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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “wherein the first sensor group and the second sensor group comprise a positioning sensor and a millimeter-wave radar”. It is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. Do each of the first sensor group and sensor group include both a positioning sensor and a millimeter-wave radar? If so, the claim should clarify that each of the first sensor group and the second sensor group comprise both sensors. Does the first sensor group include a positioning sensor and the second sensor group comprise a millimeter-wave radar? If so the end of the claim should say “respectively” or be otherwise worded to clarify. Do either of the first sensor group or the second sensor group include a positioning sensor and a millimeter-wave radar? If so, the claim should clarify that either sensor group can contain either sensor specified. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such the first sensor group and/or the second sensor group include a positioning sensor and/or a millimeter-wave radar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or an apparatus (claims 1, 10, and 19), which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified apparatus claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 10 recites the limitations of:
“A control apparatus, comprising one or more memories configured to store programming instructions; and a first control processor and a second control processer coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: obtain a first sensing result based on data collected by a sensor in a first sensor group; obtain a second sensing result based on data collected by a sensor in a second sensor group; and send a first control instruction to an executor of a vehicle based on the first sensing result and the second sensing result, wherein the second sensing result is sent from the second control processor to the first control processor.”
The limitation of sending a first control instruction based on the first sensing result and the second sensing result includes a step of determining the first control instruction which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more memories configured to store programming instructions; and a first control processor and a second control processer coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “one or more memories configured to store programming instructions; and a first control processor and a second control processer coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to” language, determining the first control instruction in the context of the claim encompasses a person mentally evaluating obtained first and second sensing results and making a determination on what the control instruction should be. For example, receiving a camera image and a radar result and determining that the vehicle is too close to an obstacle, a person can determine that the control instruction should be to brake the vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using one or more controllers/processors to perform the recited steps stored in one or more memories. The one or more controllers/processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions stored in generic memories) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations of obtaining first and second sensing results from a sensor of a first and second sensor group as recited, and these sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering data used for the determining step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations of an executor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic actuator or the like of a vehicle). The step of sensing a control instruction is recited at a high level of generality, and is considered data transmission which insignificant extra-solution activity in response to the determining step. Sending/receiving signals/instructions has been held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. Sending/receiving signals/instructions has been held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 10 (and similarly claims 1 and 19) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 7 and 16 recite “the second control processor is further configured to control, based on the third sensing result and the second sensing result, the vehicle to stop traveling” which integrates the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia (US 2021/0001886 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jia discloses a control method, comprising: obtaining, by a first controller, a first sensing result based on data collected by a sensor in a first sensor group (see at least abstract, [0094-0095, 0125-0127] – a first group sensing apparatus corresponds to a first computing system); obtaining, by a second controller, a second sensing result based on data collected by a sensor in a second sensor group (see at least abstract, [0094-0095, 0125-0127] – a second group sensing apparatus corresponds to a second computing system); receiving, by the first controller, the second sensing result from the second controller (see at least abstract, [0119-0127] - when any one of the first computing system or the second computing system is faulty, the computing device may generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty); and sending, by the first controller, a first control instruction to an executor of a vehicle based on the first sensing result and the second sensing result (see at least abstract, [0119-0127] - when any one of the first computing system or the second computing system is faulty, the computing device may generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty, and further controls safe driving of the vehicle according to the control instruction).
Regarding claim 2, Jia discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the second controller, the first sensing result from the first controller; and generating, by the second controller, a second control instruction based on the first sensing result and the second sensing result (see at least abstract, [0119-0127] - when any one of the first computing system or the second computing system is faulty, the computing device may generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty).
Regarding claim 3, Jia discloses wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the second controller, the second control instruction to the executor (see at least abstract, [0119-0127] - when any one of the first computing system or the second computing system is faulty, the computing device may generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty, and further controls safe driving of the vehicle according to the control instruction).
Regarding claim 4, Jia discloses wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the first controller is faulty, stopping, by the first controller, sending the first control instruction to the executor (see at least abstract, [0119-0127, 0141-0142] - generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty, and further controls safe driving of the vehicle according to the control instruction).
Regarding claim 5, Jia discloses wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the first controller is faulty, stopping, by the first controller, sending the first control instruction (see at least abstract, [0119-0127, 0141-0142] - generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty, and further controls safe driving of the vehicle according to the control instruction); and sending, by the second controller, the second control instruction to the executor in response to determining that the first controller is faulty and the second controller is not faulty (see at least abstract, [0119-0127] - generate a corresponding control instruction based on the first structured data and the second structured data using the computing system that is not faulty, and further controls safe driving of the vehicle according to the control instruction).
Regarding claim 8, Jia discloses wherein at least some sensors in the first sensor group are different from sensors in the second sensor group (see at least [0051, 0088-0089, 0115] - the sensing apparatuses included in the first group sensing apparatus and the second group sensing apparatus may be the same or different).
Regarding claims 10 and 19-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 10 and 19-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 10 and 19-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 3; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
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 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 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Hogenmueller (US 2016/0103450 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jia does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining that the vehicle is in an autonomous driving state before sending the first control instruction to the executor; and prompting a user to take over the vehicle.
Hogenmueller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining that the vehicle is in an autonomous driving state before sending the first control instruction to the executor (see at least [0039] - The takeover request is output from the system to the driver by means of the HMI 6 if the system consisting of the first and the second computer units 1, 2 is performing a driving function, in particular is automating the driving function, i.e. without the influence of the driver, wherein however the system wishes to hand the driving function back to the driver.); and prompting a user to take over the vehicle (see at least [0039] - The takeover request is output from the system to the driver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hogenmueller into the invention of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving safety in the event of a fault or failure during autonomous driving (Hogenmueller – [0012-0013, 0028]).
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 6; therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Wulf (US 2022/0363276 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jia does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first controller is faulty at a first moment, and the method further comprises: sending, by the first controller, a third sensing result to the second controller, wherein the third sensing result comprises a result obtained based on performing sensing by the first controller in a first time period on the data collected by the sensor in the first sensor group, and the first time period is before the first moment; and controlling, by the second controller based on the third sensing result and the second sensing result, the vehicle to stop traveling.
Wulf, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first controller is faulty at a first moment, and the method further comprises: sending, by the first controller, a third sensing result to the second controller, wherein the third sensing result comprises a result obtained based on performing sensing by the first controller in a first time period on the data collected by the sensor in the first sensor group, and the first time period is before the first moment (see at least [0024-0025, 0066, 0079] – stop-in-lane braking maneuver… stop-on-hard-shoulder braking maneuver… central control unit 15 performs trajectory planning, provides the planned trajectory TR to the redundancy control unit 19); and controlling, by the second controller based on the third sensing result and the second sensing result, the vehicle to stop traveling (see at least [0024-0025, 0066, 0079] - stop-in-lane braking maneuver… stop-on-hard-shoulder braking maneuver… central control unit 15 performs trajectory planning, provides the planned trajectory TR to the redundancy control unit 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wulf into the invention of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of safely bringing the vehicle to a standstill while avoiding collisions in the event of a failure of the autonomous operating driving system (Wulf – [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 7; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Jia does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first control processor is configured for an autonomous driving service, and the second control processor is configured for a safe parking function.
Wulf, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first control processor is configured for an autonomous driving service (see at least [0023] – autonomous operating driving system), and the second control processor is configured for a safe parking function (see at least [0023-0024] – controlled braking maneuver… stop-in-lane braking maneuver… stop-on-hard-shoulder braking maneuver).
The motivation to combine Jia and Wulf is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Ju (US 2021/0046945 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jia discloses wherein the first sensor group and the second sensor group comprise a positioning sensor and a radar (see at least [0047-0048, 0109] – GPS, laser radar sensor).
Jia does not appear to explicitly disclose millimeter-wave radar.
Ju, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: millimeter-wave radar (see at least [0042] – millimeter wave radar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ju into the invention of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of acquiring obstacle information at a long distance to respond to a high-speed scenario (Ju – [0042]). Furthermore, millimeter-wave radar is known to be used in the application of vehicles because it can operate in all types of weather for enhanced safety, and so integrating millimeter-wave radar would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Chi (US 2021/0048816 A1) is directed to a system for controlling a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode. The system includes a plurality of sensors configured to generate sensor data. The system also includes a first computing system configured to generate trajectories using the sensor data and send the generated trajectories to a second computing system. The second computing system is configured to cause the vehicle to follow a receive trajectory. The system also includes a third computing system configured to, when there is a failure of the first computer system, generate and send trajectories to the second computing system based on whether a vehicle is located on a highway or a surface street.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669