CTNF 19/185,592 CTNF 98711 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 recites a “computer program” without any structural recitations, which constitutes software per se. The mere recitation of a ‘computer system’ does not provide structure to the program, because the claim is not drawn to a ‘system’ but solely to the ‘computer program’ itself. Thus claim 14 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 20240101079 A1; hereinafter Yuan) in view of Anderson (US 20190049342 A1; hereinafter Anderson) . Regarding claim 1, Yuan teaches: A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive, from an autonomous drive control system, a first vehicle operation command defining a first desired operation of an autonomous vehicle; control a primary vehicle system of the autonomous vehicle to perform the first desired operation; (Yuan – [0057] “Based on the planning and control data, control module 306 controls and drives the ADV, by sending proper commands or signals to vehicle control system 111, according to a route or path defined by the planning and control data. The planning and control data include sufficient information to drive the vehicle from a first point to a second point of a route or path using appropriate vehicle settings or driving parameters (e.g., throttle, braking, steering commands) at different points in time along the path or route.” ) the secondary vehicle system being a backup of the primary vehicle system; (Yuan – [0065] “Referring to FIG. 4, ADS 110 can include a primary ADS 401, and a secondary ADS 403. In one embodiment, primary ADS 401 serves as the default ADS system for ADV 101 and secondary ADS 403 acts as a redundant system and is activated when primary ADS 401 fails.” ) receive, from the autonomous drive control system, a second vehicle operation command defining a second desired operation of the autonomous vehicle; (Yuan – [0101] “FIG. 12 is a block diagram illustrating an example of an evaluation process 1700 to activate primary or secondary system/components according to one embodiment. Evaluation process 1700 can be performed by secondary system activation module 309 of FIG. 11 to select a primary system or a secondary system (e.g., secondary ADS, secondary CDC, secondary brake unit, etc.). As shown, ADV can obtain configuration requests 1701 as the activation parameters. Configuration requests 1701 can correspond to requests to activate the primary or the secondary systems/components.” ) control the secondary vehicle system to perform the second desired operation; (Yuan – [0099] “FIG. 11 is a block diagram illustrating a secondary system activation module 309 according to one embodiment. Secondary system activation module 309 can activate secondary system(s) (e.g., the primary systems/components can be activated by default) for various redundant systems/components of ADV 101. In one embodiment, secondary system activation module 309 includes activation parameters determiner submodule 1601, algorithms selection submodule 1603, primary/secondary brake activation submodule 1605, brake pre-charge submodule 1607, and brake tracking submodule 1609, steady brake submodule 1611.” ) receive, from the autonomous drive control system, a third vehicle operation command defining a third desired operation of the autonomous vehicle; and control the primary vehicle system to perform the third desired operation. (Yuan – [0043] “While ADV 101 is moving along the route, ADS 110 may also obtain real-time traffic information from a traffic information system or server (TIS). Note that servers 103-104 may be operated by a third party entity. Alternatively, the functionalities of servers 103-104 may be integrated with ADS 110. Based on the real-time traffic information, MPOI information, and location information, as well as real-time local environment data detected or sensed by sensor system 115 (e.g., obstacles, objects, nearby vehicles), ADS 110 can plan an optimal route and drive vehicle 101, for example, via control system 111, according to the planned route to reach the specified destination safely and efficiently.” ) Yuan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Anderson teaches: send, to the autonomous drive control system, a request for testing a secondary vehicle system, (Anderson – [0149] “The method 1300 may include in 1301 initiating the testing of the ADS. The method 1300 may include in 100, in response to the initiating 1301, determining 101 an occupation state of the AGV 206. The method 1300 may include in 100, in response to determining the occupation being unoccupied, initiating 103 the testing routine.” ) receive, from the autonomous drive control system, an indication that a present traffic situation is suitable for testing the secondary vehicle system; (Anderson – [0031] “A self-driving vehicle may ensure that it would be safe to perform a test by verifying that it has no passengers and that it would not impact surrounding traffic. The vehicle may verify that it has no passengers with a variety of internal sensors such as cameras, infrared sensors and weight detection or with external sensors from other vehicles or roadside sensors. The vehicle may also require the vehicle owner's validation that it can be tested as an additional safeguard. Internal and external sensors may report traffic conditions to the vehicle to determine if it is safe to run tests, or to determine where it is safe to run tests.” ) Yuan and Anderson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of determining the condition of systems in an autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan and Anderson to include determining if the current situation is suitable for testing in order to prevent testing self-driving vehicles from interfering with other traffic and harming people (Anderson, para. [0002]). Regarding claim 2, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 1. Anderson further teaches: wherein the request for testing the secondary vehicle system comprises an indication of a predefined vehicle maneuver. (Anderson – [0052] “The DST may be a test of various types, e.g., including at least one of the following test types: a collision avoidance type, a lane keep type, an autonomous parking type, an intelligent speed adaption type, an anti-lock braking type, an overtaking maneuver type, a collision mitigation brake type, a cornering brake type, and the like.” ) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan and Anderson to include determining if the current situation is suitable for different testing maneuvers in order to prevent testing self-driving vehicles from interfering with other traffic and harming people (Anderson, para. [0002]). Regarding claim 5, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 2. Yuan further teaches: wherein: the primary vehicle system of the autonomous vehicle is a steering system; and (Yuan – [0035] “ADV 101 may further include certain common components included in ordinary vehicles, such as, an engine, wheels, steering wheel, transmission, etc., which may be controlled by vehicle control system 111 and/or ADS 110 using a variety of communication signals and/or commands, such as, for example, acceleration signals or commands, deceleration signals or commands, steering signals or commands, braking signals or commands, etc.” ) Anderson further teaches: the predefined vehicle maneuver includes steering the autonomous vehicle along a predefined path. (Anderson – [0082] “The method 500 may include testing a response of the autonomous driving system of the AGV 206 (also referred as to ADS) to the obstacle 302. For testing the response of the ADS to the obstacle 302, the AGV 206 may approach the obstacle 302, e.g., having a collision course. Just as the ADS detects an unsecure state of the AGV 206 regarding the obstacle 302, the ADS may initiate a collision mitigation maneuver, e.g., an overtaking maneuver type or a collision mitigation braking.” ) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan and Anderson to include determining if the current situation is suitable for testing in order to prevent testing self-driving vehicles from interfering with other traffic and harming people (Anderson, para. [0002]). Regarding claim 6, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 2. Yuan further teaches: wherein: the primary vehicle system of the autonomous vehicle is a braking system; and (Yuan – [0035] “ADV 101 may further include certain common components included in ordinary vehicles, such as, an engine, wheels, steering wheel, transmission, etc., which may be controlled by vehicle control system 111 and/or ADS 110 using a variety of communication signals and/or commands, such as, for example, acceleration signals or commands, deceleration signals or commands, steering signals or commands, braking signals or commands, etc.” ) Anderson further teaches: the predefined vehicle maneuver includes retarding the autonomous vehicle with a predefined deceleration. (Anderson – [0101] “The method 800, additionally or alternatively, may include testing other systems of the ADS, e.g., autonomous collision mitigation brake system and/or autonomous cornering brake control system.” ) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan and Anderson to include determining if the current situation is suitable for testing in order to prevent testing self-driving vehicles from interfering with other traffic and harming people (Anderson, para. [0002]). Regarding claim 7, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yuan further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive diagnostic data indicative of a performance of the secondary vehicle system. (Yuan – [0077] “Referring to FIGS. 6-7, ADS status determiner submodule 1101 can determine a status of primary or secondary ADS 401-403. Chassis domain status determiner submodule 1103 can determine a status of primary or secondary domain controller 411-413. The status can correspond to an associated failure level, such as F0-F4 shown in FIG. 8F.” ) Regarding claim 8, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 7. Yuan further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: send, to the autonomous drive control system, an indication of the performance of the secondary vehicle system. (Yuan – [0103] “In one embodiment, the ADV can obtain failure data 1709 as the activation parameters. Failure data 1709 can indicate which systems are failing or a duration and error level associated with a previous failure. For example, the failing data can include dashboard warning indicators, sensor errors, software errors with the control/planning systems of the ADS, CAN bus error codes, CDC error codes, and/or failure/safety level codes as shown in the example scenarios 1-51 of FIGS. 8A-8E, e.g., failure level F0/F1/F2/F3/F4.” ) Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites a system comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Yuan further teaches Regarding claim 10, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 9. Yuan further teaches: A vehicle, comprising: a primary vehicle system; a secondary vehicle system, being a backup of the primary vehicle system; and the control system of claim 9. (Yuan – [0062] “FIG. 4 is a block diagram 400 illustrating an example of redundant systems for an autonomous driving vehicle according to one embodiment. Typically, vehicle safety requires critical control systems to be designed with redundancy. For example, a vehicle autonomous driving system (ADS) can include primary and secondary ADS systems, where the secondary ADS operates in a redundancy mode.” ) 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 12, Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 13, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 11. Yuan further teaches: comprising: receiving diagnostic data indicative of a performance of the secondary vehicle system; and (Yuan – [0077] “Referring to FIGS. 6-7, ADS status determiner submodule 1101 can determine a status of primary or secondary ADS 401-403. Chassis domain status determiner submodule 1103 can determine a status of primary or secondary domain controller 411-413. The status can correspond to an associated failure level, such as F0-F4 shown in FIG. 8F.” ) sending, to the autonomous drive control system, an indication of the performance of the secondary vehicle system. (Yuan – [0103] “In one embodiment, the ADV can obtain failure data 1709 as the activation parameters. Failure data 1709 can indicate which systems are failing or a duration and error level associated with a previous failure. For example, the failing data can include dashboard warning indicators, sensor errors, software errors with the control/planning systems of the ADS, CAN bus error codes, CDC error codes, and/or failure/safety level codes as shown in the example scenarios 1-51 of FIGS. 8A-8E, e.g., failure level F0/F1/F2/F3/F4.” ) Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 recites a computer program comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Yuan further teaches A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry comprised in the computer system of claim 1, (Yuan – [0130] “Note that some or all of the components as shown and described above may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination thereof. For example, such components can be implemented as software installed and stored in a persistent storage device, which can be loaded and executed in a memory by a processor (not shown) to carry out the processes or operations described throughout this application.” ) Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Yuan further teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry comprised in the computer system of claim 1, cause the processing circuitry to perform a computer-implemented method, comprising: (Yuan – [0133] “Embodiments of the disclosure also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. Such a computer program is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium. A machine-readable medium includes any mechanism for storing information in a form readable by a machine (e.g., a computer). For example, a machine-readable (e.g., computer-readable) medium includes a machine (e.g., a computer) readable storage medium (e.g., read only memory (“ROM”), random access memory (“RAM”), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory devices).” ) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 20240101079 A1; hereinafter Yuan) in view of Anderson (US 20190049342 A1; hereinafter Anderson) and in further view of Chi et al. (US 20210048816 A1; hereinafter Chi) . Regarding claim 3, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 2. Anderson further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: evaluate the second vehicle operation command defining the second desired operation of the autonomous vehicle; and (Anderson – [0102] “According to the applied type of DST, the method 800 may include determining an autonomous driving performance parameter. For example, the autonomous driving performance parameter may include a time to full stop, e.g., for the anti-lock braking system and/or for the autonomous collision avoidance type. Additionally or alternatively, other autonomous driving performance parameters, e.g., other time parameters, may be determined, for example, the time to complete the autonomous maneuver (e.g., the overtaking maneuver) and/or time to respond to an environmental change, e.g., if the obstacle 302 is entering the testing location and/or moving through the testing location.” ) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan and Anderson to include determining if the current situation is suitable for different testing maneuvers in order to prevent testing self-driving vehicles from interfering with other traffic and harming people (Anderson, para. [0002]). The combination of Yuan and Anderson does not teach the following limitations, however, Chi teaches: control the second vehicle system to perform the second desired operation when the evaluation indicates that the second desired operation includes the predefined vehicle maneuver. (Chi – [0062] “Because of this, the third computing system 130 may generate trajectories which cause the vehicle to be controlled in order to drive at a predetermined limited speed, such as 10 miles per hour or less, to increase the likelihood of such objects being detected by functioning sensors of the vehicle and to provide the third computing system with additional time to detect and respond to these objects. In addition, as noted when driving on surface streets, the planner system 294 of the third computing system 130 may only allow or generate trajectories for certain types of maneuvers and may prohibit or limit generating trajectories for other types of maneuvers such as turns with certain types of curvature, unprotected turns, multipoint turns, etc.” ) Chi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring a back-up system of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yuan and Anderson to include prohibiting the second vehicle system from carrying out certain commands in order to allow the vehicle to be controlled safely in the event of various types of failures of a primary computing system (Chi, para. [0020]). Regarding claim 4, The combination of Yuan and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 2. Anderson further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: evaluate the second vehicle operation command defining the second desired operation of the autonomous vehicle; and (Anderson – [0102] “According to the applied type of DST, the method 800 may include determining an autonomous driving performance parameter. For example, the autonomous driving performance parameter may include a time to full stop, e.g., for the anti-lock braking system and/or for the autonomous collision avoidance type. Additionally or alternatively, other autonomous driving performance parameters, e.g., other time parameters, may be determined, for example, the time to complete the autonomous maneuver (e.g., the overtaking maneuver) and/or time to respond to an environmental change, e.g., if the obstacle 302 is entering the testing location and/or moving through the testing location.” ) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan and Anderson to include determining if the current situation is suitable for different testing maneuvers in order to prevent testing self-driving vehicles from interfering with other traffic and harming people (Anderson, para. [0002]). The combination of Yuan and Anderson does not teach the following limitations, however, Chi teaches: control the first vehicle system to perform the second desired operation when the evaluation indicates that the second desired operation fails to include the predefined vehicle maneuver. (Chi – [0006] “In another example, the third computing system is further configured to prevent the vehicle from making certain types of maneuvers which are allowed by the first computing system. In this example, the certain types of maneuvers include turns of a certain curvature.” ) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yuan and Anderson to include prohibiting the second vehicle system from carrying out certain commands in order to allow the vehicle to be controlled safely in the event of various types of failures of a primary computing system (Chi, para. [0020]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 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: Huang et al. (US 20190106115 A1) discloses receiving health management information via the ECU when the primary subsystem is actively performing the functional operation within the system and the secondary subsystem operates in a standby mode, wherein the health information is indicative of a numeric state of health (SOH) of the primary subsystem. 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 /STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 11 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 12 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 13 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 14 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 15 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 16 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/185,592 Page 17 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights