DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. The drawings received on April 17, 2025 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 11, 12 and 14-19 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.
Claim 3, lines 1-2, “the amount” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, lines 1-2, “the amount” and “the first reference” lack antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, line 4, “the safety level” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, line 3, “the safety level” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 4, “the safety level of the actuator” and “the safety level of the sensor” lack antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, line 4, “the emergency control message” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, lines 3-4, “the degradation mode” and “the error grade” and “the recovery grade” lack antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, line , 2, “the previous mode” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16, line 3, “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditty et al., US 2019/0258251.
Ditty discloses from Figures 1-68 and related text a sensor or sub-system capable of exchanging data with an SoC and signals, e.g 100, [0251, 0263], Fig. 13, sensors, e.g. 66, LIDAR, e.g. 76, RADAR, e.g. 68, cameras, e.g. 72, 73, 75, for an emergency mode, e.g., [0135, 0151, 0156, 0208, 0225, 0258, 0317, 0321, 0678-79, 0717, 0736 0774-77].
Ditty does not specifically disclose the claims language having a signal processing in a normal mode where the processor controls to operate in an emergency mode when a central signal processing device, the sensor device, or the camera malfunctions. However, the feature is readily seen from a sensor or sub-system is transmitted to the SoC, e.g. 100, where the sensor or sub-system comprises a fault operable braking system (61A) or steering system (62A), e.g. Fig. 13, [0263].
To have viewed the interaction between these electronic features would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as signals allowing for a transition to a normal mode to an emergency mode are common knowledge in the sensor/signal art associated with control devices. To modify Ditty include these would result with the objective of a vehicle with a probability that such an event will occur. The motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe system/method for navigating a particular road condition, e.g. roundabout, icy road scenario having obstacles present, without any adverse, e.g. collision, happening.
Regarding claim 2, Ditty discloses, e.g. Fig. 4, [0122, 0283], actuation information and control signals used to control actuators, and the controller, e.g. 100, transmits actuation signals to a braking actuator, e.g. 61, and a steering actuator, e.g. 62.
Regarding claim 3, Ditty, e.g. Fig. 13, [0015 0263, 0347], discloses a neural network classifies a sensor as being in a normal state or an abnormal state on the basis of sensor output, an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and extraordinary operations of the vehicle, a sensor or sub-system comprises a fault operable braking system, e.g. 61A, steering system, e.g. 62A, and the braking system, e.g. 61A, or the steering system, e.g. 62A, is capable of exchanging data with the SoC, e.g. 100.
Regarding claim 4, Ditty, e.g. Fig. 13, [0015, 0347], discloses a neural network classifies a sensor as being in a normal state or an abnormal state on the basis of sensor output, and an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions and extraordinary operations of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, discloses, e.g. Fig. 13, [0263], a fault operable braking system, e.g. 61A, steering system, e.g. 62A, and the braking system, e.g. 61A, or the steering system, e.g. 62A, is capable of exchanging data with the SoC, e.g. 100.
Regarding claim 6, Ditty discloses, e.g. [0015, 0347, 0731], where a neural network classifies a sensor as being in a normal state or an abnormal state on
the basis of sensor output, and an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions and extraordinary operations of the vehicle, and is provided with a plurality of sensors installed at various positions.
Regarding claim 7, Ditty discloses, e.g. Figs. 28, [0015, 0358], a plurality of hardware CPU cores, e.g. 4006, a hypervisor, e.g. 4008, and an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and extraordinary operations of
the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Ditty discloses, e.g. [0015], where the
autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and
extraordinary operations of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ditty discloses, e.g. Figs. 4, 27, [0122, 0283, 0335- 0337] where each processor independently processes sensor data, and independently provides actuation information and control signals used to control actuators, a controller, e.g. 100, transmits actuation signals to a braking actuator, e.g. 61, and a steering actuator, e.g. 62, a sensor has the safety level ASIL-B, and an ADAS SoC, e.g. 201, that implements ADAS functionality such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) has the safety level ASIL-B or ASIL-D
Regarding claim 13, Ditty discloses, e.g. Fig. 4, 27 [0122, 0269, 033536], and [0336], controller SoC, e.g. 100, is provided with a plurality of hardware accelerators, e.g. 401, 402, to enhance functional safety through redundant operation, an SoC, e.g. 201, implements ADAS functionality such as automatic
emergency braking (AEB), and a controller, e.g. 100, transmits actuation signals to a braking actuator, e.g. 61, and a steering actuator, e.g. 62.
Regarding claim 14, Ditty discloses, e.g. Fig. 13, [0015, 0263, 0347], a neural network classifies a sensor as being in a normal state or an abnormal state on
the basis of sensor output, an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and extraordinary operations of the vehicle, and a sensor or sub-system comprises a fault operable braking system, e.g. 61A, or steering system, e.g. 62A.
Regarding claim 15, Ditty discloses, e.g. [0452], a failed process or component cannot be restored within a certain safety time interval, the failed process or component is disconnected from a vehicle bus.
Regarding claim 16, Ditty discloses, e.g., Figs. 13, 27, 29, [0251, 0263, 0335-37, 0384], where the SoC, e.g. 100, that exchanges data with a sensor or sub-system, being characterized by receiving data from the sensor or sub-system, implementing ADAS functionality on the basis of the received data, and comprising a CPU (200), which executes a plurality of applications on a virtual machine, e.g. 4002.
Ditty does not use the claim language where a processor controls operation in a degradation mode upon receiving performance degradation information or
degradation mode entry information from a zone signal processing device.
However, to view Ditty’s sensor as being in a normal state or an abnormal state on the basis of sensor output, and an SoC, e.g. 100, connected to a sensor or sub-system comprising a fault operable braking system, e.g. 61A, or steering system e.g. 62A, is deemed an obvious variant of similar terms achieving the same objective and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Ditty, e.g. Fig 13, [0263, 0347], neural network classifies a sensor as being in a normal state or an abnormal state on the basis of sensor output, and an SoC, e.g. 100, connected to a sensor or sub-system comprising a fault operable
braking system, e.g. 61A, or steering system, e.g. 62A
Regarding claim 18, Ditty, Fig. 28 [0015-0358], hardware CPU cores, e.g. 4006, execute a hypervisor, e.g. 4008, and a plurality of virtual machines, e.g. 4002, on the hypervisor, e.g. 4008, and an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and extraordinary operations of the vehicle
Regarding claim 20, Ditty discloses, e.g. Figs. 4, 13, [0124-25, 0251, 0263], a vehicular display device comprising: an HMI display, e.g. 86, a sensor or sub-system capable of exchanging data with an SoC/controller, e.g. 100, capable of outputting an image signal to the HMI display, e.g. 86, on the basis of data of the sensor or sub-system. Though Ditty does not use the the term zone signal processing device of claim 20, the features noted above with regards to claims 1 and 16 are applicable, as there is no discernable difference.
9. Claims 8, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditty et al., US 2019/0258251 in view Goto, US 2022/0171611
Goto discloses, e.g. Fig. 9, [0136-37, 0166]. and related text, a plurality of ECUs, e.g. 10, 20, applications, e.g. 1402-1602, 2302, corresponding to different safety integrity levels through a plurality of virtual machines, e.g. 140-160, 230.
Regarding claims 8, Ditty discloses, e.g. Figs. 9, 13, 29, [0136-37, 0166, 0251, 0263, 0384], data of a sensor or sub-system is transmitted to an SoC, e.g. 100, a plurality of applications are executed on a virtual machine, e.g. 4002,
Regarding claim 9, Ditty, e.g. Fig 28, [0015, 0358], discloses plurality of hardware CPU cores, e.g. 4006, executing a hypervisor, e.g. 4008, and an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and extraordinary operations of the vehicle.
To have provided Ditty to provide different safety integrity levels through a plurality of virtual machines, e.g. 140-160, 230, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Gott. The motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe system/method for encountering safely emergency safety situations.
Regarding Claim 19, Ditty, e.g. [0015], an autonomous vehicle may identify, manage, and mitigate faults, malfunctions, and extraordinary operations of the vehicle.
To have provided Ditty to provide different safety integrity levels through a plurality of virtual machines, e.g. 140-160, 230, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Gott. The motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe system/method for encountering safely emergency safety situations.
10. Pertinent references of interest are noted on the attached PTO-892.
11. Applicant’s two Information Disclosure Statements (IDS’s) submitted April 17, 2025 ha e reviewed. Note the attached IDS’s.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789
Prosecution Insights