) the generation being carried out according to the engineer’s defined system application cases / test scenario (paragraphs [0023]; [0032]) by a central test planning system arranged to “generate and query test cases suitable for autonomous vehicles” (paragraph [0029]), which complete set of test cases is then used for carrying out the tests (paragraph [0030])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 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 device/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, Stefan teaches performing a simulation test on the to be tested vehicle in different virtual test scenarios to obtain the simulation test result (planning and running a simulation in a virtual environment (Stefan paragraphs [0021]; [0023]) using a virtual version of the test track (paragraph [0017]), with different scenarios defined by the operating instructions, including injected events and restrictions (paragraph [0018])). performing a whole vehicle in-loop test on the to be tested vehicle on a ring test platform, and obtaining the whole vehicle in-loop test result of the to be tested vehicle (hardware-in-the-loop / X-in-the-loop testing (Stefan paragraph [0009]) at a simulation terminal embodied as a hardware-in-the-loop device (paragraph [0007]), wherein “the entire vehicle is simulated by the simulation terminal without moving” (paragraph [0023]), reading on a whole-vehicle in-loop test conducted on a test rig / ring test platform.)). testing the to be tested vehicle in a closed road test site, and obtaining the closed road test result of the to be tested vehicle (testing on a road in the real world on a test track in a dedicated test facility (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]; [0014])). testing the to be tested vehicle tested in an open road test site, and the open road test result of the vehicle is obtained (testing on a particular reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraph [0017]), the data being downloaded and reported per paragraphs [0011] and [0020])). With respect to claim 3, Stefan teaches acquiring virtual test scenario data of a to be tested vehicle (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 to be tested vehicle according to the test scenario data (producing “a virtual version of the test track… 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 on the to be tested vehicle to generate the to be tested vehicle for the virtual test scenario (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 (paragraph [0016])). performing a simulation test on the to be tested vehicle in the virtual test scenario to obtain the simulation test result (planning and running the simulation in the virtual environment to obtain the result (Stefan, paragraphs [0021]; [0023])). With respect to claim 8, Stefan teaches wherein further comprising: performing a visual presentation on a test process (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 (paragraph [0011]) for presentation at the user’s client device (paragraph [0014])). With respect to claim 9, Stefan teaches obtaining a comprehensive test evaluation result of the to be tested vehicle, according to the simulation test result, the whole vehicle in-loop test result, the closed road test result and the open road test result (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 (paragraphs [0014]; [0017]; [0023])).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter Stefan) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter Stefan2) and further in view of Datta (US Pub. No. 2019/0058728). With respect to claim 4, Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Datta teaches verifying accessed user identity information to obtain an identity verification result (a two-level authentication in which a backend server generates a unique token from user identification data and the user-entered token and a subsequently generated one-time password (OTP) are verified (Datta, paragraphs [0016]; [0039]–[0043]), in contrast to an ordinary system in which a user is “given full access… without any authenticity check” (paragraph [0037])). determining whether a current user has an access permission according to the identity verification result; if the current user has the access permission, the current user is allowed to access (upon a successful match, the system “creates a secure container within the IVI system for access by the user” (Datta, paragraphs [0053]; [0043]), access being granted only after successful verification and otherwise withheld)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 and 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) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter Stefan2) in view of Boulton et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0345926, hereinafter Boulton) and further in view of Ricci (US Pub. No. 2018/0126951). With respect to claim 5, Stefan teaches configuring closed road test information (by way of the environment instructions that configure the real-world test-track environment (Stefan, paragraphs [0010]; [0017]; [0015])). Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Boulton teaches receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in a closed road test site (Boulton, in the field of testing connected-vehicle systems, teaches this limitation — 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 (paragraph [0007]) and the roadside unit sends messages to a vehicle on-board unit (paragraph [0047]) within a connected-vehicle test conducted at a test track (paragraphs [0009]; [0066])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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, however in an analogous art, Ricci teaches performing an identity authentication on the to be tested vehicle tested in the closed road (Ricci, in the field of autonomous-vehicle control, teaches this limitation — 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 “access to be granted only after an authentication mechanism successfully verifies” the relevant information, and is otherwise denied (paragraphs [0098]; [0085])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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, Stefan teaches configuring open road test information (by way of the environment instructions configuring a test on a particular reserved section of a public road (Stefan, paragraphs [0017]; [0010])).
Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Boulton teaches receiving roadside information collected by a roadside device in an open road test site (Boulton teaches this limitation — 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 per paragraph [0066])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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, however in an analogous art, Ricci teaches performing an identity authentication on the to be tested vehicle tested in the open road (Ricci teaches this limitation — 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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132118, hereinafter Stefan) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter Stefan2) and further in view of Jin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0005633, hereinafter Jin).
With respect to claim 7, 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 teaches a cloud platform providing “data storage security, transmission security, and/or application security” (Jin, paragraph [0133]) and privacy protection comprising “one-way encryption, bidirectional encryption” (paragraph [0095]) and firewall, encryption, and decryption methods (paragraph [0123])). performing a data backup in an event of a system error (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the operative step recited is performing a data backup, and the phrase “in an 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 teaches performing a data backup, namely “pull data or feedback from infrastructure units for further analysis and backup” (Jin, paragraph [0081]), and the provision of backup redundancy (paragraph [0101])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data-security (encryption) 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) in view of Stefan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0132117, hereinafter Stefan2) in view of Shijie Zhao et al. (“An objective evaluation method for automated vehicle virtual test”, hereinafter Zhao) and further in view of Minami et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0027423, hereinafter Minami).
With respect to claim 10, Stefan teaches evaluating a test process from [[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 (Stefan, paragraph [0020])). Stefan in view of Stefan2 is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Zhao teaches evaluating a test process from intelligence, security, comfort, efficiency, [[energy consumption, and defects]], and generating a test evaluation report (an objective evaluation method for automated-vehicle virtual tests that evaluates the vehicle from “driving safety, ride comfort, intelligence and efficiency” (Zhao, section 3.2 and Fig. 3; contributions, p. 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 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, however in an analogous art, Minami teaches evaluating a test process from [[intelligence, security, comfort, efficiency,]] energy consumption [[, and defects]] (Minami teaches this limitation — “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 (paragraphs [0010]; [0011])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mesde et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0330170) a vehicle software test environment management system provides a virtual vehicle environment that includes virtual electronic control units (vECUs) having a virtual bus connectivity configuration used to simulate respective ones of electronic control units (ECUs) of a real-world vehicle. The vehicle software test environment management system determines respective instance types of one or more virtual compute instances to be used to implement the vECUs based on respective configuration of respective ones of the ECUs and further determines respective machine images to emulate respective software environments of the respective ones of the ECUs. The vehicle software test environment management system may also deploy a vehicle software application to be certified on one or more of the vECUs and test the deployed vehicle software application using recorded signals of one or more ECUs of the real-world vehicle. (see abstract).
Zhu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0191396) discloses a method for monitoring safety of an autonomous driving vehicle (ADV. In one embodiment, a method includes the operations of receiving, by a vehicle controller, one or more error message from a patrol module, the one or more error messages generated by an autonomous driving system of the ADV operating in an autonomous mode, the patrol module monitoring the autonomous driving system; evaluating a status of the autonomous driving system based on the one or more error messages; and keeping the ADV in the autonomous mode or switching it to a manual mode based on the status of the autonomous driving system. (see abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights