DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply, filed 21 May 2026, which was in response to the non-final action dated 24 February 2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-14 are pending.
With regard to the objection to claims 7 and 11 (pgs. 3, Action), applicant’s traversal (pg. 2, Reply) has been considered and, based on a review of the originally filed claims, is persuasive. Accordingly, the objection to claims 7 and 11 is withdrawn.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 12 (pgs. 3-10, Action), applicant contends that neither Ishigooka nor Morley teach the limitations “predict an execution available duration of a current automatic driving control software program based on external environmental information of a vehicle” and “execute the verification target with a new automatic driving control software program in the execution available duration” (pgs. 3-6, Reply). The examiner finds this contention unpersuasive for the following reason.
Ishigooka discloses the limitation “predict an execution available duration of a current automatic driving control software program based on external environmental information of a vehicle”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretations at least [0016] discloses that “the time-series test case defining unit 117 selects a test case including an input value corresponding to the in-verification time, from the time-series input value ... , in which the “in-verification time” was interpreted as the exestuation available duration. Paragraph [0115] disclosing “the time-series test input saving unit 116 saves a time-series input value that is an input value acquired in time sequence by a sensor of the running vehicle” relates this time to the vehicle control.
Further the paragraph [0094] disclosing that a dangerous state mentioned here is a state in which an abnormal value (e.g., a value that is out of place in a scene or a value that lacks continuity) is outputted. Specifically, for example, it refers to a state in which an object that is out of place in an expressway is identified or a state in which an AI, in its object recognition, suddenly recognizes an object it has recognized so far as a “person”, as a “cat”, which was interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as external environmental information, as discussed below. Thus Ishigooka discloses the aforementioned limitation.
The combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses the limitation “execute the verification target with a new automatic driving control software program in the execution available duration”. As cited in the Action paragraphs [0116] and [0117] were cited as teaching “execut[ing] the verification target. However to the extent that Ishigooka does not disclose “the verification target with a new automatic driving control software program in the execution available duration”, Morley discloses this further at paragraph [0069] disclosing that to pass a given category, the autonomous control software may be required to achieve one or more of the following requirements: ... achieve an average reaction time to begin reacting to a potential collision over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that is greater than or equal to an average reaction time to begin reacting to a potential collision, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is interpreted as the execution available duration, as discussed below. Thus the combination of Ishigooka and Morley disclose the aforementioned limitation.
Applicant further contends that “[t]he rejection’s rational is also improper because it is claim-driven rather than reference-driven” (pgs. 6-7, Reply). No authority from the MPEP nor case law has been cited in support of this contention, but it appears to resemble hindsight. This contention of not persuasive in view of MPEP 2145 X. A.
MPEP 2145 X. A., states that applicants may argue that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning, however, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Consistent with MPEP 2145 X. A., the examiner has not included knowledge gleaned from applicant’s discloses, but has taken into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, consistent with the cited art, the thus the reconstruction of obviousness rejection is proper.
Applicant still further contends that the proposed modifications would change the principle of operation of Ishigooka (pgs. 7-8, Reply). This contention is also unpersuasive in view of MPEP 2143.01 VI.
MPEP 2143.01 VI. States that if the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959) (a court reversing the obviousness rejection holding the "suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate."). Rather than differentiating the method of verification (pg. 9, Reply), the test is whether the combination of reference would require a substantial reconstruction of the elements shown in Ishigooka as well as a change in the basic principle under which Ishigooka’s construction was designed to operate. The teachings of Morley, as discussed above, would not require substantial reconstruction of the elements of Ishigooka, and further the principle of verifying software would further be supported by the teachings of Morley. Thus, the proposed modification of Ishigooka with the teachings of Morley would not change the principle of operation of Ishigooka.
Applicant still further contends the proposed modifications of Ishigooka would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (pgs. 8-9, Reply). MPEP 2143.01 V, states that if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, applicant is, in effect, contending that there is no suggestion or motivation to combine the references. This contention of also unpersuasive.
