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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-4 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Malone et al. (20160167653; hereinafter Malone, already of record) in view of Ji (20230234606).
Applicant’s arguments pertain to newly amended limitations not addressed in the prior Office Action of record. However, based upon further search and consideration a detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone et al. (20160167653; hereinafter Malone, already of record) in view of Ji (20230234606).
Regarding claim 1, Malone teaches a vehicle comprising:
an autonomous driving system (Malone: Fig. 1 Element 12) comprising ... and a plurality of sensors (Ji: “The vehicle control module 34 also provides vehicle status and sensor information through communication interface module 14 back to the controller 12. The vehicle status and sensor information includes, for example, vehicle speed, steering angle, requested speeds, requested steering angles, brake status, fuel level, accelerometer data, brake sensors, throttle position sensors, wheel speed sensors, gear selection sensors, temperature sensors, pressure sensors, emissions levels, trouble codes, error messages, or the like” ¶ 22);
a vehicle platform that executes vehicle control according to a command from the autonomous driving system (Malone: Fig. 1 Element 10, “Vehicle 10 is configured to be controlled by an autonomous or remote controller 12” ¶ 17); and
a vehicle control interface that provides an interface between the vehicle platform and the autonomous driving system, wherein when a communication abnormality occurs between the autonomous driving system and the vehicle control interface (Malone: “the integrity of the communication, which may be ensured using checksums, message counters, or other communication errors, in any message coming from the external module to the vehicle gateway is compromised the vehicle enters the lockout mode” ¶ 44), the vehicle control interface does not receive a steering request before the communication abnormality occurs (Malone: “When the vehicle 10 is in autonomous or remote control mode, communications failures may occur ... ” ¶ 54, “Steering: steering angle maintained at last valid requested angle” ¶ 56)
...
However, Malone fails to teach a first communication module, a second communication module,
...
the vehicle control interface determines that the communication abnormality has occurred in communication with the autonomous driving system based on determining that communication is abnormal both with respect to the first communication module and the second communication module,
the vehicle control interface determines that communication with the first communication module is abnormal in which one or more first signals are not received from the first communication module continues for a first predetermined time,
the vehicle control interface determines that communication with the second communication module is abnormal in which one or more second signals are not received from the second communication module continues for a second predetermined time.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ji teaches a first communication module, a second communication module (Ji: “The communication device 220 may include a first communication module 221 which makes communication with controllers inside the vehicle, and a second communication module 223” ¶ 127),
...
the vehicle control interface determines that the communication abnormality has occurred in communication with the autonomous driving system based on determining that communication is abnormal both with respect to the first communication module and the second communication module (Ji: “The control device 210 may analyze and learn the communication state of the communication device 220 to determine whether a present communication state of the vehicle is abnormal” ¶ 126),
the vehicle control interface determines that communication with the first communication module is abnormal in which one or more first signals are not received from the first communication module continues for a first predetermined time (Ji: “the performance of the communication with the controllers 21 to 29 may be deteriorated or the communication with the controllers 21 to 29 may be failed, due to the failure or the aging of the first communication module 221” ¶ 142, “the communication state analyzing device 211 may determine the consistency of data received from each controller through the first communication module 221 In this case, the communication state analyzing device 211 may check the consistency of data by performing a data error check such as CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) on communication data with each of the controllers 21 to 29” ¶ 145),
the vehicle control interface determines that communication with the second communication module is abnormal in which one or more second signals are not received from the second communication module continues for a second predetermined time (Ji: “the communication state analyzing device 211 may determine whether the corresponding V2I communication data is suitable by determining whether the information obtained from the V2I communication data is matched to the information obtained from sensors installed in the vehicle” ¶ 150, “the communication state analyzing device 211 may determine the consistency of data by performing a data error check, such as CRC (Cyclic redundancy check), on V2I communication data” ¶ 149, see also ¶ 161).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective time of filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the communication system of Malone so that it also includes the element of a first communication module and a second communication module, as taught by Ji, in order to minimize impact on vehicle control based on abnormalities (Ji: ¶ 184, 185)
Regarding claim 2, Malone in view of Ji teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the communication abnormality occurs, the vehicle control interface continues control corresponding to an accelerator off state (Malone: “When the vehicle 10 is in autonomous or remote control mode, communications failures may occur ... ” ¶ 54, “Engine: pedal command interpreted as 0%” ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 3, Malone in view of Ji teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle platform includes a steering actuator (Malone: “Communication interface module 14 further communicates with an electronic power steering control 24. The power steering control 24 controls a steering position function 26 for guiding the vehicle 10” ¶ 20); and
when the communication abnormality occurs, the vehicle control interface turns off steering control in which the steering actuator is used (Malone: “In the event of a communications failure ... the communication interface module 14 enter the lockout mode discussed above” ¶ 54, “In lockout mode the vehicle operations may comprise…” ¶ 43).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone in view of Ji, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and in further view of Anderson et al. (11608082, already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Malone fails to teach the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the autonomous driving system is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the vehicle platform.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Anderson teaches wherein the autonomous driving system is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the vehicle platform (Anderson: Fig. 1, “Unit 100 is a universal system that can be removed from vehicle 104 and mounted on a variety of different models. In this example, vehicle 104 is originally a non-autonomous vehicle that is converted to an autonomous vehicle by unit 100 without permanently modifying vehicle 104. Indeed, unit 100 may be removed from vehicle 104 thereby converting it back to a non-autonomous vehicle” Col. 5 Lines 55-61).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the autonomous driving system of Malone so that it also includes the element of an attachable and detachable autonomous driving system, as taught by Anderson, in order to operate a plurality of vehicles in an autonomous and non-autonomous mode (Anderson: Col. 6 Lines 59-63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwaki (20240239357) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of autonomous vehicle control.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights