CTNF 19/198,135 CTNF 97496 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Priority The applicant’s claim to priority DE102024115982.0 on 06/07/2024 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites: “ The sensor data manager as claimed in claim 7 wherein the first data indicate that the vehicle is at a location that is associated with a signal strength of a position sensor being outside of a predetermined range; wherein the second data are data of the positioning sensor ; and wherein the processor is configured to generate an instruction to turn off the positioning sensor or to cause the data processing procedure not to consider the second data during a period in which the first data indicate that the vehicle is in a closed environment .” Wherein claim 8 establishes a position sensor; however, then refers to “ the positioning sensor ”. The Examiner believes this is merely a typographical error and will interpret “ the positioning sensor ” as “ the position sensor ” as established in the claim . Appropriate correction is required. 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 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) 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter et al. (20220155436; hereinafter Suiter) in view of Liu et al. (20210286079; hereinafter Liu) Regarding claim 1 , Salter teaches a sensor data manager for a vehicle comprising (Salter: Abstract): a processor (Salter: “ A system 106 including the computer 118, 130 ” ¶ 26), configured to: receive vehicle status data or first data from a first sensor (Salter: “ the first sensor 102, the second sensor 104, etc. provides an energy-efficient way to monitor an area in, on, or around the vehicle 100 ” ¶ 26); generate an instruction to change a setting of a second sensor or to change a data processing procedure for second data from the second sensor, based on the vehicle status data or the first data (Salter: “ The second sensor 104, which is the more energy-intensive of the sensors 102, 104, can remain powered off until an event occurs for the second sensor 104 to record, as determined by the first sensor 102 ” ¶ 26); ... However, Salter fails to teach wherein the second sensor is a sensor for use in an automated driving function; or wherein the data processing procedure is a data processing procedure for an automated driving function . In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the second sensor is a sensor for use in an automated driving function (Liu: “ The system 100 includes a mobile platform 102 (e.g., an autonomous or a semi-autonomous vehicle, including a self-driving car, a UAV, and/or other autonomously mobile device) that has a set of sensors 104a-104c ” ¶ 37, see also ¶ 38); or wherein the data processing procedure is a data processing procedure for an automated driving function. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of sensor use for automated driving functions, as taught by Liu, in order to improve sensor processing based on the surrounding environment (Liu: ¶ 70). Regarding claim 2 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein generating the instruction to change the setting of the second sensor comprises generating an instruction to change a power (Salter: “ The second sensor 104, which is the more energy-intensive of the sensors 102, 104, can remain powered off until an event occurs for the second sensor 104 to record, as determined by the first sensor 102 ” ¶ 26), a resolution, a field-of-view region, a range or a sampling frequency of the second sensor, or to cause the second sensor to enter an off mode or a standby mode. Regarding claim 3 , Salter fails to teach the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein generating the instruction to change the data processing procedure comprises generating an instruction to use an automated driving function without processing the second data . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein generating the instruction to change the data processing procedure comprises generating an instruction to use an automated driving function without processing the second data (Liu: “ The sensor interfaces 204a-204n can be configured to communicate sensor data and adjustment ... the controller 200a can include ... an autonomous maneuvering system ” ¶ 40, “ The control and data processing circuit 202 can command the sensors 104a-104n to enter active scanning mode when the vehicle is in gear, route or destination is received, and/or other indications that the vehicle is or will move ... the control and data processing circuit 202 can adjust the operating mode according to other information or indications associated with location (e.g., lower required performance ” ¶ 47, see also ¶ 50, 51). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of bypassing data processing, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce resource consumption (Liu: ¶ 41). Regarding claim 5 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein the first data represent a location (Salter: “ the CHMSL control module 118 evaluates a plurality of risk factors related to at least one of data related to a current time or data related to a location of the vehicle 100 ” ¶ 83) and/or an alignment/orientation of the vehicle; and wherein the processor is configured to generate the instruction to change the setting of the second sensor (Salter: “ determine a risk score, and the vehicle computer 130 instructs the CHMSL control module 118 to enter a low-power state ” ¶ 83) or to change the data processing procedure for second data based on the location or an alignment/orientation of the vehicle. Regarding claim 6 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein generating the instruction to change the setting of the second sensor or to change the data processing procedure based on the first data comprises: determining an area of relevance for a driving operation (Salter: “ a first sensor 102 of a vehicle 100 based on at least one of data related to a current time or data related to a location of the vehicle 100 ” ¶ 22); determining an area of relevance of the second data (Salter: “ in response to receiving data from the first sensor 102 indicating a newly present object ” ¶ 25); generating the instruction to change the setting of the second sensor or to change the data processing procedure, if an overlap between the area of relevance for the driving operation and the area of relevance for the second data is outside of a predetermined range (Salter: “ turn on a second sensor 104; and then record data from the second sensor 104 ” ¶ 25, “ the second sensor 104, etc. provides an energy-efficient way to monitor an area in, on, or around the vehicle 100 ” ¶ 26). Regarding claim 7 , Salter in view of Liu teaches The sensor data manager as claim 6 wherein the processor is further configured not to generate the instruction to change the setting of the second sensor or not to generate the instruction to change the data processing procedure, if the overlap between the area of relevance for the driving operation and the area of relevance for the second data is within the predetermined range (Salter: “ The second sensor 104, which is the more energy-intensive of the sensors 102, 104, can remain powered off until an event occurs for the second sensor 104 to record, as determined by the first sensor 102, which is the less energy-intensive of the sensors 102, 104 ” ¶ 26). Regarding claim 8 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager as claimed in claim 7 wherein the first data indicate that the vehicle is at a location that is associated with a signal strength of a position sensor being outside of a predetermined range (Salter: “ A second high-rate trigger event is the data from the GPS sensor 136 indicating that the vehicle 100 is at a location where a second message was logged ” ¶ 64); wherein the second data are data of the positioning sensor (Salter: “ the second sensor 104, etc. provides an energy-efficient way to monitor an area in, on, or around the vehicle 100 ” ¶ 26); and wherein the processor is configured to generate an instruction to turn off the positioning sensor (Salter: “ the vehicle computer 130 instructs the CHMSL control module 118 to put the LIN 120 in a low-power state. Specifically, the CHMSL control module 118 turns off the second sensor 104 ” ¶ 67) or to cause the data processing procedure not to consider the second data during a period in which the first data indicate that the vehicle is in a closed environment. Regarding claim 9 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein the first data represent a time (Salter: “ A reduction trigger event is an event chosen to indicate that the first sensor 102 should operate at the third scanning rate ” ¶ 70, “ A fourth reduction trigger event is a time of day ” ¶ 74); and wherein the processor is configured to generate an instruction to change the setting of the second sensor based on the time (Salter: “ In the low-power state, the CHMSL control module 118 sets the scanning rate at a third scanning rate that is lower than the first scanning rate in response to a reduction trigger event ” ¶ 58, “ the vehicle computer 130 instructs the CHMSL control module 118 to put the LIN 120 in a low-power state. Specifically, the CHMSL control module 118 turns off the second sensor 104 ” ¶ 67). Regarding claim 11 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein the first data represent a time (Salter “ A fourth reduction trigger event is a time of day ” ¶ 74); and wherein the processor is configured to generate an instruction to change the data processing procedure for the automated driving function based on the time (Salter: : “ A reduction trigger event is an event chosen to indicate that the first sensor 102 should operate at the third scanning rate, i.e., the lower-than-default scanning rate ” ¶ 70, “ A fourth reduction trigger event is a time of day that is during daytime. The CHMSL control module 118 can include a clock and can compare the current time to the sunrise and sunset times received from the vehicle computer 130 in the block 650. If the current time is after a sunrise time and before the next sunset time, then the fourth reduction trigger event is satisfied ” ¶ 74). Regarding claim 12 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor manager of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to determine the area of relevance of the second data by considering a location (Salter: “ A method includes selecting a scanning rate for a first sensor of a vehicle based on at least one of data related to a current time or data related to a location of the vehicle ... in response to receiving data from the first sensor indicating a newly present object, turning on a second sensor; and then recording data from the second sensor ” ¶ 24) and/ or an alignment/orientation of the vehicle on a multi-lane street, a current time, whether the field of view of a sensor is obstructed, the presence of a nearby object or obstacle, or a planned driving task. Regarding claim 13 , Salter in view of Liu teaches the sensor data manager of claim 12, wherein, when an object obstructs a long-range view from the vehicle, the processor is configured to determine the area of relevance for the driving operation to exclude an area obstructed by the object (Salter: “ Examples of reduction trigger events include ... a distance to the previously present object being greater than a first distance threshold ” ¶ 58). Regarding claim 14 , Salter fails to teach the sensor data manager of claim 13, wherein, when a likelihood of a lane change is low, the processor is configured to determine the area of relevance for the driving operation to exclude an area in a lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is traveling . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein, when a likelihood of a lane change is low, the processor is configured to determine the area of relevance for the driving operation to exclude an area in a lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is traveling (Liu: “ the controller 200 can receive context data, such as status/condition of the mobile platform 102 or a portion thereof, an upcoming or current maneuver performed by the mobile platform 102, a location or an indication/code associated with the vehicle location, an indication/code associated with a condition occurring/existing in the space surrounding the vehicle, etc. ” ¶ 67, “ the controller 200 can adjust the operating mode based on route and/or maneuver information ” ¶ 68, “ Based on the upcoming maneuver (e.g., left or right turn, a lane change, etc.) ” ¶ 69, “ Accordingly, the controller can reduce the performance level or sensitivity of less-relevant areas ” ¶ 92). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of excluding an area, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce resource consumption (Liu: ¶ 41). Regarding claim 15 , Salter fails to teach the sensor data manager of claim 1, further comprising: third data, representing an intended action of the vehicle; wherein the processor is configured to determine the area of relevance for the driving operation by excluding from the area of relevance an area that does not correspond to a predicted future location of the vehicle based on the intended action . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches third data, representing an intended action of the vehicle (Liu: “ the controller 200 can send signals based on vehicle status ” ¶ 68); wherein the processor is configured to determine the area of relevance for the driving operation by excluding from the area of relevance an area that does not correspond to a predicted future location of the vehicle based on the intended action (Liu: “ decrease performance on a second subset of sensors (e.g., rear-facing sensors) when forward-moving gears are engaged, and vice versa when rearward-moving gears are engaged ” ¶ 68). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of excluding an area, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce resource consumption (Liu: ¶ 41). Regarding claim 16 , Salter fails to teach the sensor data manager of claim 1 wherein the instruction is a first instruction, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a buffer duration based on the speed of the vehicle; determine from the first data a time at which the relevance of the second data to the vehicle will increase; generate a second instruction at a time before the buffer duration, wherein the second instruction is an instruction to change the setting of the second sensor or to change the data processing procedure for the second data . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the instruction is a first instruction, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a buffer duration based on the speed of the vehicle (Liu: “ The control and data processing circuit 202 can determine current speed ” ¶ 46); determine from the first data a time at which the relevance of the second data to the vehicle will increase (Liu: “ The control and data processing circuit 202 can command the sensors 104a-104n to enter active scanning mode when the vehicle is in gear, route or destination is received, and/or other indications that the vehicle is or will move ... can adjust the operating mode according to other information or indications ... time (e.g., lunch hour and peak commute times requiring increased performance) ” ¶ 47); generate a second instruction at a time before the buffer duration, wherein the second instruction is an instruction to change the setting of the second sensor (Liu: “ the control and data processing circuit 202 can adjust the operating mode to increase the performance as the vehicle speed increases (e.g., based on comparing the vehicle speed to speed-based triggers) ” ¶ 47, see also ¶ 68) or to change the data processing procedure for the second data. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of a speed buffer, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce resource consumption based on current speed (Liu: ¶ 41). Regarding claim 17 , Salter fails to teach the sensor data manager of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to determine the buffer duration based on the speed of the vehicle and a reaction time . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the buffer duration based on the speed of the vehicle and a reaction time (Liu: “ The control and data processing circuit 202 can determine current speed ” ¶ 46, “ the controller 200 can adjust the operating mode based on a visual signal ... a rate of change in the distance of the object that exceeds a threshold ” ¶ 71). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of a reaction buffer, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce resource consumption based on vehicle performance (Liu: ¶ 41). Regarding claim 19 , Salter in view of Liu teaches ... the sensor data manager as claimed in claim 1 (Salter: “ A computer including a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor ” ¶ 10). However, Salter fails to teach an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) or an automatic driving system (AD), comprising . In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) or an automatic driving system (AD), comprising (Liu: “ The system 100 includes a mobile platform 102 (e.g., an autonomous or a semi-autonomous vehicle, including a self-driving car, a UAV, and/or other autonomously mobile device) that has a set of sensors 104a-104c ” ¶ 37). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of an advanced driver assistance system, as taught by Liu, in order to improve sensor processing based on the surrounding environment (Liu: ¶ 70). Regarding claim 20 , Salter in view of Liu teaches a vehicle having the sensor data manager as claimed in claim 1 (Salter: “ A computer including a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor ” ¶ 10) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Liu as applied to claim s 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Nix (20170113664) . Regarding claim 4 , Salter in view of Liu fail to teach the sensor data manager of claim 1, wherein generating the instruction to change the data processing procedure comprises generating an instruction to cause an automated driving function to reduce the weight given to the second data . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nix teaches generating the instruction to change the data processing procedure comprises generating an instruction to cause an automated driving function to reduce the weight given to the second data (Nix: “ an update patch may indicate reduced reliability of a radar sensor or machine vision camera in a certain geographical area or under certain driving conditions, and thus data received in such a scenario is given lower weight ” ¶ 101). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of sensor data weighting, as taught by Nix, in order to improve sensor performance (Nix: ¶ 101) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Liu as applied to claim s 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Curtis et al. (20170088072; hereinafter Curtis) . Regarding claim 18 , Salter in view of Liu fail to teach the sensor data manager of claim 1, wherein the first sensor or the second sensor is located externally to the vehicle, such as in another vehicle or a roadside unit (RSU), and the first data or the second data are wirelessly transmitted to the vehicle . However, in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Curtis teaches wherein the first sensor or the second sensor is located externally to the vehicle, such as in another vehicle or a roadside unit (RSU), and the first data or the second data are wirelessly transmitted to the vehicle (Curtis: “ a vehicle with external sensors. In particular, the inventors have created a self-powered sensor module that is powered by a vehicle-independent power source (e.g., a battery) ” ¶ 21, “ a control center, physically connected to the vehicle power system and wirelessly connected to the remote sensor module, that monitors and triggers sensor module mode changes when needed ” ¶ 22). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle sensor system of Salter so that it also includes the element of external sensors, as taught by Curtis, in order to improve vehicle sensor modularity (Curtis: ¶ 19, 20) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 10 , Suiter in view of Liu fail to teach the sensor data manager of claim 9, wherein the time corresponds to a period of darkness, and wherein the second sensor is a sensor that requires light for operation . The closest prior art found was Nix (as presented above), which discloses of measuring of ambient light levels of the vehicle in paragraph 72. However, the ambient light levels are utilized to control vehicle lighting functions, as described in paragraph 79, and not to change the setting of the second sensor as established by claims 1 and 9. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tapia (20230314559) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of multi-sensor control . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 11 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 12 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 13 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/198,135 Page 14 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights