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 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 7 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 9-10, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle” in three instances, but the second and third instance should instead recite --[[a]] the vehicle--.
Claim 9 recites “the second sensor group comprise” but should instead recite --the second sensor group comprises--.
Claim 10 recites “a vehicle” in two instances, but the second instance should instead recite --[[a]] the vehicle--.
Claim 19 recites “a vehicle” in two instances, but the second instance should instead recite --[[a]] the vehicle--.
Claim 20 recites “a vehicle” but should instead recite --[[a]] the vehicle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 10-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin (US 2019/0250611 A1) in view of Shinoda (US 2022/0017107 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Costin discloses a control method for load sharing between controllers of a vehicle, 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 Fig. 3, [0055-0057] – primary ECU 320… sensor 310… sensor set 314); obtaining, by a second controller, a second sensing result based on data collected by a sensor in a second sensor group (see at least Fig. 3, [0055-0057] – backup ECU 350… sensor 340… sensor set 344); receiving, by the first controller, the second sensing result from the second controller via a communication bus (see at least Fig. 3, [0026, 0055-0057] - repeater 359 of the backup ECU 350 forwards sensor data received from sensor 340 to the converter 324 of the primary ECU 320 via bridging communication link 377); when the first controller is not faulty, sending, by the first controller, a first control instruction to an executor of a vehicle (see at least Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has not failed it will continue to generate control outputs) based on a fusion of the first sensing result and the second sensing result (see at least Fig. 3, [0055-0057] – converter 324 is configured to aggregate the sensor data from sensor 340 with the sensor data collected from sensor set 314 via link 316 before transmitting the aggregated sensor data to the SoC 322); when the first controller is faulty at a first moment (see at least Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has failed the backup ECU 350 will operate to generate control outputs), 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, the first time period is before the first moment (see at least Fig. 3, [0055-0057, 0059] – the repeater 329 forwards sensor data received from sensor 310 to converter 354 of backup ECU 350 via bridging communication link 376… sensor data can be transmitted in real-time or near real time… sensor data received from sensor 310… sensor 310 can be a camera and sensor data can be camera data and can be processed, i.e., sensor data from sensor 310 of the previous time step).
Costin does not appear to explicitly disclose sending, by the second controller, a third control instruction to the executor of a vehicle based on a fusion of the third sensing result and the second sensing result.
Shinoda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: when the first controller is not faulty, sending, by the first controller, a first control instruction to an executor of a vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 4-6, [0051] – in the normal operation mode, the vehicle control unit 32 generates a drive signal that drives each actuator based on the drive plan transmitted from the fusion MCU 10); when the first controller is faulty at a first moment sending 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, the first time period is before the first moment (see at least Figs. 1, 4-6, [0051, 0053, 0067-0068, 0072, 0083] – in the fallback operation mode, the vehicle control unit 32 generates a drive signal that drives each actuator based on the drive plan transmitted from the fallback calculation unit 34… the fallback calculation unit 34 reads the latest dynamic map constructed by the fusion MCU 10 and detection results by the failure detection units 11, 21, and 31… fallback calculation unit 34 constructs a dynamic map (second dynamic map) based on the latest first dynamic map and the second surrounding situation and creates a drive plan for fallback operation based on the second dynamic map and transmits the created drive plan to the vehicle control unit 32); and sending, by the second controller, a third control instruction to the executor of a vehicle based on a fusion of the third sensing result and the second sensing result (see at least Figs. 1, 4-6, [0072] – fallback calculation unit 34 constructs a dynamic map (second dynamic map) based on the latest first dynamic map and the second surrounding situation and creates a drive plan for fallback operation based on the second dynamic map and transmits the created drive plan to the vehicle control unit 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Shinoda into the invention of Costin with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to use the latest data from before the occurrence of the failure to safely move the vehicle to an escape place upon failure (Shinoda – [0008, 0068]). This utilizes the most recent reliable data from before failure of the primary controller in order to construct a current accurate representation of the current surroundings to provide a safe escape plan.
Regarding claim 2, Costin discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the second controller, the first sensing result from the first controller (see at least Fig. 3, [0055-0057] – the repeater 329 forwards sensor data received from sensor 310 to converter 354 of backup ECU 350); and generating, by the second controller, a second control instruction (see at least Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has failed the backup ECU 350 will operate to generate control outputs) based on the first sensing result and the second sensing result (see at least Fig. 3, [0055-0057] - converter 354 is configured to aggregate the sensor data from sensor 310 with sensor data collected from sensor set 344 via link set 346 before transmitting the aggregated sensor data to SoC 352 of the backup ECU 350 via data interface 362).
Regarding claim 3, Costin discloses wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the second controller, the second control instruction to the executor (see at least Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has failed the backup ECU 350 will operate to generate control outputs).
Regarding claim 4, Costin 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 Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has failed the backup ECU 350 will operate to generate control outputs).
Regarding claim 5, Costin 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 Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has failed the backup ECU 350 will operate to generate control outputs); 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 Fig. 3, [0039, 0047] – if one of the SoCs fails, the other can continue to operate… generate control output to perform advanced driver assistance (ADA) and vehicle control functions, such as autonomous vehicle control functions, i.e., when primary ECU 320 has failed the backup ECU 350 will operate to generate control outputs).
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 18, Costin discloses wherein the first control processor is configured for an autonomous driving service (see at least [0039] - If one of the SoCs fails for a variety of reasons, the other SoC can continue to operate. Because the SoCs are performing operations that are redundant to the operations that would have been performed by the failed SoC, autonomy and its associated critical functions can be maintained when one of the processors fails. In some example non-limiting implementations, the SoCs receive the same inputs or at least have access to the same inputs. For example, the SoCs may be connected to a common bus such as the CAN bus, or an arrangement of multiple redundant buses, and are thereby able to access the same information.).
Costin does not appear to explicitly disclose the second control processor is configured for a safe parking function.
Shinoda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first control processor is configured for an autonomous driving service, and the second control processor is configured for a safe parking function (see at least Figs. 1, 4-6, [0023, 0077] –normal operation mode corresponding to autonomous drive using the fusion MCU 10… fallback operation mode corresponding to control MCU 30 moves the own vehicle to a safe escape place to stop, when a failure occurs).
The motivation to combine Costin and Shinoda is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin in view of Shinoda and Hogenmueller (US 2016/0103450 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Costin 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 Costin 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 8, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin in view of Shinoda and Jia (US 2021/0001886 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Costin does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least some sensors in the first sensor group are different from sensors in the second sensor group.
Jia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Jia into the invention of Costin with a reasonable expectation of success. Costin discloses a list of different types of sensors (Costin – [0020, 0071]). Jia demonstrates that sometimes the sensor types of the different groups may be different. When sensor data needs to be different, the sensor data is exchanged to ensure data integrity and reliability (Jia – [0051, 0117]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to utilize different sensors and still yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 17 and 21, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claims 17 and 21 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claims 17 and 21 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin in view of Shinoda, Jia, and Ju (US 2021/0046945 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Costin does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor group comprises a positioning sensor and the second sensor group comprise a millimeter-wave radar.
However, Costin does disclose a positioning sensor and a radar (see at least [0071]).
Jia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first sensor group comprises a positioning sensor and the second sensor group comprise a radar (see at least [0047-0048, 0109] – controllers 610 and 615 provide autonomous driving outputs in response to an array of sensor inputs… GPS, laser, radar sensor).
The motivation to combine Costin and Jia is the same as in the rejection of claim 8 above.
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 Costin 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin in view of Shinoda and Samii (US 2018/0348754 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Costin does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first control instruction carries a first priority level and the second control instruction carries a second priority level, and the method further comprises: the executor executes the first control instruction and discards the second control instruction based on a comparison of the first priority level and the second priority level.
Shinoda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first control instruction carries a first priority level and the second control instruction carries a second priority level (see at least [0051] – in normal operation mode drive plan is transmitted from the fusion MCU 10… in fallback operation mode the drive plan is transmitted from the fallback calculation unit 34).
The motivation to combine Costin and Shinoda is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Samii, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first control instruction carries a first priority level and the second control instruction carries a second priority level, and the method further comprises: the executor executes the first control instruction and discards the second control instruction based on a comparison of the first priority level and the second priority level (see at least Fig. 1, [0044] – The vehicle systems 112 receive instructions simultaneously from both the primary and secondary controllers 102, 104, but normally defaults to instructions from the primary controller 102.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Samii into the invention of Costin with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that simultaneously providing the primary command instructions and the secondary command instructions having pre-identified command instructions for the safe operation to the vehicle system, the pre-identified command instructions for the safe operation are available if the primary controller becomes silent (Samii – [0021]).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Costin and Shinoda.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights