Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on *. Claims * are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP24179049.2, filed on 05/30/2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 is objected to for a grammatical error. Claim 4 recites “from any one or more out of:” and should not contain the word “out” in this context. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to for inconsistent formatting. Within claim 9, hyphens are used for only select degradation states rather than for all degradation states. The examiner recommends to remove the hyphens in the claim for consistency throughout the claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to for unclear sentence structure within the claim. Clam 9 recites “wherein the first degradation state and/or the second degradation state respectively is indicative of any of that an autonomous mode of the vehicle is fully functional, or indicative of any one or more out of”. The word choice of “any of that an autonomous mode of the vehicle” and “any one or more out of” causes confusion and should be updated to clarify the claimed subject matter. The examiner suggests updating the claim to recite “wherein the first degradation state and/or the second degradation state respectively is indicative that the autonomous mode of the vehicle is fully functional, or indicative of one or more of:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 is rejected to for indefiniteness. Claim 5 recites “preferably relating to a towing status of towed vehicle units of the vehicle”, which does not limit the scope of the claim to the towing status of the towed vehicle. The examiner recommends to omit “preferably” from the claim to further narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a product without structure, otherwise known as a software per se claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN 115489546 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to handle an autonomous vehicle configured in a first degradation state ([n0001]; “This invention relates to the field of autonomous driving technology, and in particular to a method, apparatus, electronic device, and computer storage medium for degrading autonomous driving functions.”
[n0040]; “The fault types are classified into five levels: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5. The higher the fault type level, the lower the corresponding safety level.”), wherein the first degradation state controls a functionality limitation of the vehicle ([n0058]; “S230, when the fault type is a level 1 fault and the safety level is level 0, obtain the downgrade strategy corresponding to the level 0 safety level and perform the downgrade process.”), the processing circuitry being configured to: detect a need for the vehicle to transition from the first degradation state to a second degradation state, the second degradation state being indicative of an updated functionality limitation of the vehicle ([n0036]; “S120 determines the type of vehicle malfunction and the corresponding safety level based on vehicle operating parameters when a malfunction occurs.” [n0061]; “In an embodiment of the present invention, when the vehicle fault type is determined to be a level 2 fault and the safety level is level 1, the downgrade strategy corresponding to the level 1 safety level is obtained and downgraded, that is, the adaptive cruise control (ACC) function is automatically activated, the highway pilot assist (PILOT) function is activated, and the lane change function is restricted.”),
based on a predefined model, determine whether the vehicle can safely transition from the first degradation state to the second degradation state ([n0066]; “In an embodiment of the present invention, when the vehicle fault type is determined to be a level 5 fault, where a level 5 fault indicates a minor fault and the safety level is level 4”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the conditions of a level 2 is not met then the current conditions would be at a different level, causing the system to degrade to a different level, such as level 4), and
upon determining that the vehicle cannot safely transition from the first degradation state to the second degradation state, trigger a safety action. ([n0066]; “… the downgrade strategy corresponding to the level 4 safety level is obtained and downgraded, that is, the automatic emergency braking (AEB) function and the infrared remote control (RCU) function are activated.”)
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jiang discloses the processing circuitry is configured to:
obtain information of one or more faults or errors in the vehicle ([n0055]; “In other words, by obtaining the vehicle's operating parameters, it is possible to determine whether the vehicle has malfunctioned.”
[n0056]; “For example, based on vehicle operating parameters, it can be determined whether the vehicle operating parameters are fault data.”), and
determine whether the vehicle can safely transition from the first degradation state to the second degradation state based on the obtained information of the one or more faults or errors in the vehicle. ([n0066]; “In an embodiment of the present invention, when the vehicle fault type is determined to be a level 5 fault, where a level 5 fault indicates a minor fault and the safety level is level 4”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the conditions of a level 2 is not met then the current conditions would be at a different level, causing the system to degrade to a different level, such as level 4)
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jiang discloses the processing circuitry is configured to:
obtain information of one or more faults or errors in the vehicle ([n0055]; “In other words, by obtaining the vehicle's operating parameters, it is possible to determine whether the vehicle has malfunctioned.”
[n0056]; “For example, based on vehicle operating parameters, it can be determined whether the vehicle operating parameters are fault data.”), and
determine the safety action based on the obtained information of the one or more faults or errors in the vehicle. ([n0066]; “… the downgrade strategy corresponding to the level 4 safety level is obtained and downgraded, that is, the automatic emergency braking (AEB) function and the infrared remote control (RCU) function are activated.”)
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Jiang discloses the processing circuitry is configured to
obtain information of the one or more faults or errors in the vehicle by obtaining information of one or more faults or errors from any one or more out of:
a perception layer of a control system of the vehicle,
a control layer of the control system of the vehicle,
an actuation layer of the control system of the vehicle, or
a combination thereof. ([n0034]; “In embodiments of the present invention, vehicle data can be acquired in real time via a terminal device.”
[n0035]; “These sensors include, but are not limited to, wheel speed sensors, air flow meter sensors, water temperature sensors, speed sensors, crankshaft position sensors, camshaft position sensors, and accelerator pedal position sensors.”)
Regarding claim 5, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Jiang discloses the perception layer relates to a functionality of predicting or estimating environment and/or internal status of the vehicle, preferably relating to a towing status of towed vehicle units of the vehicle. ([n0035]; “These sensors include, but are not limited to, wheel speed sensors, air flow meter sensors, water temperature sensors”)
Regarding claim 6, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Jiang discloses the control layer relates to a functionality of controlling a vehicle motion of the vehicle. ([n0035]; “These sensors include, but are not limited to… speed sensors.”)
Regarding claim 7, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Jiang discloses the actuation layer relates to a functionality of actuating actuators of the vehicle. ([n0035]; “These sensors include, but are not limited to… crankshaft position sensors, camshaft position sensors, and accelerator pedal position sensors.”)
Regarding claim 8, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jiang discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine the safety action based on predefined heuristics for the transition from the first degradation state to the second degradation state. ([n0064]; “the downgrade strategy corresponding to the level three safety level is obtained and downgraded, that is, the adaptive cruise control (ACC) function is automatically activated and the longitudinal control of the vehicle is maintained.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the safety actions performed when a transition from the first degradation state to the second state would not be appropriate would be equivalent to transitioning from safety levels 1-2 to safety levels 3 or 4 as disclosed by Jiang. These perform less automative actions as compared to safety levels 1, being equivalent to a safety action.)
Regarding claim 9, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jiang discloses the first degradation state and/or the second degradation state respectively is indicative of any of that an autonomous mode of the vehicle is fully functional, or indicative of any one or more out of:
an autonomous mode of the vehicle is only allowed in certain road areas,
an autonomous mode of the vehicle is only allowed when travelling off-road,
an autonomous mode of the vehicle is only allowed for a set vehicle speed range,
- an autonomous mode of the vehicle is only allowed when not attached to a trailer,
- the vehicle is in need of stopping. ([n0059]; “Level 1 fault indicates that the current fault is relatively serious and the safety level is Level 0, the downgrade strategy corresponding to the Level 0 safety level is obtained and downgraded, that is, the adaptive cruise control (ACC) function and the highway pilot assist (PILOT) function are automatically activated.”)
Claim 10 recites a vehicle comprising and/or is controlled by the computer system of claim 1. Jiang discloses a vehicle ([n0005]; “Therefore, the first objective of this invention is to propose a method for downgrading autonomous driving functions, which can perform downgrading based on different safety levels and manage the vehicle based on driver behavior parameters.”) as well as all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 11 recites a method to operate the computer system of claim 1. Therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 12 recites a method to operate the computer system of claim 8. Therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Jiang discloses obtaining information of one or more faults or errors in the vehicle ([n0055]; “In other words, by obtaining the vehicle's operating parameters, it is possible to determine whether the vehicle has malfunctioned.”
[n0056]; “For example, based on vehicle operating parameters, it can be determined whether the vehicle operating parameters are fault data.”), and one or both of:
determining whether the vehicle can safely transition from the first degradation state to the second degradation state based on the obtained information of the one or more faults or errors in the vehicle ([n0066]; “In an embodiment of the present invention, when the vehicle fault type is determined to be a level 5 fault, where a level 5 fault indicates a minor fault and the safety level is level 4”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the conditions of a level 2 is not met then the current conditions would be at a different level, causing the system to degrade to a different level, such as level 4), and
determining the safety action based on the obtained information of the one or more faults or errors in the vehicle. ([n0066]; “… the downgrade strategy corresponding to the level 4 safety level is obtained and downgraded, that is, the automatic emergency braking (AEB) function and the infrared remote control (RCU) function are activated.”)
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 11. Jiang discloses a program to perform the limitations of claim 1 ([n0020]; “To achieve the above objectives, the electronic device proposed in the third aspect of the present invention includes: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the downgrade processing method for the autonomous driving function described in the first aspect of the present invention.”). Therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 15 recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11 Jiang discloses a computer readable memory that is connected to processing circuitry which performs the limitations of claim 1 ([n0020]; “To achieve the above objectives, the electronic device proposed in the third aspect of the present invention includes: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the downgrade processing method for the autonomous driving function described in the first aspect of the present invention.”). Therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lee can be reached on (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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights