DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 02/20/2025 is being entered. Claims 21-24 are cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the last page of the drawings appears to be a page not intended to be included (titled ‘international search report”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “autonomous agent” and “modular autonomous agent” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“API” in line 10 has not been defined.
“set of driver input” in line 14 has a typographical error. Examiner suggests amending “input” to “inputs”.
There is an extra bullet point in line 19. Examiner suggests deleting it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the DBW vehicle” in line 1 has a typographical error. Examiner suggests amending “the DBW vehicle” to “the DBW vehicle platform”.
Line 2, the claim recites “comprises integrated Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS)”. There is a typographical error. Examiner suggests the amendment “comprises an integrated Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS)”.
There is an extra bullet point in line 9. Examiner suggests deleting it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, the claim recites “set of the resource connections”. There is a typographical error. Examiner suggests the amendment “the set of the resource connections”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, the claim recites “is”. There is a typographical error. Examiner suggests amending “is” to “are”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the set of resources” in line 5 has a typographical error. Examiner suggests amending to “the set of vehicle resources”.
“set of driver input” in line 14 has a typographical error. Examiner suggests amending “input” to “inputs”.
There is an extra bullet point in line 19. Examiner suggests deleting it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "a driver system" twice in lines 8 and 11. It is unclear whether the same “driver system” is being claimed, or different “driver systems” are being claimed, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the “driver system” will be interpreted as the same “driver system” that is being claimed in independent claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation "a set of vehicle commands" twice in lines 15 and 17. It is unclear whether the same “set of vehicle commands” is being claimed, or different “set of vehicle commands” are being claimed, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the “set of vehicle commands” will be interpreted as the same “driver system” that is being claimed in independent claim 1.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 6 further recites the limitation "the operational limits" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 further recites the limitation "the feedback" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the set of driver input" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 further recites the limitation "the vehicle commands" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 17, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 1 and 17 further recite the limitations/features: "... Application Program Interface (API) which is configured to: ... transform the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands,” in claim 1; and “... with the API, transforming the set of inputs into a set of vehicle commands...,” in claim 17, which is unclear to understand how exactly this claimed step for the “transforming/transformation of the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands” is being executed/performed/made/established by the claimed/specified Application Program Interface (API), OR how exactly the claimed/specified “Application Program Interface (API)” is being configured to be capable to execute/perform/make/establish this claimed/specified step for “transforming/transformation of the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands,” which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
The specification, as originally filed is silent about how exactly this claimed/specified step for the “transforming/transformation of the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands” is being executed/performed/made/established by the claimed/specified Application Program Interface (API), OR how exactly the claimed/specified “Application Program Interface (API)” is being configured to be capable to execute/perform/make/establish this claimed/specified step for “transforming/transformation of the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands,” which renders the claims indefinite. The specification merely repeats, in numerous paragraphs, the claim language, BUT, HOWEVER, the specification presents, in Para [00111], for example, that “[t]ransforming the driver input into a set of vehicle commands $120 ... is preferably executed by a software portion of the vehicle interface ... and/or within a computing system of the vehicle platform.”
Therefore, in view of the specification along with claim 14, the Examiner will interpret the corresponding limitations/features of claim 1 as the following: “... Application Program Interface (API), as being integrated into a vehicle computing system or in combination with a central computer of the vehicle computing system, which is configured to: ... transform the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands...,” in claim 1; and “.... with the API, as being integrated into a vehicle computing system or in combination with a central computer of the vehicle computing system, transforming the set of inputs into a set of vehicle commands...,” in claim 17.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Although it is well known in the art that a software, as well as a hardware or firmware, can be configured or programmed to carry out or perform well-known in the art method steps, such as being configured to facilitate installation and/or operation of a driver system for a vehicle/autonomous vehicle, being configured to directly communicate with a set of ECUs and/or control modules distributed throughout the vehicle, the way how the “autonomous agent,” “modular autonomous agent” are being claimed and/or specified in the specification makes it unclear to understand whether the claimed/specified “autonomous agent,” “modular autonomous agent” are structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s) or not, OR whether they are software, hardware or firmware or not, which renders the claims indefinite. Neither are the claimed/specified “autonomous agent,” “modular autonomous agent” shown in the drawings, which renders the claims indefinite.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (0) and 2181.
For the purpose of this examination, the limitations “autonomous agent,” in claim 5, and “modular autonomous agent,” in claims 17-18 and 20, will be interpreted as well-known in the art vehicle computerized processing unit(s) (CPU) configured to control vehicle(s) with autonomous functionalities.
Claim 17 further recites the limitation "cooling connection coupled to an onboard thermal management system of the DBW vehicle platform,” which is unclear what type of cooling and/or thermal management is being claimed, whether this is a cooling/thermal management for the vehicle itself and their systems, OR this is cooling/thermal management for well-known climate control inside the vehicle, OR for both, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
The specification provides support, in numerous paragraphs and, in particular, in Para [0035, 0041, 0055, 0058, 0078], for the “... vehicle resources that can include... thermal management resources (e.g., a refrigeration system and/or vehicle cooling system, chilled working fluid, etc.; cooling resources), BUT, HOWEVER, the specification appears to provide more support for a cooling/thermal management for the vehicle itself and their systems (e.g., cooling fluid connections, coolant temperature sensors, etc.).
Hence, for the purpose of this examination, and in view of the specification, it will be interpreted that “a cooling/thermal management for the vehicle itself and their systems (e.g., cooling fluid connections, cooling fans to reduce/dissipate heat produced from overall vehicle power production, coolant temperature sensors, cooling engine, cooling batteries, etc.) is claimed in independent claim 17
Claims 17 and 19-20 further recite the limitation/feature “first model [associated with the communication network],” which is unclear what it is, which renders the claims indefinite. The specification merely mentions/cites the claimed limitation/feature “first model [associated with the communication network]” once, in Para ]0030], without providing any support/discussion/explanation for what type of the claimed “first model [associated with the communication network]” it is or would be, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
Hence, for the purpose of this examination, and in view of the specification, the claimed “first model [associated with the communication network] is not given a patentable weight, and therefore
the corresponding limitation of claim 17 will be interpreted as the following: “... based on
the corresponding limitation of claim 19 will be interpreted as the following: “... updating
the corresponding limitation of claim 20 will be interpreted as the following: “... wherein the modular autonomous agent is independent of
Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 17, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0245774 A1) hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a vehicle system comprising:
a Drive-by-Wire (DBW) vehicle platform [see Paragraph 0036 - discusses a vehicle and see Figure 1 below - depicts a vehicle platform (VP) 5] comprising:
a computing system [see Paragraph 0036 - discusses an autonomous driving kit (ADK) 3 and see Figure 1 - depicts the ADK 3];
a plurality of vehicle systems [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses that the VP 5 includes various systems]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
510
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Suzuki
a low-level communication network connecting the computing system to the plurality of vehicle systems [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses a controller area network (CAN) connecting the ADK 3 with a vehicle control interface 4 that is connected to vehicle systems (see Figure 2 below - depicts the vehicle systems (steering, braking, propulsion, sensors) of the VP 5)]; and
PNG
media_image2.png
206
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
a vehicle interface [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses the vehicle control interface 4] comprising:
a set of resource connections for a driver system, the set of resource connections comprising an Input Output (I/O) port, the I/O port connected to the computing system [see Paragraphs 0057 and 0060 - discusses that each VCIB 41/42 is connected communicatively to a compute assembly 31 of the ADK 3, VCIB 41 is connected communicatively with the brake system, steering system, and P lock system, among the plurality of systems, through a communication bus] and
configured to communicatively couple the API with a driver system [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses that the vehicle control interface executes an API defined for each signal to be communicated, see Paragraph 0042 - discusses that the API is defined for each command for driving, and see Paragraphs 0042 and 0050 - discusses that the ADK (compute assembly) implements autonomous driving through the vehicle control interface to the vehicle platform vehicle systems (see Figure 2 and 3 below)]; and
PNG
media_image3.png
97
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
an Application Program Interface (API) which is configured to:
receive a set of driver inputs from the driver system [see Paragraph 0098 - discusses acquiring a brake pedal signal, see Paragraphs 0093-0094 - discusses acquiring a first signal (brake depression amount) and a second signal (beyond autonomy deceleration), and see Paragraphs 0413-0415 - discusses a steering wheel intervention signal based on drivers intent that is used to override the steering of the ADK];
transform the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands [see Paragraph 0104 - discusses that the vehicle control interface receives the signals and transforms the signals into an API data format for the ADK]; and
provide the set of vehicle commands to the computing system [see Paragraphs 0103 and 0104 - discusses that the ADK receives the brake pedal intervention signal, see Paragraph 0050 - discusses that the compute assembly 31 (of the ADK 3) receives state of the vehicle from the vehicle control interface (e.g. steering and braking signals) and determines the next operation (deceleration, turning)],
wherein the computing system is configured to automatically control the plurality of vehicle systems, via the low-level communication network, based on a set of vehicle commands [see Paragraph 0050 - discusses the compute assembly 31 implementing a command for the next operation (deceleration, turning), see Paragraphs 0039 and 0179 - discusses the CAN connecting the ADK 3 with a vehicle control interface 4 that is connected to vehicle systems (steering, braking) - CAN sends signals to vehicle control interface to control vehicle systems (brakes, steering)].
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein set of the resource connections comprises redundant power and data connections [see Figure 2 below - depicts data connections, and see Paragraph 0765 - discusses that a battery supplies power to the vehicle platform, and see Figure 18 below - depicts batteries (auxiliary battery and 2nd battery)].
PNG
media_image3.png
97
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
PNG
media_image4.png
534
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 18 of Suzuki
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein the set of resource connections comprises:
a first fluid manifold defining a first set of fluid ports [see Figure 20 below – depicts an HVAC system – HVAC systems include multiple manifolds],
PNG
media_image5.png
137
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 20 of Suzuki
the DBW vehicle platform configured to circulate a chilled working fluid through the first set of fluid ports [see Figure 20 above - depicts an HVAC system – HVAC systems circulate cooled air during air conditioning];
a set of electrical terminals electrically connected to vehicle power source of the DBW vehicle platform [see Figure 18 below - depicts the power supply architecture and the batteries powering the vehicle platform]; and
PNG
media_image4.png
534
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 18 of Suzuki
a set of structural mounts [see Figure 20 below - depicts the vehicle with systems, the systems are mounted within the vehicle on structures (body)].
PNG
media_image5.png
137
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 20 of Suzuki
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 8. Suzuki further discloses wherein the set of structural mounts comprises a first set of mounts enclosed within an interior of the DBW vehicle platform [see Paragraph 0066 - discusses a steering wheel, see Paragraph 0062 - discusses a brake pedal - these devices are mounted inside of the vehicle and connected to the vehicle control interface for driver interventions] and a second set of mounts at a vehicle exterior [see Paragraph 0051 - sensors for perception 32 perceive the environment around the vehicle and are mounted on the exterior of the vehicle], wherein the set of resource connections further comprises a set of data channels extending between a first end, proximal to the first set of mounts, and a second end, proximal to the second set of mounts [see Figure 2 below - depicts the connections of the sensors at ADK and the connections to the vehicle platform at the driving system (where steering wheel and brake pedal are mounted)].
PNG
media_image3.png
97
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 9. Suzuki further discloses wherein the set of resource connections further comprises a second fluid manifold housing a cleaning agent and defining a second set of ports proximal to the second end [see Paragraph 0056 – discusses a sensor cleaning component with fluid that cleans each of the sensors]. U.S. Publication No. 20210107040 A1 teaches a sensor cleaning mechanism that delivers fluid from a reservoir to clean each of the exterior sensors 160 [see Paragraphs 0004, 0033, and 0038].
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 8. Suzuki further discloses an enclosure within the DBW vehicle platform [the vehicle is enclosed], wherein the first set of fluid ports, the set of electrical terminals, and the set of structural mounts is arranged within the enclosure [see Figure 20 below - depicts the HVAC 9 (fluid ports), the battery, set of structural mounts (see Paragraph 0066 - discusses a steering wheel, see Paragraph 0062 - discusses a brake pedal - these devices are mounted inside of the vehicle and connected to the vehicle control interface for driver interventions) - all of these systems are enclosed within the vehicle].
PNG
media_image5.png
137
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 20 of Suzuki
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein the API is integrated into a central computer of the computing system [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses that the API is executed by the vehicle interface that is integrated with the ADK].
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein the low-level communication network is configured to operate with a first communication protocol [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses communicating through CAN], wherein the API is configured to receive driver inputs under a second communication protocol which is different from the first communication protocol [see Paragraph 0042 - discusses that the ADK receives various signals indicating the state of vehicle main body 2, from vehicle control interface 4 in accordance with an API defined for each signal, and causes the received vehicle state to be reflected on preparation of the driving plan].
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein the set of driver inputs are independent of an architecture of the low-level communication network [see Paragraph 0066 - discusses a steering wheel, see Paragraph 0062 - discusses a brake pedal, the driver inputs of the steering wheel and brake pedal are an independent architecture compared to the VCIB connection (CAN) to the ADK].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Uehara et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0025731 A1) hereinafter Uehara.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein the computing system is configured to dynamically determine a vehicle state based on control of the plurality of vehicle systems [see Paragraph 0050 - discusses the compute assembly 31 also obtains the state of vehicle 1 from VP 5 through vehicle control interface 4] and integrated sensing within the DBW vehicle platform [see Paragraphs 0053-0054 - discusses sensors that output information to the compute assembly, see Paragraph 0058 - discusses that the VCIB 41/42 relays vehicle information (see Paragraph 0065 - for example, the brake system information) from the vehicle platform and outputs the vehicle information to the ADK 3 (computing system)]
Uehara discloses providing feedback to the driver system based on a vehicle state [see Paragraph 0036 - discusses providing feedback to the driver via a vehicle interface, see Paragraph 0026 - discusses providing feedback through steering wheel, see Paragraph 0021 - discusses providing feedback through brake pedal, and see Claim 9].
Uehara suggests that the feedback provides the driver with an error based on a desired vehicle state falling outside of a target vehicle state [see Paragraph 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the API as taught by Suzuki to provide feedback to a driver system based on a vehicle state as taught by Uehara in order to provide the driver with an error based on a desired vehicle state falling outside of a target vehicle state [Uehara, see Paragraph 0056].
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki and Uehara disclose the invention with respect to claim 2. Uehara further discloses wherein the feedback comprises a set of operational limitations which are dynamically determined based on the vehicle state [see Paragraph 0051 - discusses setting target values based on vehicle constraints, the feedback that is provided by the tactile feedback includes the brake pedal and steering wheel, see Paragraph 0056 - discusses if the driver input (desired vehicle state) falls outside of the vehicle constraints (target vehicle state) then the tactile feedback is provided via the steering wheel and/or braking pedal (an indication of a set (steering and braking) of operational limitations being outside of the vehicle constraints)].
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 8. Suzuki further discloses a memory system which is separate from the driver system and housed within an see Paragraph 0057 - discusses a memory that is apart of a box (VCIB)]
Suzuki fails to disclose that the enclosure is impact-resistant. Including an impact resistant enclosure, however, would prevent external shocks from damaging the memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the enclosure as taught by Suzuki to be impact-resistant in order to prevent external shocks from damaging the memory.
Uehara discloses wherein a set of driver inputs and feedback provided to the driver system are logged within the memory system [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses that driver inputs are sent to a memory, and see Paragraph 0046 - discusses that when a driver desires to change a value (feedback), that value is then stored in a database].
Uehara suggests that the stored data (in the memory) related to the driver inputs and desired vehicle state (feedback) can be useful in optimizing the design of the target ranges and target states for particular drivers, in assisting authorities with accident reconstruction and accident fault determination, in performing vehicle diagnosis, etc [see Paragraph 0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle system as taught by Suzuki to log a set of driver inputs and feedback within the memory as taught by Uehara in order to assisting authorities with accident reconstruction and accident fault determination, in performing vehicle diagnosis [Uehara, see Paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses a method for a Drive-by-Wire (DBW) vehicle comprising:
a computing system [see Paragraph 0036 - discusses an autonomous driving kit (ADK) 3 and see Figure 1 below - depicts the ADK 3];
PNG
media_image1.png
510
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Suzuki
a plurality of vehicle systems [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses that the VP 5 includes various systems]; and
a communication network connecting the computing system to the plurality of vehicle systems [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses a controller area network (CAN) connecting the ADK 3 with a vehicle control interface 4 that is connected to vehicle systems (see Figure 2 below - depicts the vehicle systems (steering, braking, propulsion, sensors) of the VP 5)], the method comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
97
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
providing a set of vehicle resources within an enclosure of the DBW vehicle configured to house a modular autonomous agent [see Figure 20 below - depicts vehicle resources see Figure 1 below - depicts the VP 5 that is connected to the ADK, which implements autonomous driving functions for the VP 5], the set of resources comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
137
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 20 of Suzuki
a power connection coupled to a power source of the DBW vehicle platform [see Figure 20 above - depicts battery 7 of the vehicle platform with power connections to the vehicle platform 5];
a cooling connection coupled to an onboard thermal management system of the DBW vehicle platform [see Figure 20 above - depicts an HVAC 9 of the vehicle];
a data connection communicatively coupled with an Application Program Interface (API) of the computing system [see Paragraphs 0057 and 0060 - discusses that each VCIB 41/42 (vehicle control interface) is connected communicatively to a compute assembly 31 of the ADK 3, the vehicle control interface executes an API]; and
a set of mounts coupled to the enclosure [see Paragraph 0066 - discusses a steering wheel, see Paragraph 0062 - discusses a brake pedal - these devices are mounted inside of the vehicle and connected to the vehicle control interface for driver interventions];
at the API, receiving a set of inputs from the modular autonomous agent via the data connection, the inputs received with a first communication protocol [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses that the vehicle control interface communicates with ADK through controller area network (CAN)];
with the API, transforming the set of driver input into a set of vehicle commands and providing the set of vehicle commands to the computing system [see Paragraph 0104 - discusses that the vehicle control interface receives signals and transforms the signals into an API data format for the ADK, see Paragraph 0098 - discusses acquiring a brake pedal signal, see Paragraphs 0093-0094 - discusses acquiring a first signal (brake depression amount) and a second signal (beyond autonomy deceleration), and see Paragraphs 0413-0415 - discusses a steering wheel intervention signal based on drivers intent that is used to override the steering of the ADK];
based on a first model associated with the communication network, distributing vehicle control instructions, based on the vehicle commands, to the plurality of vehicle systems via the communication network [see Paragraph 0103 and 0104- discusses that the ADK receives the brake pedal intervention signal, see Paragraph 0050 - discusses that the compute assembly 31 (of the ADK 3) receives state of the vehicle from the vehicle control interface (e.g. steering and braking signals) and determines the next operation (deceleration, turning), and see Paragraph 0050 - discusses the compute assembly 31 implementing a command for the next operation (deceleration, turning), see Paragraphs 0039 and 0179 - discusses the CAN connecting the ADK 3 with a vehicle control interface 4 that is connected to vehicle systems (steering, braking)]; and
determining feedback for the modular autonomous agent and providing the feedback to the modular autonomous agent via the API, the feedback comprising:
a vehicle state comprising values for a set of vehicle state parameters [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses providing vehicle state information to the ADK]
Uehara discloses determining feedback and providing the feedback [see Paragraph 0036 - discusses providing feedback to the driver via a vehicle interface, see Paragraph 0026 - discusses providing feedback through steering wheel, see Paragraph 0021 - discusses providing feedback through brake pedal, and see Claim 9], the feedback comprising
a set of dynamic operational restrictions associated with a vehicle state [see Paragraph 0051 - discusses setting target values based on vehicle constraints, the feedback that is provided by the tactile feedback includes the brake pedal and steering wheel, see Paragraph 0056 - discusses if the driver input (desired vehicle state) falls outside of the vehicle constraints (target vehicle state) then the tactile feedback is provided via the steering wheel and/or braking pedal (an indication of a set (steering and braking) of operational limitations being outside of the vehicle constraints)].
Uehara suggests that the feedback provides the driver of an autonomous vehicle with an error based on a desired vehicle state falling outside of a target vehicle state [see Paragraph 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system as taught by Suzuki to provide feedback comprising a set of dynamic operational restrictions associated with a vehicle state taught by Uehara in order to provide the driver of an autonomous vehicle with an error based on a desired vehicle state falling outside of a target vehicle state [Uehara, see Paragraph 0056].
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki and Uehara disclose the invention with respect to claim 17. Suzuki further discloses wherein the communication network is decoupled from the modular autonomous agent [see Paragraph 0066 - discusses a steering wheel, see Paragraph 0062 - discusses a brake pedal, the driver inputs of the steering wheel and brake pedal are an independent architecture compared to the VCIB connection (CAN) to the ADK], wherein the communication network uses a second communication protocol which is different from the first communication protocol [see Paragraph 0042 - discusses that the ADK receives various signals indicating the state of vehicle main body 2, from vehicle control interface 4 in accordance with an API defined for each signal, and causes the received vehicle state to be reflected on preparation of the driving plan, see Paragraph 0039 - discusses communicating through CAN with the first communication network – the CAN connects the vehicle control interface 4 to the ADK, and the vehicle control interface 4 is connected to the driver inputs – the vehicle control interface converts the signals for the ADK and driver inputs (see Paragraph 0104)].
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki and Uehara disclose the invention with respect to claim 17. Suzuki further discloses updating the first model without modification to the first communication protocol and without modification to a driver-side portion of the API [see Entire Document – there is no updating if the CAN network or updating of the driver inputs when the vehicle commands are transmitted to update the vehicle position based on ADK and drive inputs].
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki and Uehara disclose the invention with respect to claim 17. Suzuki further discloses wherein the modular autonomous agent is independent of the first model [see Figure 1 below – ADK 3 is independent of the VP 5].
PNG
media_image1.png
510
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Suzuki
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0235487 A1) hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Suzuki further discloses wherein the driver system comprises a lower-priority driver system [see Figure 2 below - depicts vehicle platform that includes VCIB 41/42]
PNG
media_image3.png
97
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
Zhao discloses wherein a vehicle system further comprises a second data I/O port configured to communicatively couple a vehicle interface with a higher-priority driver system [see Figure 1 below - depicts a vehicle system 102 communicatively coupled with a higher priority system (remote computing system 103), see Paragraph 0060 – discusses that the vehicle system 102 interfaces with the remote computing system 103], wherein, in response to receipt of priority driver inputs via the second data I/O port, the vehicle system is configured to override at least a subset of driver inputs with the priority driver inputs [see Paragraph 0071 - discusses that the remote computing system stops the vehicle (overrides the control of the vehicle computing system) to then perform diagnostic maneuvers (priority driver inputs)].
PNG
media_image6.png
356
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Zhao
Zhao suggests that an adverse condition can render a vehicle inoperable, and that a remote computing system (operations computing system) can alleviate the adverse condition by overriding control of the vehicle [see Paragraphs 0022-0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle system as taught by Suzuki to include a higher-priority driver system, wherein, in response to receipt of priority driver inputs via the second data I/O port, the vehicle system is configured to override at least a subset of driver inputs with the priority driver inputs as taught by Zhao in order to alleviate an adverse condition by overriding control of the vehicle [Zhao, see Paragraphs 0022-0032].
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki and Zhao disclose the invention with respect to claim 4. Suzuki further discloses wherein the lower-priority driver system comprises an autonomous agent [see Figure 2 below - depicts vehicle platform that includes VCIB 41/42 that control the vehicle based on driver system data].
PNG
media_image3.png
97
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Suzuki
Zhao further discloses wherein the higher-priority driver system comprises an autonomous fallback system or a teleoperation system [see Figure 1 below - depicts a teleoperation system 103].
PNG
media_image6.png
356
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Zhao
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhao further in view of Uehara.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki and Zhao disclose the invention with respect to claim 4.
However, the combination of Suzuki and Zhao fails to disclose wherein the DBW vehicle comprises integrated Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS),
wherein the DBW vehicle platform is configured to dynamically determine a set of performance limitations based on a vehicle performance envelope,
wherein the computing system of the DBW vehicle platform is configured to restrict vehicle commands based on the set of performance limitations and ADAS,
wherein the API is configured to provide feedback to the driver system comprising:
advisory values for each of the operational limits; and
control restriction alerts.
Uehara discloses:
wherein a DBW vehicle comprises integrated Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) [see Paragraph 0003 - discusses an automated driving system that receives driver inputs],
wherein the DBW vehicle platform is configured to dynamically determine a set of performance limitations based on a vehicle performance envelope [see Paragraph 0032 - discusses generating target values based on the current vehicle state (includes performance limitations of acceleration, deceleration, etc.)],
wherein the computing system of the DBW vehicle platform is configured to restrict vehicle commands based on the set of performance limitations and ADAS [see Paragraph 0056 - discusses when the vehicle state is outside of the target value, commanding the vehicle to maintain within the target value (state)],
wherein the API is configured to provide feedback to the driver system comprising:
advisory values for each of the operational limits [see Paragraph 0051 - discusses setting target values based on vehicle constrains, the feedback that is provided by the tactile feedback includes the brake pedal and steering wheel, see Paragraph 0056 - discusses if the driver input falls outside of the vehicle constraints then the tactile feedback is provided via the steering wheel and/or braking pedal (an indication of a set of operational limitations being outside of the vehicle constraints)]; and
control restriction alerts [see Paragraph 0056 and see claim 9 - discusses an error message is generated to the driver if the vehicle is outside of the target vehicle state].
Uehara suggests that the feedback provides the driver with an error based on a desired vehicle state falling outside of a target vehicle state [see Paragraph 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle system as taught by Suzuki to dynamically determine a set of performance limitations based on a vehicle performance envelope, restrict vehicle commands based on the set of performance limitations and ADAS, provide feedback to the driver system comprising advisory values for each of the operational limits and control restriction alerts as taught by Uehara in order to provide the driver with an error based on a desired vehicle state falling outside of a target vehicle state [Uehara, see Paragraph 0056].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki fails to disclose that the enclosure is vibration- damped. Including a vibration- damped enclosure, however, would prevent external shocks from damaging components/systems of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the enclosure as taught by Suzuki to be vibration- damped in order to prevent external shocks from damaging the components/systems of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665