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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the boxes in the figures lack descriptive text labeling. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding [0004], “a necessary level of safety integrity (e.g. ASIL)” should read “a necessary level of safety integrity (e.g. Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL))” because the first instance of an acronym should be preceded by the full name for which the acronym stands for.
Regarding [0023], “future vehicle E/E architectures” should read “future vehicle Electrical/Electronic (E/E) architectures” because the first instance of an acronym should be preceded by the full name for which the acronym stands for.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 10-11 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.
Regarding claim 10, line 6, the limitation “the controller” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the “required controller” or is a new controller.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10 and inherits the deficiency above. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected on similar grounds to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a method and recites at least one step, claim 13 is directed to a controller, and claim 14 is directed to a program executed on a computer, and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for a program. Therefore, claims 1-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process and apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for determining a safety integrity level of a safety-related vehicle function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
providing at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal representing infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data determined for the safety-related vehicle function provided by the motor vehicle;
determining the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function based on the provided at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal; and
allocating a calculation of the safety-related vehicle function to an in-vehicle and/or an off-vehicle system taking into account a predetermined safety integrity of the in-vehicle and/or the off-vehicle system.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a safety integrity level based on the data provided and determine which system should carry out the calculation.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for determining a safety integrity level of a safety-related vehicle function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
providing at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal representing infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data determined for the safety-related vehicle function provided by the motor vehicle;
determining the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function based on the provided at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal; and
allocating a calculation of the safety-related vehicle function to an in-vehicle and/or an off-vehicle system taking into account a predetermined safety integrity of the in-vehicle and/or the off-vehicle system.
The recitation of “motor vehicle” is provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the limitation fails to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. The limitation of “providing… sensor data…” falls under “mere data gathering” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states insignificant extra-solution activity fails to integrate a judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Therefore, the additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons. Specifically regarding claim 13, the limitation “controller” is provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional element fails to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea set forth in claim 1. No other technology or action has been recited in the claims to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-5 and 7-9 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 6, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “classifying an environment of the motor vehicle” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to look at the data and determine what the environment of the vehicle is. The additional element “classification algorithm” is provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 10, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “resources available in the motor vehicle and in an environment of the motor vehicle to calculate… are determined” and “a maximum latency required for calculating… is determined” which are also abstract ideas that can be performed in the mind and mathematical calculations. For example, One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether a vehicle has a computer or a connection to an outside resource. The maximum latency for a calculation is a mathematical determination. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 11 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “controller” is provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 12 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitations “v2x,” “edge server, fog, cloud, controller” are provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 14 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitations “computer program” and “program code” are provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 15 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium” is provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0047581 A1; hereinafter Bai) in view of Sugiyama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0132058 A1; hereinafter Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses:
A computer-implemented method for determining a safety integrity level of a safety-related vehicle function of a motor vehicle (categorizing quality of service requirements for a task such as safe operation of vehicle, see at least [0025]), comprising:
providing at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal representing infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data determined for the safety-related vehicle function provided by the motor vehicle (vehicle includes environmental sensors and internal state sensors that send data to processor to determine an action to be taken by vehicle, see at least [0023]);
determining the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function based on the provided at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal (demands of processor can vary based on type of vehicle and criticality of computational task, the more critical task for safe operation of vehicle requires greater demand for high quality of service from processor, tasks can be categorized based on quality of service, see at least [0025]); and
allocating a calculation of the safety-related vehicle function to an in-vehicle and/or an off-vehicle system taking into account a predetermined safety integrity of the in-vehicle and/or the off-vehicle system (run-time offloading manager determines which tasks are to be performed by local execution manager of processor 104 and which can be offloaded to the remote processor, see at least [0040]; tasks performed at processor can be run-to-complete task including mission-critical tasks, see at least [0042])
Bai does not explicitly disclose:
safety integrity level
However, Sugiyama teaches:
a safety integrity level of a safety-related vehicle function of a motor vehicle (devices on a vehicle implementing a function having safety standard of predetermined level, see at least [0006]; devices having function in which an automotive safety integral level is set, see at least [0019])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission critical computational offloading disclosed by Bai by adding the automotive safety integrity level of functions taught by Sugiyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform “processing related to the safety standard according to the allocated level without processing related to the safety standard of a plurality of levels” (see [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the allocation of the calculation of the safety-related vehicle function to the in-vehicle and/or the off- vehicle system is carried out when the predetermined safety integrity of the in- vehicle and/or the off-vehicle system satisfies the determined safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function (determine the quality of service metric, which includes reliability, required for the computational task and compare to the execution parameters for the remote processor and embedded processor to see which to run the task, see at least [0053])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal provided comprises driving situation parameters, including a vehicle speed, a direction of movement, and/or a geographic position, of the motor vehicle (environmental sensor obtains measurements about environment of vehicle such as range and velocity of various objects and internal state sensor includes acceleration sensor and brake sensor, see at least [0023])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal provided comprises a criticality parameter of a current driving situation, including a distance and/or movement of the motor vehicle relative to static and/or dynamic objects in certain regions of an environment of the motor vehicle (criticality of particular computational task differs based on the safe operation of the vehicle such as detecting other vehicles and pedestrians, see at least [0025]-[0026])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal provided comprises regions stored in a map where predetermined object types, including people and/or vehicles, are not located with a predetermined minimum probability, as well as regions defined relative to the motor vehicle (determining long-term drivable space based on objects embedded in detailed maps, see at least [0027]) *Examiner sets forth objects not in those map details are not located within those regions
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the safety-related vehicle function is a steering, braking, and/or acceleration function of the motor vehicle (computational operation includes braking, steering, propulsion, see at least [0002] and [0026])
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the safety-related vehicle function is an environmental sensing function that senses which regions of an environmental model to be calculated are relevant to determining a safe behavior of the motor vehicle and which are not relevant to determining the safe behavior of the motor vehicle (drivable space determination based on objects in detailed maps and route planned based on map information, see at least [0027]) *Examiner sets forth areas that are relevant are areas along the route in the map and areas that are not relevant are areas in the map that will not be traversed by the vehicle
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function is determined based on a real-time criticality, using real-time infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signals (mission critical tasks include perception tasks such as detecting other vehicles and pedestrians, see at least [0026])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
resources available in the motor vehicle and in an environment of the motor vehicle to calculate the safety-related vehicle function, including the safety integrity level of a required controller and/or a computer-implemented method operated on the controller are determined, and a maximum latency required for calculating the safety-related vehicle function via these resources is determined (quality of service metrics include latency, see at least [0029]; determine whether mission critical task can be assigned to remote processor based on quality of service metrics for the task such as latency, see at least [0042] and [0054])
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
the allocation of the calculation of the safety-related vehicle function with a safety integrity level below a predetermined threshold value is carried out on the controller (demands of processor 104 vary, more critical tasks require high quality of service such as mission critical tasks, see at least [0025]; mission critical tasks are performed in the processor 104 and semi-mission critical tasks are performed at remote processor, see at least [0035])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
a function execution via V2X on an external system, including an edge server, fog, cloud, controller of another road user, smart device, is requested (remote server 120 can be cloud, see at least [0024])
Regarding claim 13, Bai discloses:
A controller for determining a safety integrity level of a safety-related vehicle function of a motor vehicle (determine requirements of tasks for embedded processor 104, categorizing quality of service requirements for a task such as safe operation of vehicle, see at least [0025]), the controller configured to:
provide at least an infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal representing infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data determined for a safety-related vehicle function provided by the motor vehicle (vehicle includes environmental sensors and internal state sensors that send data to processor to determine an action to be taken by vehicle, see at least [0023]);
determine the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function based on the provided at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal (demands of processor can vary based on type of vehicle and criticality of computational task, the more critical task for safe operation of vehicle requires greater demand for high quality of service from processor, tasks can be categorized based on quality of service, see at least [0025]); and
allocate a calculation of the safety-related vehicle function to an in-vehicle and/or an off-vehicle system, taking into account a predetermined safety integrity of the in-vehicle and/or the off-vehicle system (run-time offloading manager determines which tasks are to be performed by local execution manager of processor 104 and which can be offloaded to the remote processor, see at least [0040]; tasks performed at processor can be run-to-complete task including mission-critical tasks, see at least [0042])
Bai does not explicitly disclose:
safety integrity level
However, Sugiyama teaches:
a safety integrity level of a safety-related vehicle function of a motor vehicle (devices on a vehicle implementing a function having safety standard of predetermined level, see at least [0006]; devices having function in which an automotive safety integral level is set, see at least [0019])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission critical computational offloading disclosed by Bai by adding the automotive safety integrity level of functions taught by Sugiyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform “processing related to the safety standard according to the allocated level without processing related to the safety standard of a plurality of levels” (see [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
a computer program comprises program code for performing the method when the computer program is executed on a computer (processor executes computer program for computer functions related to operating vehicle, see at least [0022])
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Sugiyama as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Stenson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0153384 A1; hereinafter Stenson).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above and Bai further discloses:
determining the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function comprises dynamically classifying an environment of the motor vehicle using a classification algorithm (mission critical tasks include detecting other vehicles and pedestrians, see at least [0026]), and
the classification algorithm is applied to the at least one infrastructure and/or vehicle sensor data signal provided, and outputs a plurality of classes representing the safety integrity level of the safety-related vehicle function (mission critical tasks includes detecting other vehicles and pedestrians, semi-mission critical tasks can include determining drivable space based on static objects embedded in detailed maps, see at least [0027])
Bai does not explicitly disclose:
classification algorithm
However, Stenson teaches:
classifying an environment of the motor vehicle using a classification algorithm (the model is used by a vehicle to classify objects surrounding the vehicle during operation of vehicle, see at least [0016] and [0079])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission critical computational offloading disclosed by Bai and the automotive safety integrity level of functions taught by Sugiyama by adding the classification model taught by Stenson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accurate determine objects for safely operating the vehicle in an environment (see [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bai and Sugiyama teaches the elements above but does not teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium comprising the program code of the computer program according to claim 14
However, Stenson teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium comprising the program code (non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions executable to perform operations, see at least [0017])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission critical computational offloading disclosed by Bai and the automotive safety integrity level of functions taught by Sugiyama by adding the non-transitory computer-readable storage media taught by Stenson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to store the program and execute the program. Furthermore, the use of non-transitory computer-readable storage media to store executable instructions is well known to those having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poledna (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0132940 A1) teaches maneuvering a supervised vehicle based on an output of an automotive safety integrity level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662