In response to applicant' s contention that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Ishigooka teaches an output value from the old control software unit and an output value from the new control software unit do not match, outputs information indicating the output values' not matching (see Ishigooka, claim 1). Morley teaches validating the autonomous control software based on a comparison of the evaluated performance of the autonomous control software (see Morley, claim 1). Morley further discloses the it is critical that the autonomous control software used by these vehicles to operate in the autonomous mode is tested and validated before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other object (see Morley, [0002]). Both of these references are in the same field of verifying vehicle software and would thus command the attention of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of the claimed invention. Both of these references relate to software in vehicles and insuring that the new software performs as well as the previous version which is vital to maintaining the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably incorporated the teachings of Morley to Modify Ishigooka in order to validate the software performance as being acceptable and therefore insure the safe operation of the autonomous vehicle as designed.
Accordingly the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-14 is maintained, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0222050 to Ishigooka et al. (hereafter Ishigooka) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0100635 to Morley et al. (hereafter Morley).
As per claim 1, Ishigooka discloses [a] vehicle control device (see at least Ishigooka, Abstract ) comprising:
an execution available duration prediction unit configured to predict an execution available duration of a current automatic driving control software program based on external environmental information of a vehicle (see at least Ishigooka, [0037]; [0094] disclosing that a dangerous state mentioned here is a state in which an abnormal value (e.g., a value that is out of place in a scene or a value that lacks continuity) is outputted. Specifically, for example, it refers to a state in which an object that is out of place in an expressway is identified or a state in which an AI, in its object recognition, suddenly recognizes an object it has recognized so far as a “person”, as a “cat” <interpreted as external environmental information>; [0095] For example, an output verification unit compares each of an output value from the old control software unit 112 and an output value from the new control software unit 113 with the correct answer value, and when at least one of the compared output values is different from the correct answer value, outputs information indicating the output value's not matching the correct answer value ; [0014]; [0061] disclosing that sensor value reception unit 114 executes the time-series software input saving unit 116, using the received sensor value as input; [0066] disclosing, with regard to Fig. 5, that The verification management unit 115 determines whether an in-verification time exceeds a verification end time <interpreted as an execution available duration>. When giving a determination “true” (Y: YES), the verification management unit 115 proceeds to step 1153, and when giving a determination “false” (N: NO), proceeds to step 1154. It is assumed that the in-verification time is reset at the start of the vehicle control device; [0070] disclosing that the verification management unit 115 executes the time-series test case defining unit 117 to acquire a test case corresponding to a current in-verification time; [0116] disclosing that the time-series test case defining unit 117 saves a sensor value from the time-series input value 108, the sensor value being a saved sensor value corresponding to the in-verification time, in the old control software verification input value 107 and in the new control software verification input value 106. In other words, the time-series test case defining unit 117 selects a test case including an input value corresponding to the in-verification time, from the time-series input value; [0117] disclosing that the old control software unit 112 carries out a calculation, using the old control software verification input value 107 as input, and saves a result of the calculation in the old control software verification output value 105. The new control software unit 113 carries out a calculation, using the new control software verification input value 106 as input, and saves a result of the calculation in the new control software verification output value 104. The output comparing unit 118 compares the old control software verification output value 105 with the new control software verification output value 104, and transmits test condition information corresponding to a result of the comparison through the transmission unit); ... (1); and
a computation unit configured to execute the verification target with a new automatic driving control software program in the execution available duration (see at least Ishigooka, [0037] ; [0066]; [0114]; [0116]; [0117]) ... (2) ... . But Ishigooka does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Morley:
(1) a verification target choosing unit configured to choose, from verification scenarios for verifying performance of a new automatic driving control software program, a verification scenario executable and completable within the execution available duration as a verification target (see at least Morley, Abstract; disclosing that validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously. For instance, the autonomous control software is run through a driving scenario to observe an outcome for the autonomous control software. A validation model is run through the driving scenario a plurality of times to observe an outcome for the model for each of the plurality of times; [0069] disclosing that to pass a given category, the autonomous control software may be required to achieve one or more of the following requirements: avoid collision in an equal or greater number of scenarios than the validation model within the given category, achieve an average buffer distance over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that is greater than or equal to an average buffer distance achieved by the validation model for those scenarios, achieve an average reaction time to begin reacting to a potential collision over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that is greater than or equal to an average reaction time to begin reacting to a potential collision achieved by the validation model for those scenarios, achieve average performance metrics (such as maximum lateral acceleration or deceleration, maximum longitudinal acceleration or deceleration. or jerk) over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that are less than or equal to average performance metrics achieved by the validation model, cause the virtual vehicle to perform maneuvers over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category which are as safe or safer than maneuvers which the validation software cause the virtual vehicle to perform for those scenarios, and have no more collisions of a certain severity level or greater, such as S2 or S3, over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category than the validation software for those scenarios ; [0070] disclosing that to pass a given category grouping, the autonomous control software may be required to achieve one or more of the aforementioned requirements for a given category, but rather than evaluating over the scenarios of a given category, the requirements may be evaluated over all scenarios within the categories or the category grouping; [0071] disclosing that if the autonomous control software is able to meet the aforementioned requirements for all scenarios, categories and/or category groupings depending upon how the evaluations are conducted, the autonomous control software may be considered validated with respect to the validation model or at least partially validated with respect to the validation model if other validation processes are also used) ... ;
(2) to execute the verification target with a new automatic driving control software program in the execution available duration (see at least Morley, [0042]; [0047] disclosing that each scenario may also be associated with a “handover time” or the time when the autonomous control software and the validation model are given control of controlling the virtual vehicle <interpreted as the execution available duration> within the scenario. The handover time may be automatically selected for each scenario according to the circumstances of that scenario. In some instances, the handover time may further be confirmed or hand tuned by a human operator, for instance using operations workstation 440. ; [0049] disclosing that the handover time may be determined based on the perception of the autonomous control software or the validation model; [0067] ; [0069] disclosing that to pass a given category, the autonomous control software may be required to achieve one or more of the following requirements: avoid collision in an equal or greater number of scenarios than the validation model within the given category, achieve an average buffer distance over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that is greater than or equal to an average buffer distance achieved by the validation model for those scenarios, achieve an average reaction time to begin reacting to a potential collision over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that is greater than or equal to an average reaction time to begin reacting to a potential collision <interpreted as the execution available duration> achieved by the validation model for those scenarios, achieve average performance metrics (such as maximum lateral acceleration or deceleration, maximum longitudinal acceleration or deceleration. or jerk) over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category that are less than or equal to average performance metrics achieved by the validation model, cause the virtual vehicle to perform maneuvers over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category which are as safe or safer than maneuvers which the validation software cause the virtual vehicle to perform for those scenarios, and have no more collisions of a certain severity level or greater, such as S2 or S3, over all or a subset of the scenarios of the given category than the validation software for those scenario).
Ishigooka and Morley are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, to provide the benefit of (1) choosing, from verification scenarios for verifying performance of a new automatic driving control software program, a verification scenario executable and completable within the execution available duration as a verification target, and (2) executing the verification target with a new automatic driving control software program in the execution available duration, as disclosed in Morley, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety of the vehicle and externally by verifying the validity of the software update (see at least Morley, [0002]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ishigooka further discloses the following limitation:
further comprising a verification unit configured to verify a new automatic driving control software program based on a computation result of the current automatic driving control software program in which the computation is executed by the computation unit at a time other than the execution available duration and a computation result of a new automatic driving control software program in which the computation is executed by the computation unit within the execution available duration (see at least Ishigooka, [0034]; [0066]; [0114]; [0116]; [0117]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Morley further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the external environmental information includes sensor information acquired from a sensor that detects an external environment of the vehicle (see at least Morley, [0034] disclosing the perception system 172 also includes one or more components for detecting objects external to the vehicle such as other vehicles, obstacles in the roadway, traffic signals, signs, trees, etc. For example, the perception system 172 may include lasers, sonar, radar, cameras and/or any other detection devices that record data which may be processed by computing device 110).
As per claim 5, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Ishigooka further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the external environmental information includes cloud information acquired by cloud communication (see at least Ishigooka, [0038] disclosing that FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of a system and a vehicle control device according to a first embodiment of the present invention. An autonomous driving system 1 includes an autonomous driving ECU 11, a sensor ECU 12, a gateway ECU 13, an actuator ECU 14, and a cloud 15. The autonomous driving ECU 11 can communicate with the sensor ECU 12, the gateway ECU 13, and the actuator ECU 14, and can transmit and receive data to and from the cloud 15 via the gateway ECU 13).
As per claim 7, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above.
wherein the external environmental information includes image information of an object indicating that automatic 58 driving ends (see at least Morley, [0125] disclosing that the condition may be a condition that the vehicle is in a predetermined specific state, such as a manual driving state or a parked state. Alternatively, it may be a condition that the verification flag is switched on when the CPU load becomes equal to smaller than a preset CPU load value; [0194]; [0215]).
As per claim 12, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Ishigooka further discloses the following limitation:
wherein when a plurality of the verification scenarios executable and completable within the execution available duration exist, the verification target choosing unit chooses the verification target based on a priority of the verification scenario set in advance (see at least Ishigooka, [0066] disclosing that verification management unit 115 determines whether an in-verification time exceeds a verification end time; [0163]; [0208]; [0210] disclosing that vehicle control device according to (2), comprising the verification management unit that executes a verification process with priority lower than priority of control application processing, such as autonomous driving).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigooka and Morley as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0077347 to Liu et al. (hereafter Liu).
As per claim 4, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, as shown above. But, neither Ishigooka nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Liu:
wherein the sensor information includes a video of an intersection ahead of the vehicle and a video of a traffic light ahead of the vehicle (see at least Liu, [0110] disclosing that a surround view camera can be used to simultaneously capture the status change video of all traffic lights in the intersection, and the video can include a complete status cycle of each traffic light in the intersection (complete red light, complete green light, complete yellow light), and then use the traffic light recognition algorithm (including but not limited to convolutional neural network, deep learning, etc.) to identify the status duration, status switching time, etc., and generate the above information according to the status switching time and the status lasting time).
Ishigooka, Morley and Liu are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract). Liu relates to a vehicle behavior prediction method, a vehicle behavior prediction apparatus (see at least Liu, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley, to provide the benefit of having the sensor information include a video of an intersection ahead of the vehicle and a video of a traffic light ahead of the vehicle, as disclosed in Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the accuracy of the vehicle's driving stat (see at least Liu, [0003]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigooka and Morley as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0003564 to Oidemizu et al. (hereafter Oidemizu).
As per claim 6, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Morley further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the cloud information includes red duration of a forward traffic light, traffic jam occurrence information (see at least Morley, [0030] disclosing that the routing system 168 and/or data 132 may store detailed map information, e.g., highly detailed maps identifying the shape and elevation of roadways, lane lines, intersections, crosswalks, speed limits, traffic signals, buildings, signs, real time traffic information, vegetation, or other such objects and information; [0031] disclosing that Fig. 2 is an example of map information 200 for a section of roadway including intersections 202 and 204. In this example, the map information 200 includes information identifying the shape, location, and other characteristics of lane lines 210, 212, 214, traffic signal lights 220, 222, crosswalk 230, sidewalks 240, stop signs 250, 252, and yield sign 26) ... . But, neither Ishigooka nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Oidemizu:
wherein the cloud information includes ... a traffic signal switching timing (see at least Oidemizu, [0053] disclosing that an example of “switching information” for traffic signals 50 is illustrated in FIG. 3. FIG. 3 illustrates a table of switching information for each of two traffic signals 50A and 50B. In the table of FIG. 3, information on target traffic signals 50, switching times, and signal lamp colors displayed at the respective switching times is stored as the “switching information”. The signal lamp colors may include yellow in addition to two colors of red and green illustrated in FIG. 3. Instead of the information on signal lamp colors, information on pictures indicating permission to proceed and non-permission to proceed may be included; [0093]; [0094]).
Ishigooka, Morley and Oidemizu are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract). Liu relates to a vehicle behavior prediction method, a vehicle behavior prediction apparatus (see at least Liu, [0002]). Oidemizu relates to a control apparatus that detects, based on the acquired route information and the acquired travel information, a waiting point on the route, at which a waiting time period for the user is to occur, and output deceleration information for prompting the user to decelerate to delay, within a range of the waiting time period, arrival of the user at the detected waiting point (see Oidemizu, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley, to provide the benefit of having the cloud information include a traffic signal switching timing, as disclosed in Oidemizu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of certainty in reducing waiting time periods (see at least Oidemizu, [0017]).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigooka and Morley as applied to claim7 above, and further in view of Oidemizu and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0158329 Benhammou et al. (hereafter Benhammou).
As per claim 8, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 7, as shown above. But, neither Ishigooka nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation disclosed in Oidemizu:
wherein the image information of the object includes image information of a traffic light displaying yellow ... (see at least Oidemizu, [0053] disclosing that an example of “switching information” for traffic signals 50 is illustrated in FIG. 3. FIG. 3 illustrates a table of switching information for each of two traffic signals 50A and 50B. In the table of FIG. 3, information on target traffic signals 50, switching times, and signal lamp colors displayed at the respective switching times is stored as the “switching information”. The signal lamp colors may include yellow in addition to two colors of red and green illustrated in FIG. 3. Instead of the information on signal lamp colors, information on pictures indicating permission to proceed and non-permission to proceed may be included). But, neither Ishigooka, nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Benhammou:
wherein the image information of the object includes image information of a ... image information of a railroad crossing, image information of a temporary stop line, image information of a temporary stop sign, and image information of a bus stopped at a bus stop (see at least Benhammou, [0011] disclosing collection of data from a plurality of traffic hardware devices disposed locally at a site of interest along a roadway (e.g., an intersection). This data may be comprised of traffic signal phase timings (past, current, and potential), cycle times, traffic counts, camera imagery, radar signals, loop detector responses, conflict monitor alerts, etc. Any data generated locally by traffic hardware devices may be considered relevant to the present invention and may be collected accordingly; [0035] disclosing that public/private key pairings may assist a vehicle (or associated device) in filtering communications and verifying their authenticity. Each traffic signal (or each traffic data transmitter associated with a traffic signal or other feature of interest such as a traffic sign, emergency vehicle access, truck entrance, merge lane, rail crossing, etc.) may be assigned a secret (i.e., private) key for signing the information which it transmits and also a public key for authentication by vehicles).
Ishigooka, Morley, Oidemizu and Benhammou are analogous art to claim 8 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract). Liu relates to a vehicle behavior prediction method, a vehicle behavior prediction apparatus (see at least Liu, [0002]). Oidemizu relates to a control apparatus that detects, based on the acquired route information and the acquired travel information, a waiting point on the route, at which a waiting time period for the user is to occur, and output deceleration information for prompting the user to decelerate to delay, within a range of the waiting time period, arrival of the user at the detected waiting point (see Oidemizu, Abstract). Benhammou relates to monitoring traffic data with a device associated with a vehicle and implementing policies to improve vehicle operation safety (see Benhammou, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley, to provide the benefit of having the image information of the object includes image information of a traffic light displaying yellow, as disclosed in Oidemizu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving certainty in reducing waiting time periods (see at least Oidemizu, [0017]).
It would further be obvious to modify the device as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley and Oidemizu, to provide the benefit of the image information of the object include image information of a railroad crossing, a temporary stop line, a temporary stop sign, and a bus stopped at a bus stop, as disclosed in Benhammou, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring the safety of the system through verification.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigooka and Morley as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0059664 to Jang.
As per claim 9, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, neither Ishigooka nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Jang:
wherein the execution available duration prediction unit predicts the execution available duration based on information indicating that the automatic driving ends acquired from an in-vehicle user interface of the vehicle (see at least Jang, [0020] disclosing that a method of driving a vehicle, including generating route information for the vehicle being driven in an autonomous driving mode, disabling the autonomous driving mode, in response to the route information violating a rule for a time period greater than a threshold; [0064] disclosing that processor 620 may transition (or change) the route generating mode from the autonomous driving disable mode to the autonomous driving mode in response to the driving route being possible to generate based on the rule).
Ishigooka, Morley and Jang are analogous art to claim 9 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract). Jang relates to relates to a method and apparatus for operating an autonomous driving controller (see Jang, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley, to provide the benefit of predicting the execution available duration based on information indicating that the automatic driving ends acquired from an in-vehicle user interface of the vehicle, as disclosed in Jang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring that vehicle safety recognizes the surrounding objects (see Jang, [0003]).
As per claim 10, the combination of Ishigooka, Morley and Jang discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Morley further disclose the following limitation:
wherein the information indicating that the automatic driving ends acquired from the in-vehicle user interface of the vehicle includes information for the vehicle to switch from an automatic driving mode to an automatic parking mode (see at least Morley, [0215] disclosing that the vehicle control device according to (1), wherein the idle time resource is used for a manual driving mode, a charging mode, a preceding vehicle following mode, and a parking mode)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigooka and Morley as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0406160 to Fukami.
As per claim 11, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, neither Ishigooka nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Fukami:
wherein when the verification scenario executable and completable within the execution available duration does [[59]] not exist, the verification target choosing unit chooses the verification target by dividing the verification scenario into sizes executable and completable within the execution available duration (see at least Fukami, [0021] disclosing that As shown in FIG. 5, the test execution control unit 120 divides the plurality of test scenarios (to be executed in verification in the simulation system of FIG. 1), i.e., a scenario 1, a scenario 2, a scenario 3, a scenario 4, and a scenario 5, into a plurality of phases, i.e., a phase A, a phase B, and a phase C, so as to create a scenario division table S100. While each of the scenarios 1 to 5 is originally a single scenario, in the scenario division table S100, each common part among the scenarios 1 to 5 is cut out as a phase; [0094] disclosing that in the simulation system shown in FIG. 1, the test execution control computer 100 and the virtual computer management computer 200 are coordinated with each other as has been described above. With this configuration, it is possible to utilize each of halfway results of the simulation, to reduce a load exerted on the computer system, and to reduce a period of time for executing the simulation).
Ishigooka, Morley and Fukami are analogous art to claim 11 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract). Fukami relates to a technique for using a virtual computer to verify software, and particularly to a verification technique suitable for development of an incorporated system (see Fukami, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley, to provide the benefit of choosing the verification target by dividing the verification scenario into sizes executable and completable within the execution available duration, when the verification scenario executable and completable within the execution available duration does not exist, as disclosed in Fukami, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the safety and reliability of the vehicle (see Fukami, [0003]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigooka and Morley as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0396292 to Benmimoun et al. (hereafter Benmimoun).
As per claim 13, the combination of Ishigooka and Morley discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Ishigooka further discloses:
wherein the execution available duration prediction unit predicts the execution available duration (see at least Ishigooka, [0015]; [0016] disclosing that the time-series test case defining unit 117 saves a sensor value from the time-series input value 108, the sensor value being a saved sensor value corresponding to the in-verification time, in the old control software verification input value 107 and in the new control software verification input value 106. In other words, the time-series test case defining unit 117 selects a test case including an input value corresponding to the in-verification time, from the time-series input value) ... . But, neither Ishigooka nor Morley explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Benmimoun:
predicts the execution available duration based on information on an internal state of another control device of the vehicle (see at least Benmimoun, [0021] disclosing that the control unit evaluates (verifies) the user command and eventually stops the vehicle (cancels the autonomous parking or driving operation)).
Ishigooka, Morley and Benmimoun are analogous art to claim 13 because they are in the same field of vehicle control devices that verify performance of control system software. Ishigooka relates to vehicle control that includes verification management of software versions (see Ishigooka, Abstract). Morley relates to validating autonomous control software for operating a vehicle autonomously (see at least Morley, Abstract). Benmimoun relates to a method for controlling a user-initiated vehicle-operation-command during an autonomous driving or parking operation of the vehicle (see at least Benmimoun, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ishigooka, as modified by Morley, to provide the benefit of predicting the execution available duration based on information on an internal state of another control device of the vehicle, as disclosed in Benmimoun, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the safety of the vehicle.
As per claim 14, the combination of Ishigooka, Morley and Benmimoun discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Benmimoun further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the information on the internal state of the another control device includes information indicating a state in which the vehicle is switched from the automatic driving mode to the automatic parking mode (see at least Benmimoun, [0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0263709 to Hirano et al. (hereafter Hirano) at [0017] disclosing that the vehicle state extractor 214 extracts a vehicle state from a received frame. The vehicle state includes at least one of in automatic driving, in automatic parking, in cruise control, in software update, in vehicle diagnosis, or in internet communication connection.
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights