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 is the First Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “monitoring, …, operation of a first ASIL-D safety island domain of a first system on chip (SOC), …”, and “determining, … , a fault condition associated with the first ASIL-D safety island domain” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, a human mind could reasonably monitor operation and identify a fault/error of an electronic component. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. 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 except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed element “based on determining that there is the fault condition, transmitting an indication to shutdown one or more components of the first SOC to a safe state” ” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution action(s), which is a form of insignificant of extra solution activity. Additionally, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “power management integrated circuit (PMIC)”, “ASIL-D safety island domain”, “system on chip (SOC)”, and “one or more ASIL-B subsystems of an ASIL-B domain” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These components merely automate the aforementioned steps and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application”. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed element “based on determining that there is the fault condition, transmitting an indication to shutdown one or more components of the first SOC to a safe state” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “power management integrated circuit (PMIC)”, “ASIL-D safety island domain”, “system on chip (SOC)”, and “one or more ASIL-B subsystems of an ASIL-B domain” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13 , the claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 13 recites similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 2-8, and 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-8 and 14-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 6 recites “transmitting…an indication to cease operation of one or more applications or an indication to enter into a degraded mode of operation” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution action(s), which is a form of insignificant of extra solution activity.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “further comprising monitoring, by a second ASIL-D safety island domain of a second SOC.” It is unclear to the Examiner what is being monitored by the “a second ASIL-D safety island domain of a second SOC”. For example, is it monitoring the first ASIL-D safety island domain of the first SOC or something else? It appears to the Examiner the claim may be incomplete.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “an indication to enter into a degraded mode of operation”. It is unclear to the Examiner what is the mode of operation that is being degraded. For example, is it a degraded mode of operation of the first ASIL-D island domain or is it a degraded mode of operation of the one or more applications or is it a degraded mode of operation of the vehicle autonomy or is it a degraded mode of operation of something else?
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-6, 9, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aneja et al. (US 20240227825 A1) in view of Li (US 20200207374 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Aneja et al. discloses A method for
level two or level three autonomy, the method comprising: ([0030] “The driver assistance and/or automated driving control system 114 may control various driver assistance features and functions, such as adaptive cruise control, automated lane detection, lane departure warning, automated steering, automated braking, and automated collision avoidance. The driver assistance and/or automated driving control system 114 may control automated driving at various levels of automation, such as any of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) levels 1 through 5.”)
wherein the first SOC comprises the first ASIL-D safety island domain communicatively
connected with one or more ASIL-B subsystems of an ASIL-B domain; (Figure 2, and [0034] “ The SoC 200 may include multiple processing domains having, for example, a main domain 202a and a safety domain 202b (also referred to as a “safety island (SAIL)”). The main domain 202a may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations (e.g., driver assistance and/or automated driving operations, features, etc.) up to a specific automotive safety integrity level (ASIL), and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations up to a lower, the same, or a higher ASIL than the main domain 202a. For example, the main domain 202a may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations up to an ASIL B, and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support vehicle operations up to an ASIL D. In some cases, the main domain 202a may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations up to an ASIL A, B, C, or D; and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support vehicle operations up to a different ASIL than the main domain 202a. In certain cases, the main domain 202a and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations at the same ASIL (e.g., ASIL D). The main domain 202a and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations at different ASILs.”, and [0047] “The safety domain 202b may be coupled to certain external resource(s) 226, which may be representative of a PMIC…for example, as described herein with respect to the main domain 202a.”)
based on determining that there is
shutdown one or more components of the first SOC to a safe state. ([0060] “In case an error or fault (e.g., an uncorrectable error or fault) is detected during the vehicle runtime (for example, outside of the testing state while the vehicle is mobile), the ECU 300a (and/or the other ECU(s) 300b) may undergo a specific action per an OEM safety policy including a shutdown… such as semi-operational state where the ECU 300a performs limited tasks (e.g., refraining from performing any safety functions affected by the fault or error).”, and Figure 3)
However, Aneja et al. fails to explicitly disclose monitoring, by an automotive safety
integrity level -D (ASIL-D) power management integrated circuit (PMIC), operation of a first ASIL-D safety island domain of a first system on chip (SOC), determining, by the ASIL-D PMIC, a fault condition associated with the first ASIL-D safety island domain;
Li teaches monitoring, by an automotive safety integrity level -D (ASIL-D) power
management integrated circuit (PMIC), operation of a first ASIL-D safety island domain of a first system on chip (SOC), determining, by the ASIL-D PMIC, a fault condition associated with the first ASIL-D safety island domain; ([0025] “the security micro control unit 1 may adopt a micro control unit (MCU) that meets at least functional safety requirements of the automotive safety integrity level standard (ASIL-D) defined by the international functional safety standard ISO 26262, which further enhances the safety and reliability of the controller.”, [0027] “the power management module 4 may be a power management integrated circuit (PMIC) satisfying the functional safety requirements of ASIL-D. The power management module 4 includes a ROT interface, the security micro control unit 1 includes a POR interface. The POR interface of the security micro control unit 1 is coupled to the ROT interface of the power management module 4. The security micro control unit 1 and the power management module 4 may monitor each other mutually, the security micro control unit 1 and the power management module 4 may mutually report their running state to each other in real time, and monitor the security of each other based on hardware and/or software.”, [0029] “the power management module 4 may monitor the security micro control unit 1 through the SPI. During normal operation, the security micro control unit 1 may periodically report its current running state to the power management module 4 through the SPI, the running state of the security micro control unit 1 may include the internal error… During normal operation, the security micro control unit 1 may periodically send a watchdog input signal to the WD interface, when the security micro control unit 1 runs out of control…or fails to send the watchdog input signal to the PMIC within the required time window, the power management module 4 may consider that the security micro control unit 1 has a fault.”, and [0031] “the power management module 4 and the security micro control unit 1 may form a safety island hardware monitoring system, which satisfies the ASIL-D”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. to incorporate determining a fault condition by the PMIC as taught by Li for the purpose of monitoring the running state and security of the safety island hardware which satisfies the ASIL-D thereby “improving the safety and reliability of the controller”. ([0031], Li)
Regarding the additional limitation of claim 13, Aneja et al. discloses based on determining
that there is the fault condition, transmitting an indication to enter into a degraded mode of operation. ([0060] “In case an error or fault (e.g., an uncorrectable error or fault) is detected during the vehicle runtime (for example, outside of the testing state while the vehicle is mobile), the ECU 300a (and/or the other ECU(s) 300b) may undergo a specific action per an OEM safety policy including a shutdown… such as semi-operational state where the ECU 300a performs limited tasks (e.g., refraining from performing any safety functions affected by the fault or error).”, and Figure 3)
Regarding claim 9, Aneja et al. discloses A system for monitoring safety in an autonomous
vehicle, comprising: an automotive safety integrity level -B (ASIL-B) domain; an ASIL-D safety island domain communicatively connected with the ASIL-B domain; and (Figure 2, and [0034] “ The SoC 200 may include multiple processing domains having, for example, a main domain 202a and a safety domain 202b (also referred to as a “safety island (SAIL)”). The main domain 202a may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations (e.g., driver assistance and/or automated driving operations, features, etc.) up to a specific automotive safety integrity level (ASIL), and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations up to a lower, the same, or a higher ASIL than the main domain 202a. For example, the main domain 202a may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations up to an ASIL B, and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support vehicle operations up to an ASIL D. In some cases, the main domain 202a may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations up to an ASIL A, B, C, or D; and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support vehicle operations up to a different ASIL than the main domain 202a. In certain cases, the main domain 202a and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations at the same ASIL (e.g., ASIL D). The main domain 202a and the safety domain 202b may be configured to support (or capable of performing) vehicle operations at different ASILs.”) an ASIL-D power management integrated circuit (PMIC) communicatively connected with
the ASIL-D safety island domain, (Figure 2, [0047] “). A particular external resource may be designed in accordance with an ASIL corresponding to the particular ASIL associated with the main domain 202a and/or the safety domain 202b to which the external resource is coupled. For example, the PMIC 218 may have the same ASIL as the main domain 202a, and the PMIC that provides power to the safety domain 202b may have the same ASIL as the safety domain 202b. The safety domain 202b may include the same or different processing resources and components as the main domain 202a as described herein with respect to the main domain 202a. For example, the safety domain 202b may include the processors 204, the system components and resources 206, the power management controller 208, the memory controller 210, the sensor controller 212, and the driver assistance controller 214. The safety domain 202b may be coupled to certain external resource(s) 226, which may be representative of a PMIC, memory, sensors, and/or driver assistance module, for example, as described herein with respect to the main domain 202a.”, and see at least [0034])
and initiates a shutdown sequence upon detecting a fault condition.([0060] “In case an
error or fault (e.g., an uncorrectable error or fault) is detected during the vehicle runtime (for example, outside of the testing state while the vehicle is mobile), the ECU 300a (and/or the other ECU(s) 300b) may undergo a specific action per an OEM safety policy including a shutdown… such as semi-operational state where the ECU 300a performs limited tasks (e.g., refraining from performing any safety functions affected by the fault or error).”, and Figure 3)
However, Aneja et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ASIL-D PMIC monitors
operation of the ASIL-D safety island domain and initiates a shutdown sequence upon detecting a fault condition.
Li teaches wherein the ASIL-D PMIC monitors operation of the ASIL-D safety island domain
([0025] “the security micro control unit 1 may adopt a micro control unit (MCU) that meets at least functional safety requirements of the automotive safety integrity level standard (ASIL-D) defined by the international functional safety standard ISO 26262, which further enhances the safety and reliability of the controller.”, [0027] “the power management module 4 may be a power management integrated circuit (PMIC) satisfying the functional safety requirements of ASIL-D. The power management module 4 includes a ROT interface, the security micro control unit 1 includes a POR interface. The POR interface of the security micro control unit 1 is coupled to the ROT interface of the power management module 4. The security micro control unit 1 and the power management module 4 may monitor each other mutually, the security micro control unit 1 and the power management module 4 may mutually report their running state to each other in real time, and monitor the security of each other based on hardware and/or software.”, [0029] “the power management module 4 may monitor the security micro control unit 1 through the SPI. During normal operation, the security micro control unit 1 may periodically report its current running state to the power management module 4 through the SPI, the running state of the security micro control unit 1 may include the internal error… During normal operation, the security micro control unit 1 may periodically send a watchdog input signal to the WD interface, when the security micro control unit 1 runs out of control…or fails to send the watchdog input signal to the PMIC within the required time window, the power management module 4 may consider that the security micro control unit 1 has a fault.”, and [0031] “the power management module 4 and the security micro control unit 1 may form a safety island hardware monitoring system, which satisfies the ASIL-D”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. to incorporate determining a fault condition by the PMIC as taught by Li for the purpose of monitoring the running state and security of the safety island hardware which satisfies the ASIL-D thereby “improving the safety and reliability of the controller”. ([0031], Li)
Regarding claims 5, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Aneja et al. in view of Li
discloses The method of claim 1,
Li teaches wherein the monitoring operation of the first AISL-D safety island domain
comprises monitoring one or more watchdog timers of the first ASIL-D safety island domain. ([0025] “the security micro control unit 1 may adopt a micro control unit (MCU) that meets at least functional safety requirements of the automotive safety integrity level standard (ASIL-D) defined by the international functional safety standard ISO 26262, which further enhances the safety and reliability of the controller.”, [0029] “The power management module 4 may also monitor the security micro control unit 1 through a watchdog (WD) interface. During normal operation, the security micro control unit 1 may periodically send a watchdog input signal to the WD interface, when the security micro control unit 1 runs out of control, runs out of truck, or fails to send the watchdog input signal to the PMIC within the required time window, the power management module 4 may consider that the security micro control unit 1 has a fault.”, and [0080] “The security micro control unit 1 is abnormal, and the watchdog input signal provided by the security micro control unit 1 to the power management module 4 exceeds the window, the power management module 4 considers that the security micro control unit 1 runs out of control. An error occurred in the security micro control unit 1, and the security channel signal is triggered.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate the teachings of Li for the same reasons stated in the motivation statement of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Aneja et al. in view of Li discloses
The method of claim 1,
Aneja et al. discloses further comprising transmitting, based on the indication of the fault
condition, an indication to cease operation of one or more applications or an indication to enter into a degraded mode of operation. ([0060] “In case an error or fault (e.g., an uncorrectable error or fault) is detected during the vehicle runtime (for example, outside of the testing state while the vehicle is mobile), the ECU 300a (and/or the other ECU(s) 300b) may undergo a specific action per an OEM safety policy including a shutdown… such as semi-operational state where the ECU 300a performs limited tasks (e.g., refraining from performing any safety functions affected by the fault or error).”, and Figure 3)
Claims 2, 4, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aneja et al. (US 20240227825 A1) in view of Li (US 20200207374 A1) and further in view of Piednoel (US 20240411606 A1).
Regarding claim 14, and similarly with respect to claim 2, as best understood by the
Examiner, Aneja et al. in view of Li discloses The method of claim 13,
However, Aneja et al. in combination with Li fails to explicitly disclose further comprising
monitoring, by a second ASIL-D safety island domain of a second SOC, the first ASIL-D safety island domain of the first SOC.
Piednoel teaches further comprising monitoring, by a second ASIL-D safety island domain
of a second SOC, the first ASIL-D safety island domain of the first SOC. (Figure 2, [0031] “multiple system on chip (MSoC), in accordance with examples described herein. In various examples, the MSoC 200 can include a first SoC 210 having a first memory 215 and a second SoC 220 having a second memory 225 coupled by an interconnect 240 (e.g., an ASIL-D rated chip-to-chip interconnect) that enables each of the first SoC 210 and second SoC 220 to read each other's memories 215, 225.”, [0032] “the second SoC 220 performs health monitoring (i.e., comparing recent values from the first SoC 210 to the nominal thresholds) and error management tasks for the first SoC 210 and takes over control of the set of autonomous driving tasks when a triggering condition is met. As provided herein, the triggering condition can correspond to a fault, failure, or other error experienced, such as exceeding one of the nominal thresholds, by the first SoC 210 that may affect the performance of the set of tasks by the first SoC 210.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate monitoring an SoC operation by another SoC as taught by Piednoel for the purpose of “switching roles between two SoCs can provide substantially even wear of the hardware components of each SoC, which can prolong the lifespan of the computing system”. ([0037], Piednoel)
Regarding claim 4, and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 16, Aneja et al. in view of Li
discloses The method of claim 1,
However, Aneja et al. in combination with Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the
monitoring operation of the first ASIL-D safety island domain comprises monitoring for one or more temperatures.
Piednoel teaches wherein the monitoring operation of the first ASIL-D safety island
domain comprises monitoring for one or more temperatures. ([0032] “The second SoC 220 reads the published state information in the first memory 215 to continuously check that the first SoC 210 is operating within nominal thresholds (e.g., temperature thresholds, voltage thresholds, bandwidth and/or memory thresholds, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate continuously checking the SoC is operating within nominal thresholds (e.g. temperature threshold) as taught by Piednoel for the purpose of “switching roles between two SoCs can provide substantially even wear of the hardware components of each SoC, which can prolong the lifespan of the computing system”. ([0037], Piednoel)
Claims 3, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aneja et al. (US 20240227825 A1) in view of Li (US 20200207374 A1) and further in view of Aneja (2) et al. (US 20240359698 A1).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 15, Aneja et al. in view of Li
discloses The method of claim 1
However, Aneja et al. in combination with Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the
monitoring operation of the first ASIL-D safety island domain comprises monitoring one or more of power supplies of the first ASIL-D safety island domain.
Aneja (2) et al. teaches wherein the monitoring operation of the first ASIL-D safety island
domain comprises monitoring one or more of power supplies of the first ASIL-D safety island domain. ([0075] “an automated driving system 400 is shown in FIG. 4. An automated driving SOC 402 may be divided into different domains, such as a first domain 406 and a second domain 404. In some embodiments, the automated driving SOC 402 may be divided into more than two domains. As one example, the first domain 406 may be a safety island (SAIL), and the second domain 404 may be a main domain (MD). Different domains of the SOC 402 may be designed to meet different safety standards. For example, the first domain 406, which may be a SAIL domain, may be designed to meet a first safety standard, and the second domain 404, which may be an MD, may be designed to meet a second safety standard, lower than the first safety standard. The first safety standard of the first domain 406 may, for example, be an automotive safety integrity level D (ASIL D) standard, while the second safety standard of the second domain 404 may be an automotive safety integrity level B (ASIL B) standard according to the International Standards Organization 26262 standard.”, [0080] “Errors that may occur in the first domain 406 may include one or more errors 450 of the first domain 406, one or more errors 448 of an independent power supply and clock module 422 of the first domain 406, such as errors in one or more power management integrated circuits (PMICs) of the first domain 406”, and see at least [0102])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate monitoring the power supply of the SAIL domain power supply as taught by Aneja (2) et al. for the purpose of detecting possible error(s) that may be occur in the SAIL domain (e.g. power supply) and “facilitate[ing] continued operation of each respective domain if the other respective domain encounters an error requiring shutdown.” ([0080], Aneja (2) et al.)
Regarding claim 10, Aneja et al. in view of Li discloses The system of claim 9,
However, Aneja et al. in combination with Li fails to explicitly disclose further comprising:
an ASIL-B PMIC communicatively connected with the ASIL-B domain, wherein the ASIL-B PMIC comprises safety mechanisms achieving ASIL-B integrity across voltage rails powering the ASIL-B domain.
Aneja (2) et al. teaches further comprising: an ASIL-B PMIC communicatively connected
with the ASIL-B domain, wherein the ASIL-B PMIC comprises safety mechanisms achieving ASIL-B integrity across voltage rails powering the ASIL-B domain. ([0075] “the second domain 404 may be a main domain (MD). Different domains of the SOC 402 may be designed to meet different safety standards. For example, the first domain 406, which may be a SAIL domain, may be designed to meet a first safety standard, and the second domain 404, which may be an MD, may be designed to meet a second safety standard, lower than the first safety standard. The first safety standard of the first domain 406 may, for example, be an automotive safety integrity level D (ASIL D) standard, while the second safety standard of the second domain 404 may be an automotive safety integrity level B (ASIL B) standard according to the International Standards Organization 26262 standard.”, [0102] “For example, one or more PMICs 710 of the MD 702 may provide voltage monitoring of one or more MD rails. In some embodiments, the one or more PMICs 710 of the MD 702 may communicate directly with the external controller 708, such as by transmitting one or more error signals when one or more errors are detected with respect to the one or more MD rails. Such signals may, for example, be transmitted via an interface 760. In some embodiments, a timing guard band monitor, which may also provide detection of under-voltage faults, may be provided while the MD 702 is in degraded mode. Furthermore, adaptive clock distribution circuits within one or more safety subsystems of the MD 702 may monitor for voltage droop events while the MD is in degraded mode.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate voltage monitoring as taught by Aneja (2) et al. for the purpose of detecting possible error(s) that may be occur in the SAIL domain and “facilitate[ing] continued operation of each respective domain if the other respective domain encounters an error requiring shutdown.” ([0080], Aneja (2) et al.)
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aneja et al. (US 20240227825 A1) in view of Li (US 20200207374 A1) and further in view of Nakayma (US 20240010242 A1).
Regarding claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 19, Aneja et al. in view of Li discloses
The method of claim 6
However, Aneja et al. in combination with Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the degraded
mode of operation comprises reducing from level three autonomy to level two autonomy.
Nakayma teaches wherein the degraded mode of operation comprises reducing from level
three autonomy to level two autonomy. ([0111] “the control unit 16 notifies a driver that there is an abnormality, and switches the automated driving level to a hands-on automated driving level at which the driver holds a steering wheel. For example, the control unit 16 changes the automated driving level from Level 3 to Level 2 or lower. That is, the execution of automated driving at Level 3 or higher is prohibited, and automated driving at Level 2 or lower is permitted (same applies hereinafter).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate degrading automated driving level when abnormality occurred as taught by Nakayma for the purpose of allowing the system to take appropriate action (e.g. reducing automation), increasing safety in the case of a fault.
Regarding claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 20, Aneja et al. in view of Li discloses
The method of claim 6
However, Aneja et al. in combination with Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or
more applications comprise an autonomous driving application.
Nakayma teaches wherein the one or more applications comprise an autonomous driving
application. ([0111] “the control unit 16 notifies a driver that there is an abnormality, and switches the automated driving level to a hands-on automated driving level at which the driver holds a steering wheel. For example, the control unit 16 changes the automated driving level from Level 3 to Level 2 or lower. That is, the execution of automated driving at Level 3 or higher is prohibited, and automated driving at Level 2 or lower is permitted (same applies hereinafter).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Aneja et al. in combination with Li to incorporate degrading automated driving level/application(s) when abnormality occurred as taught by Nakayma for the purpose of allowing the system to take appropriate action (e.g. switches from automated driving to a hands-on automated driving) , increasing safety in the case of a fault.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights