DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 4/2/25 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-79 and 96-107 are canceled, 80-90, 92, 94-95 are amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitations of claims 80-95 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
For example, with respect to claims 80-81 the decision tree, order of steps and the vehicle actions are being applied to are unclear, as described in the 112(b) rejection below, such that a flow chart is required for a proper understanding of invention, i.e., is the instant vehicle and mounted cooling device controlling the automatic driving of another vehicle when the instant control device temperature is above a predicted temperature change? Is the another vehicle executing the arithmetic? For claim 81 is the recited “another vehicle” the same another vehicle recited in claim 80? A different vehicle? For claims 85-89 are the acquired sensor information and captured image by the vehicle used in the overall process as “learning data” recited in claim 85? Is it used in some other step within the overall process? The various antecedent basis issues detailed in the 112(b) rejection below are further reason that flowchart steps are needed, i.e., it is unclear if a new step is being recited or if the same step is being referenced in further detail.
It is recommended to include in the overall flow chart where the learning process occurs and how claims 86-89 relate to either the learning process and/or the temperature control process.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
The pending claims contain at least one conditional limitations which include:
Claim 83:
(1) “when the processor predicts that a temperature of the control device becomes higher than a predetermined threshold, the processor starts cooling the control device”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing the function of the above cited claim limitation (1) is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In addition, limitation (1) recites either computer processing steps carried out by a computing device or method steps that required a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitation (1). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
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.
Claims 80-95 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.
With respect to independent claims 80, 94-95, claim 80 recites “communicate with another vehicle within a predetermined range based on the temperature change predicted; and instructs the control device to execute arithmetic related to control of automatic driving of the other vehicle” is unclear and indefinite. First, “the other vehicle” has no antecedent basis rendering it unclear which vehicle is being referred to. In addition, this may be referring to “another vehicle” but the specification does not appear to support an instant vehicle with a cooling device deciding to take over automatic driving of another vehicle when its own temperature is predicted to exceed a threshold. Accordingly, it is unclear what Applicant is intending to require. The specification (¶¶ 464-465) appears to indicate that when an own vehicle has a predicted temperature over a threshold, it will offload compute to a nearby vehicle, reducing own vehicle compute to reduce temperature, i.e., “when the SoCBox 400 is predicted to have a temperature exceeding a set threshold, the cooling device 700 communicates with a nearby vehicle to cause the vehicle to cover a part of a calculation load or complement calculation loads of each other”.
Claim 81 is rejected for unclear antecedent recitation of “another vehicle” and “the vehicle” in view of the claim 80 recitation “a vehicle”, “another vehicle” and “the other vehicle”. Claim 80 may have intended for “another vehicle” and “the other vehicle” to be the same vehicle, although it is not entirely clear. Claim 86-87 and 89 are further rejected for additional recitations of “vehicle” with unclear antecedent characterization.
Claim 83 is rejected for conflicting with claim 82, which requires a start of cooling while claim 83 indicates cooling may not occur depending on conditional limitation, which is not required to occur.
Claim 85 includes unclear antecedent characterization, as it refers to steps previously required without an antecedent indication, i.e., “the processor predicts the temperature change” should indicate “the prediction” referring back to the claim 80 recitation. It is recommended to review the dependent claims for all similar antecedent basis issues, i.e., “starts cooling” in claim 90 should state “the cooling”, due to the claim 82 recitation, etc..
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 80-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the reasons stated above in the 112(b) rejection, the specification would not enable a PHOSITA to make and/or use the invention. For example, the lack of guidance or working examples explaining how the current claim language relates to the specification is part of the issue. In addition, as noted in the objection to the drawings, the unclear language in the specification is compounded by a lack of a flowchart depicting the claimed steps identifying which vehicles are performing each step, and when they are carried out. It is recommended that all claim limitations are represented in a drawing flowchart to aid in enabling the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, or for reciting a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. See MPEP 608.01(n), section III “test for proper dependency” (“a claim in dependent form shall contain . . . (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed . . . if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.”)
Claim 83 consists entirely of a contingent limitation, wherein the limitations are not required since the claim does not require the condition occurs, and, claim 83 recites a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim, i.e., claim 82 requires the start of cooling, claim 83 makes the start of cooling conditional.
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 80-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claims 80 and 94-95, the claims recite the abstract idea of:
predict a temperature change of a control device that controls automatic driving of a vehicle and that is mounted on the vehicle;
communicate with another vehicle; and
instructs the control device to execute arithmetic related to control of automatic driving
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since the above limitations could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
For example, a human could perform the above limitation entirely mentally since the limitations amount to comparing data. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, A (“claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include . . . a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”)
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
In addition, the above cited limitation recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept in addition to being a mental process since the limitation invokes “execute arithmetic”. See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter eligibility p. 3-4 “Mathematical Relationships” and “Mathematical Calculations” (“A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols . . . [t]here is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”) citing Diamond v. Diehr, Gottschalk v. Benson, Parker v. Flook, and Burnett v. Panasonic Corp (“using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers”).
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). This follows conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic “processor” and “control device” (claim 80); “computer readable medium” “computer” (claim 95) outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a control device does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation “communicate with another vehicle” is insignificant extra-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a generic “processor” and “control device” (claim 80); “computer readable medium” “computer” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “a cooling device” claim 80).
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 80-83 and 94-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200225985 to Hayashidera (Hay) in view of US 20190050718 to Tickoo (Tick)
With respect to claims 80 and 94-95 Hay discloses a cooling device comprising a processor configured to:
(¶ 30 monitoring MCU 68 includes a CPU 70, temperature sensors; 41 rise in the temperatures of the CPUs 38 of the SoC 36 is suppressed due to stoppage of execution of tasks )
predict a temperature change of a control device that controls automatic driving of a vehicle and that is mounted on the vehicle;
(¶¶ 14 system 10, FIG. 1 onboard vehicle, 20-21, Fig. 5 step 124 predict temperature change, 34-41, 45-47)
communicate with another vehicle; and
(¶¶ 16, 24; 18, FIG. 1 and corresponding descriptions)
instructs the control device to execute arithmetic related to control of automatic driving
(i.e., ¶¶ 7 automatic driving ECU; 19-25; 31-32; including instructing the control device based on predicted temperature, ¶¶ 39-43)
Hay fails to explicitly disclose the communication with another vehicle is within a predetermined range and based on the temperature change predicted wherein the intended use of the arithmetic is related to control of automatic driving of the other vehicle
Tick, from the same field of endeavor, discloses communicating with another vehicle within a predetermined range
(FIG. 4, 402-404, detect proximate resources; ¶¶ 7 offloading neural network workloads to proximate vehicles; 17 vehicles share computation for a given output of a coordinated neural network; 26; FIG. 2 depicts shared arithmetic computation in the shared neural network for automatic control of vehicles 202A-202C and corresponding description, i.e., shared compute for automatic driving/ADAS ¶¶ 14-15)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to modify Hay in view of the teachings of Tick such that Hay communicates with a proximate vehicle to reduce the predicted temperature instead of or in addition to reducing processing that could lead to increased temperature. The combination is obvious since Hay is already reducing computational workload of the own control device to avoid a threshold temperature, and the technique of Tick also reduces computational workload in a different manner, i.e., by offloading compute to proximate vehicles. In addition, the modification provides the advantage of efficiently solving for the limited compute available onboard vehicles by sharing compute responsibilities (Tick, ¶ 2, 15-16) resulting in “an improved vehicle compute system that is able to process data faster and provide a higher level of performance to the vehicle's occupants, subsystems, and other components” (Tick, ¶ 16).
With respect to claim 81, Hay in view of Tick disclose the processor determines another vehicle within a range in which communication with the other vehicle is allowed to be maintained for a predetermined time as a vehicle within the predetermined range, and communicate with the vehicle.
(Tick, ¶¶ 21-23)
With respect to claim 82, Hay in view of Tick disclose the processor is further configured to start cooling the control device based on the temperature change predicted.
(i.e., Hay, Fig. 4, 100-104, 106 YES, 108, YES and corresponding descriptions, ¶¶ 45-55 step 124, FIG. 5 monitor temperature/ predict temperature change/ compare with upper limit/ cool temperature by at least reducing some compute; Hay, ¶ the start of cooling is the reduction in processing discussed in Hay, ¶¶ 39-43)
(as modified by the offloading discussed in Tick FIG. 4, 402-404, detect proximate resources; ¶¶ 7 offloading neural network workloads to proximate vehicles; 17 vehicles share computation for a given output of a coordinated neural network; 26; FIG. 2 depicts shared arithmetic computation in the shared neural network for automatic control of vehicles 202A-202C and corresponding description, i.e., shared compute for automatic driving/ADAS ¶¶ 14-15)
With respect to claim 83, Hay in view of Tick disclose all limitations since, as noted in the conditional limitation section and the 112(d) rejection, no further limitations are required. In addition Hay in view of Tick disclose when the processor predicts that a temperature of the control device becomes higher than a predetermined threshold, the processor starts cooling the control device.
(i.e., Hay, Fig. 4, 100-104, 106 YES, 108, YES and corresponding descriptions, ¶¶ 45-55 step 124, FIG. 5 monitor temperature/ predict temperature change/ compare with upper limit/ cool temperature by at least reducing some compute; Hay, ¶ the start of cooling is the reduction in processing discussed in Hay, ¶¶ 39-43, as modified by the offloading discussed in Tick FIG. 4, 402-404, detect proximate resources; ¶¶ 7 offloading neural network workloads to proximate vehicles; 17 vehicles share computation for a given output of a coordinated neural network; 26; FIG. 2 depicts shared arithmetic computation in the shared neural network for automatic control of vehicles 202A-202C and corresponding description, i.e., shared compute for automatic driving/ADAS ¶¶ 14-15)
Claims 84-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200225985 to Hayashidera (Hay) in view of US 20190050718 to Tickoo (Tick) and further in view of US 20190080602 to Rice et al. (Rice)
With respect to claim 84, Hay in view of Tick disclose the processor predicts the temperature change of the control device by a machine learning technique.
(Hay, ¶ 34 “Note that the prediction of the temperature change can be carried out by applying a known technique such as regression analysis or the like for example”. Under a BRI regression analysis is an AI technique).
Under a first interpretation “AI” may require more than machine learning/ regression, such as a neural network.
Rice, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses monitoring and controlling a vehicles temperature to reduce potential overheating (¶ 18) including predicting a temperature and preemptively changing vehicle operation to prevent overheating (¶ 36) wherein the prediction can be based on AI,, i.e., machine learning model using neural networks (202, FIG. 2; ¶ 61 “modification to the one or more operating characteristics of a system onboard the vehicle 104 can be determined at least in part from a model, such as a machine-learned model. For example, FIG. 2 depicts an example implementation 200 of a model 202 . . . the machine-learned model can be or can otherwise include one or more various model(s) such as, for example, neural networks (e.g., deep neural networks), or other multi-layer non-linear models. The machine-learned model can include neural networks such as, for example, a convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks (e.g., long short-term memory recurrent neural networks), feed-forward neural networks, and/or other forms of neural networks).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement “AI” taught in Rice in the system of Hay in view of Tick via simple substitution, i.e., MPEP 2143(B) since both references cool an automatic driving compute stack by changing how much compute is performed in the stack. Furthermore, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, i.e., for at least the reason that the citations of Rice above discuss machine learning techniques such as regression as interchangeable with various different types of neural networks.
With respect to claim 85, Hay in view of Tick in view of Rice disclose the processor is further configured to
store a learning model in which information acquired by the control device is used as input and a temperature change of the control device is used as output, the learning model being generated by machine learning using, as learning data, the information acquired by the control device and the temperature change of the control device at a time when the control device acquires the information; and acquires the information acquired by the control device, wherein the processor predicts the temperature change of the control device by inputting the information acquired to the learning model.
(Hay temperature change prediction, i.e., ¶¶ 45-55, 39-43 as modified by Rice, ¶¶ 25 supervised training techniques can be performed to train the model (e.g., using previous logs of autonomous vehicle operations) to determine which systems and types of modifications were most effective in controlling the heat generation of a vehicle system, the temperature of the vehicle, power consumption, etc. The input data for the model can include, for example, the vehicle parameters, as described herein; 6; 23 obtain data; FIG 2)
With respect to claim 86, Hay in view of Tick in view of Rice disclose the processor acquires sensor information acquired by the control device from a sensor mounted on the vehicle from the sensor or the control device.
(Hay, ¶¶ 15-17, 23, 33; 14, FIG. 1; 36, FIG. 2 and corresponding descriptions)
(Rice, ¶¶ 20-23)
(Tick, 112, Fig. 1 and corresponding description)
With respect to claim 87, Hay in view of Tick in view of Rice disclose the processor acquires, from the control device, an analysis result obtained by the control device analyzing a captured image captured by a camera mounted on the vehicle.
(Hay, ¶ 17 camera 24 captures images of the periphery of the own vehicle by plural cameras, and outputs the captured images; 23)
(Rice, ¶¶ 18-21, 26)
With respect to claim 88, Hay in view of Tick in view of Rice disclose the processor acquires external information received by the control device from an external device from the external device or the control device.
(Hay, ¶¶ 16, 24-25)
(Rice, ¶¶ 6, 23)
With respect to claim 89, Hay in view of Tick in view of Rice disclose the processor acquires traffic information on a road where the vehicle is located, received by the control device from the external device from the external device or the control device.
(Hay, ¶ 16)
(Rice, ¶¶ 24, 28)
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200225985 to Hayashidera (Hay) in view of US 20190050718 to Tickoo (Tick) and further in view of US 20210243913 to Zheng et al. (Zheng)
With respect to claim 90, Hay in view of Tick fail to disclose the cooling is performed by using one or a plurality of coolers selected from a plurality of types of coolers
Zheng, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses managing temperature in an autonomous vehicle (abstract, “[t]echniques are described for managing temperature in an autonomous vehicle”) wherein cooling is performed by using one or a plurality of coolers selected from a plurality of types of coolers depending on a temperature value (¶¶ 4-10, i.e., ¶ 9 “temperature management device includes a fan, a liquid cooling device, a liquid-to-air cooling device, or an air-conditioning unit”; FIG. 3 and corresponding description; claim 1 determine a cooling technique depending on temperature threshold comparison; claims 11-12 first command increase speed of air circulator or liquid coolant; ¶¶ 40-43)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the additional cooling devices depending on temperature as taught by Zheng, in the system of Hay in view of Tick in order to provide a more nuanced temperature control that does not necessarily sacrifice autonomous driving performance, i.e., Hay teaches a cooling technique of reduced compute. Zheng also teaches this, but only for particular temperature thresholds, i.e., active coolers are more advantageous and are less detrimental to vehicle performance and should be used for certain temperature thresholds (Zheng, ¶¶ 40-44) such that the modification has the advantage of relatively higher vehicle performance with greater autonomous functionality over a range of operating temperatures.
Claims 91-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200225985 to Hayashidera (Hay) in view of US 20190050718 to Tickoo (Tick) and further in view of US 20210243913 to Zheng et al. (Zheng) and further in view of US 20190221905 to Shimizu et al. (Shim)
With respect to claim 91, Hay in view of Tick in view of Zheng disclose the plurality of types of coolers includes a plurality of one or a plurality of types of air coolers and one or a plurality of types of water coolers.
(Zheng ¶¶ 4-10, i.e., ¶ 9 “temperature management device includes a fan, a liquid cooling device, a liquid-to-air cooling device, or an air-conditioning unit”; FIG. 3 and corresponding description; claim 1 determine a cooling technique depending on temperature threshold comparison; claims 11-12 first command increase speed of air circulator or liquid coolant; ¶¶ 40-43)
Hay in view of Tick in view of Zheng fail to disclose a liquid nitrogen cooler. Shim teaches it was well known at the time of effective filing that cooling structures use of liquid nitrogen and water are readily interchangeable (¶¶ 42, 84) and applied to any electronic device (¶ 84). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to additionally include a nitrogen cooler option, since as discussed in Shim, the list of predictable solutions for cooling agents used on electronic devices include both water cooling and liquid nitrogen cooling (i.e., Shim, ¶42 cooling agents 15 are not limited to cooling water and are interpreted to include an organic solvent such as liquid nitrogen and ethanol. The cooling agents 15 are not limited to liquid under a situation used for cooling but may be gas or a solid). Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, to incorporate liquid nitrogen in the system of Hay in view of Tick in view of Zheng since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. In addition, liquid nitrogen may provide a faster cooling effect than water and could be beneficial in higher temperature critical situations despite the larger cost of use.
With respect to claim 92, Hay in view of Tick in view of Zheng in view of Shim disclose the processor predicts a temperature change of each of a plurality of portions of the control device, and the processor starts cooling the control device by using a cooler selected from a plurality of coolers each of which cools each of the plurality of portions of the control device based on a prediction result.
(Hay, ¶¶ 20, 34, 43-44, 45-55 as modified by Zheng, i.e., a per device cooler selected by devices temperature level, ¶¶ 4 receive one or more messages from a temperature sensor associated with an electrical device located on or in the autonomous vehicle while the autonomous vehicle is operated in the autonomous mode, where each message includes a temperature value that indicates a temperature at which the electrical device is operating; 15; 12-13; 4-10; FIG. 3 and corresponding description; claim 1 determine a cooling technique depending on temperature threshold comparison; claims 11-12 first command increase speed of air circulator or liquid coolant; ¶¶ 40-43)
With respect to claim 93, Hay in view of Tick in view of Zheng in view of Shim disclose the control device includes a plurality of processing chips arranged at different positions of the control device, and each of the plurality of coolers is arranged at a position of each of the plurality of processing chips.
(Hay, ¶ 20 processing chips at different positions of the control device include CPUs 38, GPUs 40, each with their own temperature sensors, i.e., 39, 42 as modified by Zheng, i.e., ¶ 4, temperature management device associated with each electrical device, i.e., per device cooler wherein the device is a processing chip)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
