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 .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/975,330 filed on 12/10/2024.
Claims 1 – 5 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/10/2024 have been received and considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Vehicle Inspection Control Device.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control device” in claims 1 – 5.
“position acquisition unit” in claim 1.
“storage unit” in claim 1.
“determination unit” in claims 2, 3, 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a control device (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A control device that controls a mobile body that travels through unattended driving, the control device and the mobile body performing communication for controlling travel of the mobile body through the unattended driving and communication for inspecting the mobile body via an identical line, the control device comprising:
a position acquisition unit that acquires position information that indicates a current position of the mobile body;
a storage unit that stores
first information that indicates one or more inspections performed on the mobile body on a scheduled travel route of the mobile body and a point associated with each of the inspections where the inspection is performed on the travel route, and
second information that indicates a communication load in communication for the inspection and associated with the inspection; and
a determination unit that determines whether to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving based on the position information, the first information, and the second information. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determines…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of determining whether or not to cause unattended driving. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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. 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 present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A control device that controls a mobile body that travels through unattended driving, the control device and the mobile body performing communication for controlling travel of the mobile body through the unattended driving and communication for inspecting the mobile body via an identical line, the control device comprising:
a position acquisition unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that acquires position information that indicates a current position of the mobile body; [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
a storage unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that stores first information that indicates one or more inspections performed on the mobile body on a scheduled travel route of the mobile body and a point associated with each of the inspections where the inspection is performed on the travel route, and [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
second information that indicates a communication load in communication for the inspection and associated with the inspection; and [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
a determination unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that determines whether to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving based on the position information, the first information, and the second information. [mental process/step]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquires…,” and “store…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control device) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps of the position of the vehicle is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same data gathering is recited for storing the first information and second information, which is predetermined data that is stored on a storage unit. Lastly, the “position acquisition unit”, “storage unit”, “determination unit” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a determining unit to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquires…,” and “store…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 states: “wherein the determination unit is configured to: specify the inspection to be performed next based on the position information and the first information; and determine not to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving when the communication load in execution of the specified inspection meets a condition determined in advance based on the specified inspection and the second information.”. The determination unit is merely a computer used to perform the mental process of specifying the inspection to be performed next and whether or not to cause unattended driving. The ability to gather position information, first information and second information is merely performing data gathering which are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch et al. (US 20170320529 A1), further in view of Fang et al. (US 20210192867 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nordbruch teaches a control device that controls a mobile body that travels through unattended driving, (Nordbruch: Abstract: “A method for operating a vehicle, the vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system for manufacturing vehicles.”)
the control device and the mobile body performing communication for controlling travel of the mobile body through the unattended driving and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0042: “it is provided that one or multiple remote-control instruction(s) or control instruction(s) for remotely controlled driving is/are received by the vehicle, the vehicle driving correspondingly remotely controlled in response to the remote-control instruction(s) (also referred to as control instruction(s)). The receiving may also be carried out via the communication network, for example.”)
communication for inspecting the mobile body via an identical line, the control device comprising: (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0027: “it is provided that the driving operation of the vehicle is monitored and/or documented at least partially, in particular completely, with the aid of a vehicle-external monitoring system… In particular, it is, for example, possible to retrace errors or malfunctions which occurred during the driving operation. The monitoring yields the technical advantage in particular that in the case of an error or a malfunction of the vehicle, it is possible to intervene directly and immediately before any damage may occur.”; Paragraph 0028: “According to one specific embodiment, it is provided that vehicle-internal vehicle data, which are generated during the driving operation, are monitored and/or documented.”)
a position acquisition unit that acquires position information that indicates a current position of the mobile body; (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility, or an end of the assembly line or a parking facility or a parking position in a parking facility.”; Paragraph 0044: “A navigation infrastructure includes, for example, one or multiple signal transmitter(s), e.g., light signal transmitter(s), visual landmarks, for example. This is similar to a lighthouse or a light signal with which the vehicle orients itself while moving within the manufacturing system. A navigation infrastructure includes, for example, one or multiple radio transmitter(s), for example a WLAN transmitter. This is also similar to a lighthouse. The vehicle thus, in particular, follows the light signals and/or the radio signals, e.g., the WLAN signals. This following yields in particular that the vehicle is able to move to one or multiple target position(s). This therefore means that the vehicle is able to reach or reaches the one or the multiple target position(s) by following the signals.”)
a storage unit that stores
first information that indicates one or more inspections performed on the mobile body on a scheduled travel route of the mobile body and a point associated with each of the inspections where the inspection is performed on the travel route, and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility, or an end of the assembly line or a parking facility or a parking position in a parking facility.”; Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle.”; Paragraph 0066: “the present invention in particular and, inter alia, provides a technical concept in which a valet parking functionality, i.e., an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacturer (also referred to as OEM, OEM standing for original equipment manufacturer). In this way, it is advantageously possible to test and/or validate in parallel this valet parking functionality in addition to the completion of manufacture.”,
Supplemental Note: a scheduled test for the valet parking functionality is performed in a manufacturing system. The target states the various testing location the vehicle has to travel to within the manufacturing system)
… a determination unit that determines whether to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving based on the position information, the first information, and(Nordbruch: Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility, or an end of the assembly line or a parking facility or a parking position in a parking facility.”; Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle.”; Paragraph 0066: “the present invention in particular and, inter alia, provides a technical concept in which a valet parking functionality, i.e., an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacturer (also referred to as OEM, OEM standing for original equipment manufacturer). In this way, it is advantageously possible to test and/or validate in parallel this valet parking functionality in addition to the completion of manufacture.”,
Supplemental Note: a scheduled test for the valet parking functionality is performed in a manufacturing system. The target states the various testing location the vehicle has to travel to within the manufacturing system).
In sum, Nordbruch teaches a control device that controls a mobile body that travels through unattended driving the control device and the mobile body performing communication for controlling travel of the mobile body through the unattended driving and communication for inspecting the mobile body via an identical line, the control device comprising: a position acquisition unit that acquires position information that indicates a current position of the mobile body; a storage unit that stores first information that indicates one or more inspections performed on the mobile body on a scheduled travel route of the mobile body and a point associated with each of the inspections where the inspection is performed on the travel route, and a determination unit that determines whether to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving based on the position information, the first information. Nordbruch however does not teach second information that indicates a communication load in communication for the inspection and associated with the inspection.
Fang teaches second information that indicates a communication load in communication for the inspection and associated with the inspection; and (Fang: Abstract: “For example, higher capability pathing or operation algorithms related to the vehicle, increasing automation of vehicle functions, increasing demand for prognostic determinations and/or maintenance support, and increasing media streams (both the number of media streams and the quality of those media streams) all drive for increased demand in data rates, stored data amounts, and the number of entities or applications accessing the stored data.”; Paragraph 0224: “Accordingly, wherever the present disclosure references a vehicle, a vehicle system, a mobile application, industrial equipment, robotic system, and/or manufacturing systems, each one of these are also contemplated herein, and may be applicable in certain embodiments, ”; Paragraph 0545: “In certain embodiments, the vehicle data type 4508 provides an indication of the value of the data based on resolution (e.g., loss of data resolution—such as in bit depth, precision, and/or time resolution such as sampling rate and/or synchronization data matching—may have a higher utility cost for certain data types such as control data, and a lower cost for certain data types such as monitoring data)… In certain embodiments, value descriptions for collected vehicle data 2722, including loss of value determinations, may be weighted according to the amount of data, the number of parameters in the data, and/or the data type (and/or data types) represented in the data—for example a 50 kb block of data may have less weighted value than a similar 100 kb block of data (e.g., having a similar priority value expressed in the vehicle policy data value 2710 and/or a similar data type or mix of data types). ”,
Supplemental Note: the amount of vehicle data to send is determined based on the required task)
… the second information (Fang: Paragraph 0545: “In certain embodiments, the vehicle data type 4508 provides an indication of the value of the data based on resolution (e.g., loss of data resolution—such as in bit depth, precision, and/or time resolution such as sampling rate and/or synchronization data matching—may have a higher utility cost for certain data types such as control data, and a lower cost for certain data types such as monitoring data)… In certain embodiments, value descriptions for collected vehicle data 2722, including loss of value determinations, may be weighted according to the amount of data, the number of parameters in the data, and/or the data type (and/or data types) represented in the data—for example a 50 kb block of data may have less weighted value than a similar 100 kb block of data (e.g., having a similar priority value expressed in the vehicle policy data value 2710 and/or a similar data type or mix of data types).”).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Fang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the ability to determine how much vehicle data is being sent on a manufacturing line as taught by Fang in combination with manufacturing system of Nordbruch as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Both Fang and Nordbruch teach the ability to collect vehicle data which is to be evaluated. Fang teaches collecting and communicating the vehicle data by using a COST function and priority values, thus increasing the efficiency in which the data is being sent (Fang: Paragraph 0016; Paragraph 0020). Fang teaches to utilize this technique to mitigate risks of the mobile data to be collected by a malicious source with access to the data (Fang: Paragraph 0010) and reduce the complexity of communicating large amounts of vehicle data (Fang: Paragraph 0011). Combining Fang’s system with Nordbruch allows for the manufacturing system of Nordbruch to also have these improvements. For example, Nordbruch teaches collecting the vehicle data per the testing facilities, thus in combination with Fang, communicating the sensitive testing data would now mitigate malicious data breaching attacks. This combination also reduces large amounts of vehicle data to be communicated, thus improving efficiency in which data is communicated.
Regarding claim 2, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to:
specify the inspection to be performed next based on the position information and the first information; and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there.”; Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility,”; Paragraph 0044: “This following yields in particular that the vehicle is able to move to one or multiple target position(s). This therefore means that the vehicle is able to reach or reaches the one or the multiple target position(s) by following the signals.”)
determine not to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0025: “The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle. According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicles travel to the various facilities to perform various tests. The vehicle is taught to travel from and to testing facilities, not within the facilities).
In sum, Nordbruch teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to: specify the inspection to be performed next based on the position information and the first information; and determine not to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving. Nordbruch however does not teach when the communication load in execution of the specified inspection meets a condition determined in advance based on the specified inspection and the second information.
Fang teaches when the communication load in execution of the specified inspection meets a condition determined in advance based on the specified inspection and the second information (Fang: Abstract: “For example, higher capability pathing or operation algorithms related to the vehicle, increasing automation of vehicle functions, increasing demand for prognostic determinations and/or maintenance support, and increasing media streams (both the number of media streams and the quality of those media streams) all drive for increased demand in data rates, stored data amounts, and the number of entities or applications accessing the stored data.”; Paragraph 0224: “Accordingly, wherever the present disclosure references a vehicle, a vehicle system, a mobile application, industrial equipment, robotic system, and/or manufacturing systems, each one of these are also contemplated herein, and may be applicable in certain embodiments, ”; Paragraph 0020: “The parameter storage circuit is further structured to determine the reserved memory amount in response to a priority value associated with the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes an on-vehicle data storage priority. The priority value includes a transmission priority. The priority value includes a priority associated with an end point providing the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an end point requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an entity requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an application requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with an application associated with an end point requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with a flow requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. The priority value includes a priority associated with a flow associated with an end point requesting the at least a portion of the vehicle parameter values. ”,
Supplemental Note: the priority values for the acquired vehicle data differs depending on the entity and application used).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Fang with a reasonable expectation of success. As states for claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the ability to determine how much vehicle data is being sent on a manufacturing line as taught by Fang in combination with manufacturing system of Nordbruch as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Both Fang and Nordbruch teach the ability to collect vehicle data which is to be evaluated. Fang teaches collecting and communicating the vehicle data by using a COST function and priority values, thus increasing the efficiency in which the data is being sent (Fang: Paragraph 0016; Paragraph 0020). Fang teaches to utilize this technique to mitigate risks of the mobile data to be collected by a malicious source with access to the data (Fang: Paragraph 0010) and reduce the complexity of communicating large amounts of vehicle data (Fang: Paragraph 0011). Combining Fang’s system with Nordbruch allows for the manufacturing system of Nordbruch to also have these improvements. For example, Nordbruch teaches collecting the vehicle data per the testing facilities, thus in combination with Fang, communicating the sensitive testing data would now mitigate malicious data breaching attacks. This combination also reduces large amounts of vehicle data to be communicated, thus improving efficiency in which data is communicated. Furthermore, Fang’s ability to determine the priority of how the vehicle data is stored and then communicated would be obvious to try to implement with the manufacturing system of Nordbruch by one of ordinary skill in the art. This combination would improve the efficiency in which the testing data of Nordbruch is stored and communicated as, for example, different testing facilities can have different vehicle data parameters they would like to prioritize. Communicating and storing those corresponding parameters increases the efficiency in which the tests are performed as a priority can be made to those vehicle parameters while mitigating other vehicle data not required for a particular test.
Regarding claim 3, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second information further includes information that indicates whether travel of the mobile body is required for the inspection; and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there.”; Paragraph 0040: “target position data for one or multiple target(s) which the vehicle is supposed to drive to autonomously. A target of this type is, for example, a position or a location of an assembly station, a test facility,”; Paragraph 0044: “This following yields in particular that the vehicle is able to move to one or multiple target position(s). This therefore means that the vehicle is able to reach or reaches the one or the multiple target position(s) by following the signals.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle is to travel along the test facility based on multiple targets associated with different vehicle tests to perform)
the determination unit is configured to
specify the inspection to be performed next based on the position information and the first information, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0066: “the present invention in particular and, inter alia, provides a technical concept in which a valet parking functionality, i.e., an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacturer (also referred to as OEM, OEM standing for original equipment manufacturer). In this way, it is advantageously possible to test and/or validate in parallel this valet parking functionality in addition to the completion of manufacture.”; Paragraph 0025: “the vehicle drives to one or multiple test facility(ies) for the purpose of one or multiple vehicle test(s) being carried out… The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0026: “According to one specific embodiment, the one test facility or the multiple test facilities is/are designed to carry out at least one or multiple of the following test(s): Dent test, paint test, lighting test of a vehicle lighting.”,
Supplemental Note: multiple tests are done within a testing facility in which the valet parking functionality is also tested at the end. The vehicle is controlled to travel to these targets which perform the tests)
determine based on the second information whether travel of the mobile body is enabled for the specified inspection, and
when the specified inspection requires travel of the mobile body,
cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving, and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0025: “the vehicle drives to one or multiple test facility(ies) for the purpose of one or multiple vehicle test(s) being carried out… The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0026: “According to one specific embodiment, the one test facility or the multiple test facilities is/are designed to carry out at least one or multiple of the following test(s): Dent test, paint test, lighting test of a vehicle lighting.”)
determine to perform only an inspection item that requires travel based on the second information, among a plurality of inspection items included in the specified inspection (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle.”: Paragraph 0074: “According to one specific embodiment, it is provided that certain stops for additional actions are made on the way from the end of the conveyor belt, i.e., from the end of the assembly line to the parking facility; this means that the vehicle stops at one or multiple test facility(ies). For example, the tests may be selected randomly. One test may, for example, be a dent test or a paint test. Multiple tests are carried out in particular.”,
Supplemental Note: the tests are placed within the facility, the vehicle is travel to which ever test is specified at the time).
Regarding claim 4, Nordbruch, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second information further includes information that indicates a process to be preferentially performed, among execution of the inspection and movement of the mobile body; and (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0023: “it is provided that the manufacturing system includes an assembly line for vehicle manufacturing and a parking facility, the vehicle driving to the parking facility at the end of the assembly line and parking in the parking facility… it is possible to check directly and immediately after the completion of the vehicle whether the vehicle has correctly implemented an AVP (automatic valet parking) function. This therefore means that it is possible to check or that it is checked whether the AVP functionality of the vehicle is operational. In particular, thanks to the autonomous or remotely controlled driving from the end of the assembly line to the parking facility,”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle to perform the AVP testing after the completion of the vehicle is interpreted as process to be preferentially performed)
the determination unit is configured to
specify the inspection to be performed next based on the position information and the first information, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0023: “it is provided that the manufacturing system includes an assembly line for vehicle manufacturing and a parking facility, the vehicle driving to the parking facility at the end of the assembly line and parking in the parking facility… it is possible to check directly and immediately after the completion of the vehicle whether the vehicle has correctly implemented an AVP (automatic valet parking) function. This therefore means that it is possible to check or that it is checked whether the AVP functionality of the vehicle is operational. In particular, thanks to the autonomous or remotely controlled driving from the end of the assembly line to the parking facility,”,
Supplemental Note: in this example, after the completion of the vehicle at the end of an assembly line, the vehicle is specified travel to the parking facility for AVP testing)
when it is determined to perform the execution of the specified inspection in preference to the movement of the mobile body, perform the specified inspection without causing the mobile body to travel, and
when it is determined to perform the movement of the mobile body in preference to the execution of the specified inspection, cause the mobile body to travel, (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0025: “it is provided that during its driving operation, the vehicle drives to one or multiple test facility(ies) for the purpose of one or multiple vehicle test(s) being carried out… The vehicle drives autonomously or remotely controlled to the one test facility or to the multiple test facilities.”; Paragraph 0026: “According to one specific embodiment, the one test facility or the multiple test facilities is/are designed to carry out at least one or multiple of the following test(s): Dent test, paint test, lighting test of a vehicle lighting.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle travel to different testing facilities. The vehicle is not taught to travel within these testing facilities)
stop communication for controlling travel of the mobile body when the mobile body arrives at a destination, and thereafter perform the inspection (Nordbruch: Paragraph 0061: “According to a step 301 it is provided that the vehicle drives within the manufacturing system to a first test facility during its driving operation. One or multiple test(s) may be carried out there. In a step 303, it is then provided that the vehicle drives to another test facility where one or multiple test(s) is/are also carried out on the vehicle. According to a step 305, it is subsequently provided that the vehicle drives to a parking position in a parking facility of the manufacturing system.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicles travel to the various facilities to perform various tests. The vehicle is taught to travel from and to testing facilities).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch et al. (US 20170320529 A1) and Fang et al. (US 20210192867 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada et al. (US 11072346 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Nordbruch, as modified, does not teach further comprising at least one of: a notification unit that notifies a user that the mobile body is caused to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit determines to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving; or an output unit that outputs a log that indicates that the determination unit has determined to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit makes such a decision.
Okada teaches further comprising at least one of:
a notification unit that notifies a user that the mobile body is caused to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit determines to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving; or
an output unit that outputs a log that indicates that the determination unit has determined to cause the mobile body to travel through the unattended driving when the determination unit makes such a decision (Okada: Col. 1, lines 57 – 62: “It is an object of the present disclosure to provide an autonomous driving system, an autonomous driving state notifying program, and an autonomous driving state notifying method that are capable of notifying whether autonomous driving is being performed according to a traveling plan to the driver to give the driver a sense of security.”; Col. 7, lines 16 – 23: “When the control unit 7 starts the autonomous driving state notifying process, the control unit 7 creates a traveling plan of autonomous driving (S1, corresponding to a traveling plan creation step). The control unit 7 determines whether determination timing which is previously set has come (S2) and determines whether an autonomous driving end condition is satisfied (S3).”).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Nordbruch with the teachings of Okada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the notification system of Okada with the manufacturing system of Nordbruch. Nordbruch teaches the ability of the vehicles in a manufacturing plant to travel autonomously from various testing facilities and to perform an AVP function, thus the ability of the manufacturing system to know when the vehicle has started autonomous driving, as taught by Okada, increases the safety of the manufacturing system. For example, a vehicle may incorrectly start autonomous driving when it shouldn’t have which can now be alerted the manufacturing system that may control to stop the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665