DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 and 04/01/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the typographical error “…the first level the sensing data…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “close” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination claim 6 the term “stop close” was interpreted as “stop”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 20230294716 A1) in view of Yu (US 20210133486 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Tian teaches:
A vehicle chip, comprising:
a large computing power calculation unit, configured to perform target perception on video data of a vehicle sensor by running an automatic driving artificial intelligence algorithm on the video data, so as to obtain a first target perception result,
(Tian – [0040] “At step 420, method 400 includes receiving, by the machine learning model, a second output generated by the perception system model onboard the autonomous vehicle. For example, data filtering system 300 illustrated in FIG. 3 may receive, by the machine learning model, a second output generated by the perception system model onboard the autonomous vehicle. The second output can be based on sensor data received from sensors of the autonomous vehicle at a second time after the first time and includes an accurate perception of the environment around the autonomous vehicle.” [0047] “The sensor systems 504-508 can include different types of sensors and can be arranged about the AV 502. For instance, the sensor systems 504-508 can comprise Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), cameras (e.g., still image cameras, video cameras, etc.)…”
Examiner’s note: where the second output generated by the perception system model corresponds to the first target perception result. )
an information fusion unit, configured to run a monitoring algorithm to determine, according to sensing data of the vehicle sensor, whether the first target perception result of the large computing power calculation unit is correct, when a determination result is yes, determine a second target perception result according to the sensing data and the first target perception result, wherein… the sensing data comprises the video data or a portion of the video data.
(Tian – [0040] “The second output can be based on sensor data received from sensors of the autonomous vehicle at a second time after the first time and includes an accurate perception of the environment around the autonomous vehicle. In some embodiments, the accurate perception includes the object in the environment around the autonomous vehicle at the second time.” [0044] “At step 460, method 400 includes altering, by the machine learning model, the inaccurate perception of the environment from the first output based on the accurate perception of the environment in the second output. For example, data filtering system 300 illustrated in FIG. 3 may alter, by the machine learning model, the inaccurate perception of the environment from the first output based on the accurate perception of the environment in the second output.
Examiner’s note: wherein the altered output corresponds to the second target perception result because it is determined based on the accuracy of the second output and the sensor data, which corresponds to the first target perception result.”)
Tian does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Yu teaches:
wherein a functional security level of the large computing power calculation unit is a first level; and
wherein a function security level of the information fusion unit is a second level, and the functional security level of the second level is higher than the functional security of the first level
(Yu – [0010] “The approach presented here is based on the finding that a data fusion may be carried out at a lower level, i.e., at a signal or feature level, within the scope of an object identification in a vehicle in such a way that the object identification is carried out on the basis of an ASIL decomposition. For example, various sensor paths may be linked to one another and checked for plausibility according to ASIL B in such a way that a piece of identification information may be generated according to ASIL D.” [0057] “The approach presented here enables redundancy to be provided in an already existing fusion concept and a corresponding decomposition to be applied therein. The ASIL allocation is carried out in such a way that a lower ASIL is associated with each subsystem than the overall system, whereby the safety risk, the safety requirements, and the costs may be reduced.”
Examiner’s note: wherein the sensor data at ASIL B corresponds to the first level and the identification information at ASIL D corresponds to the second level.)
Tian and Yu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of analyzing sensor data for object identification. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian with Yu to include storing data at different security levels in order to enables a real redundancy during the data fusion while avoiding high system development costs as a result of a high ASIL classification for all hardware and software components (Yu, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Tian and Yu teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tian further teaches:
wherein
the information fusion unit is configured to perform target recognition according to the sensing data to obtain a target recognition result, and determine whether the first target perception result is correct according to the target recognition result.
(Tian – [0018] “In both FIGS. 1A and 1B, environment 100 is consistent, such that the objects 110a, 110b are actually the same object. In other words, as autonomous vehicle 102 continued navigating the roadway, autonomous vehicle 102 perceived the differently. Thus, autonomous vehicle 102 perceived either object 110a or object 110b inaccurately. While autonomous vehicles are not capable of changing the perception of the object in the moment of perceiving the object, a data processing system can analyze the perception of the object and/or track the object over time to determine an accurate perception.”)
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Tian and Yu teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tian further teaches:
wherein
the information fusion unit is further configured to preprocess video data collected by the vehicle sensor, and send the preprocessed video data to the large computing power calculation unit;
(Tian – [0031] “Perception data database 310 is configured to receive, store, and allow access to perception data received from perception sensors (e.g., sensor systems onboard an autonomous vehicle and/or sensor systems 504-508, which will be discussed in further detail below with respect to FIG. 5). In other words, the perception data in perception data database 310 can be outputs generated by a perception system model onboard an autonomous vehicle (e.g., perceptions tack 512, which will be discussed in further detail below with respect to FIG. 5). For example, an output may include perceived objects in an environment around the autonomous vehicle, such that each perceived object can have one or more labels associated therewith.”)
the large computing power calculation unit is configured to perform target perception on the preprocessed video data to obtain the first target perception result.
(Tian – [0050] “The perception stack 512 can detect and classify objects and determine their current locations, speeds, directions, and the like. In addition, the perception stack 512 can determine the free space around the AV 502 (e.g., to maintain a safe distance from other objects, change lanes, park the AV, etc.). The perception stack 512 can also identify environmental uncertainties, such as where to look for moving objects, flag areas that may be obscured or blocked from view, and so forth.”)
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Tian and Yu teach the limitations of claim 1.
Yu further teaches:
wherein
the first level is a QM level, and the second level is an ASIL-B level or an ASIL-D level.
(Yu – [0060] “Since the two fusions are independent of one another, a decomposition is now possible. One possible decomposition of ASIL D to ASIL B(D)+ASIL B(D) is shown in FIG. 4. The fusions for generating feature linkage 416 and redundant feature linkage 418 each correspond to ASIL B(D). Other combinations are also possible, for example, ASIL A(D)+ASIL C(D) or QM(D)+ASIL D(D).”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian with Yu to include storing data at different security levels in order to enables a real redundancy during the data fusion while avoiding high system development costs as a result of a high ASIL classification for all hardware and software components (Yu, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 9 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-6, 8, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 20230294716 A1) in view of Yu (US 20210133486 A1) and in further view of Wei et al. (US 20220392280 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Tian and Yu teach the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Tian and Yu does not teach the following limitations, however, Wei teaches:
wherein
the information fusion unit is further configured to perform fault monitoring on the vehicle chip to obtain a fault monitoring result;
(Wei – [0042] “Embodiments of this application provide a fault management system for functional safety of an automotive grade chip. The fault management system includes an out-of-chip system and an automotive-grade chip. The automotive-grade chip includes a fault management device. The fault management device is configured with a fault classification management model.”)
the vehicle chip further comprises:
a decision execution unit, configured to determine, according to a pre-set corresponding
relationship between a fault monitoring result and a fault priority, a target fault priority corresponding to the fault monitoring result; perform hierarchical control on the vehicle chip according to the target fault priority and the second target perception result, wherein a function security level of the decision execution unit is the second level.
(Wei – [0076] “For example, in the embodiments of this application, a level to which a fault belongs is determined in ascending order of the four levels of the fault management system, and during execution, faults are handled in ascending order. In this way, a process of handling a relatively severe fault can be accelerated, and response time for handling the fault can be shortened. It should be noted that, a classification standard of the low and high fault levels is based on the numbers listed in above Table 1, that is, a fault with the highest level is the fail correctable represented by the number 4, and a fault with the lowest level is the fail fatal represented by the number 1.”)
Wei is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring and classifying faults with a vehicle chip. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian and Yu with Wei to include a hierarchical fault management system in order to effectively detect and classify internal faults of the chip according to severity levels, such that the fault management system can provide the system with accurate fault information, and ensure that system software accurately locates and responds to various faults (Wei, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Tian, Yu, and Wei teach the limitations of claim 3.
Wei further teaches:
wherein
the decision execution unit is further configured to, when the target fault priority is a first
priority, perform interruption processing on a fault module corresponding to the vehicle chip;
(Wei – [0084] “Step S3-3: in a case where the function fault is the fail correctable, outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Correctable) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform automatic error correction by a safety mechanism of software running on the CPU or by a safety mechanism in the IP.”)
when the target fault priority is a second priority, reset a fault module corresponding to the vehicle chip;
(Wei – [0075] “According to Step S2-4, if a determining result is “yes”, determining the fault as the fail operational, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Operational) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform degradation operation by software running on the CPU; or if a determining result is “no”, determining the fault as a fail correctable, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Correctable) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform automatic error correction by a safety mechanism of software running on the CPU or by a safety mechanism in the IP.”)
when the target fault priority is a third priority, notify a peripheral circuit to perform hard reset processing on the vehicle chip;
(Wei – [0073] “According to Step 2-3, if a determining result is “yes”, determining the fault as the fail safe, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Safe) of the IP to a system controller inside the chip, to perform automatic resetting or another necessary operation to enable the system to enter a safe state or resume operation; or if a determining result is “no”, performing a next determining step (Step 2-4 shown below) according to the four-level fault classification management model (F4CM).”)
when the target fault priority is a fourth priority, notify other chips to perform fault
handling;
(Wei – [0071] “Step S2-2: determining, according to the four-level fault classification management model (F4CM), whether the faults need to be handled with assistance of an out-of-chip system after the function fault occurs on the IP; and if a determining result is “yes”, determining the fault as the fail fatal, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Fatal) of the IP to an out-of-chip system, where the out-of-chip system assists in performing resetting, powering-off, or other necessary operations; or if a determining result is “no”, performing a next determining step (Step 2-3 shown below) according to the four-level fault classification management model (F4CM).”)
the first priority is a fault that can be processed by software itself, the second priority is a fault that can be processed by hardware itself, the third priority is a fault that cannot be processed but can be restored by hardware itself, and the fourth priority is a fault that cannot be processed and cannot be restored by hardware itself.
(Wei – [0071] “Step S2-2: determining, according to the four-level fault classification management model (F4CM), whether the faults need to be handled with assistance of an out-of-chip system after the function fault occurs on the IP;” [0073] “According to Step 2-3, if a determining result is “yes”, determining the fault as the fail safe, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Safe) of the IP to a system controller inside the chip, to perform automatic resetting or another necessary operation to enable the system to enter a safe state or resume operation;” [0074] “Step 2-4, determining whether a main function of hardware inside the chip or a software system running on the chip requires degradation operation after the fault occurs.” [0075] “According to Step S2-4, if a determining result is “yes”, determining the fault as the fail operational, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Operational) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform degradation operation by software running on the CPU;” [0084] “Step S3-3: in a case where the function fault is the fail correctable, outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Correctable) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform automatic error correction by a safety mechanism of software running on the CPU or by a safety mechanism in the IP.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian and Yu with Wei to include a hierarchical fault management system in order to effectively detect and classify internal faults of the chip according to severity levels, such that the fault management system can provide the system with accurate fault information, and ensure that system software accurately locates and responds to various faults (Wei, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Tian, Yu, and Wei teach the limitations of claim 4.
Wei further teaches:
wherein
the decision execution unit is further configured to report a processor corresponding to the vehicle chip in an interruption mode, so as to perform interrupt processing by means of the processor.
(Wei – [0084] “Step S3-3: in a case where the function fault is the fail correctable, outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Correctable) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform automatic error correction by a safety mechanism of software running on the CPU or by a safety mechanism in the IP.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian and Yu with Wei to include a hierarchical fault management system in order to effectively detect and classify internal faults of the chip according to severity levels, such that the fault management system can provide the system with accurate fault information, and ensure that system software accurately locates and responds to various faults (Wei, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Tian, Yu, and Wei teach the limitations of claim 5.
Wei further teaches:
wherein
the decision execution unit is further configured to initiate a voice alarm; initiate an image alarm; control a vehicle to stop close; and/or degrade a module corresponding to the vehicle chip.
(Wei – [0074] “Step 2-4, determining whether a main function of hardware inside the chip or a software system running on the chip requires degradation operation after the fault occurs.” [0075] “According to Step S2-4, if a determining result is “yes”, determining the fault as the fail operational, and outputting information of the signal for the function fault (Fail Operational) of the IP to a processor (CPU) inside the chip, to perform degradation operation by software running on the CPU;”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian and Yu with Wei to include a hierarchical fault management system in order to effectively detect and classify internal faults of the chip according to severity levels, such that the fault management system can provide the system with accurate fault information, and ensure that system software accurately locates and responds to various faults (Wei, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Tian, Yu, and Wei teach the limitations of claim 3.
Wei further teaches:
wherein
the decision execution unit comprises a fault management module, wherein the fault management module is configured to determine, according to a pre-set corresponding relationship between a fault monitoring result and a fault priority, a target fault priority corresponding to the fault monitoring result; perform hierarchical control on the vehicle chip according to the target fault priority and the second target perception result, wherein some functions of the fault management module are realized by the information fusion unit.
(Wei – [0076] “For example, in the embodiments of this application, a level to which a fault belongs is determined in ascending order of the four levels of the fault management system, and during execution, faults are handled in ascending order. In this way, a process of handling a relatively severe fault can be accelerated, and response time for handling the fault can be shortened. It should be noted that, a classification standard of the low and high fault levels is based on the numbers listed in above Table 1, that is, a fault with the highest level is the fail correctable represented by the number 4, and a fault with the lowest level is the fail fatal represented by the number 1.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian and Yu with Wei to include a hierarchical fault management system in order to effectively detect and classify internal faults of the chip according to severity levels, such that the fault management system can provide the system with accurate fault information, and ensure that system software accurately locates and responds to various faults (Wei, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Tian, Yu, and Wei teach the limitations of claim 12.
Wei further teaches:
wherein the performing, by
the information fusion unit, fault monitoring on the vehicle chip comprises:
performing, by the information fusion unit, fault monitoring based on at least one of the following: an interface IP security mechanism, an external sensor fault code and a heartbeat mechanism.
(Wei – [0070] “Step S2-1: detecting a function fault that occurs on an IP inside a chip, that is, receiving a fault indication signal sent by at least one safety mechanism.” [0088] “For example, in at least one embodiment of this application, the fault controller is responsible for collecting fault indicated signals that are sent by IPs (IP1, . . . , and IPn) inside the chip and all safety mechanisms in the chip system, and generates fault information based on pre-configuration and according to different scenarios where the chip is applied and the fault types. The fault information corresponds to the four-level fault classification management model (F4CM) shown in FIG. 1.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian and Yu with Wei to include a hierarchical fault management system in order to effectively detect and classify internal faults of the chip according to severity levels, such that the fault management system can provide the system with accurate fault information, and ensure that system software accurately locates and responds to various faults (Wei, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 20230294716 A1), in view of Yu (US 20210133486 A1), in view of Bansal et al. (US 20180203778 A1), in view of Fukaya (US 20220194407 A1), and in further view of Cheng et al. (US 20230049671 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Tien and Yu teach the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Tien and Yu does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Bansal teaches:
wherein
the fault monitoring result comprises: a hardware monitoring result and a software monitoring result, wherein the hardware monitoring result comprises: a memory ECC fault, a dual-core lock step fault, an interface-type fault,
(Bansal – [0023] “The comparator circuit 114 of the processor 110 is connected via a bus 120 to a memory 108, an optional network interface device 118, a storage 109, an input device 122, and an output device 124. The comparator circuit 114 compares the outputs of the processing cores 112 to ensure that the processing cores 112 are operating in lockstep. If a difference is detected in the outputs of the processing cores 112, then the comparator circuit 114 reports a fault for the processor. The computing device 101 generally operates according to an operating system (not shown).”)
Bansal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of performing fault detection on a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tien and Yu with Bansal to include monitoring various vehicle systems for faults in order to avoid failure in vehicle systems that could cause harmful consequences, such as car accidents (Bansal, para. [0002]).
The combination of Tian, Yu, and Bansal does not teach the following limitation, however, Fukaya teaches:
the fault monitoring result comprises: a hardware monitoring result and a software monitoring result, wherein the hardware monitoring result comprises:
(Fukaya – [0048] “Such defects include, for example, an external sensor failure, an internal sensor failure, a failure in which the GPS receiver 4 or the communication unit 8 cannot receive information, a failure in which the driving force of the driving actuator is not exerted, a power supply failure, a brake failure, a shift failure, a tire puncture, and other defects that affect the autonomous driving system (for example, an ECU failure, a CAN failure, and the like).”)
Fukaya is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring faults in vehicle systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Tian, Yu, and Bansal with Fukaya to include monitoring different vehicle faults in order to provide a notification device that is capable of performing notification according to a situation around the vehicle (Fukaya, para. [0005]).
The combination of Tian, Yu, Bansal, and Fukaya does not teach the following limitation, however, Cheng teaches:
the fault monitoring result comprises: a hardware monitoring result and a software monitoring result, wherein the hardware monitoring result comprises:
(Cheng – [0038] “In step 240, classifying according to the fault detection signal. In some embodiments, when the vehicle system 1100 and the timing controller 1210 of the present disclosure are configured to receive the fault detection signal and enter an emergency mode, the vehicle system 1100 is configured to classify the abnormal first state of the display system 1200 so as to generate a control signal to deal with the abnormal first state and adjust the abnormal first state of the display system 1200 into a normal second state of the display system 1200 according to the fault detection signal.”)
Cheng is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring vehicle display faults. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tian, Yu, Bansal, and Fukaya with Cheng to include monitoring a display fault in order determine when a display cannot display due to a malfunction of the electrical components and avoid various emergencies that will affect driving safety (Cheng, para. [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 10 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Hovis et al. (US 20180341821 A1) discloses external sensor information and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) information are collected on a volume of space surrounding the vehicle. The sensor information and V2X information are fused to increase the fidelity of the information. The fused information is analyzed to detect, classify, and locate objects present in the volume of space surrounding the vehicle.
Chelminski (US 20230071271 A1) discloses a method for updating a vehicle when a new hardware component is installed, the method comprising detecting, using processing circuitry in the vehicle, the new hardware component, identifying, using the processing circuitry, an association between data generated by the new hardware component and at least one software component of the vehicle, and generating, using the processing circuitry, an updated interface for interpreting the data from the hardware component, wherein the updated interface converts the data provided by the hardware component into abstracted information, and wherein the updated interface provides the abstracted information to the at least one software component of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights