DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment prior to the first office action. The examiner has reviewed the amendment and determined that no new matter was submitted. As such, the preliminary amendment is being considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed on 13 August 2025 and 30 December 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority / National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/CN2022/144321, filed on 30 December 2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims is 30 December 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include reference numbers described in the description: Figure [1C]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner notes that "power apparatus" is described to provide sufficient requisite for understanding in paragraph [0175], however the terminology is being interpreted broadly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
"intelligent control apparatus" - claim 9
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding "intelligent control apparatus", paragraph [0076] provides exemplary embodiments of what may constitute the "intelligent control apparatus", but does not explicitly limit its meaning to include a particular structure. Paragraph [0081] similarly provides an embodiment where it includes a microcontroller, but this is merely exemplary. Further, the examiner notes that while claim 8 establishes the term, it does not meet all three prongs of the test outlined in MPEP 2181 since claim 8 does not modify the nonce term with functional language (such as "configured to"). If claim 8 is amended to include this terminology, claim 8 would be included in this analysis. Regarding applicability to a means plus function term, the examiner notes that the courts have upheld that, despite residing in method claims, means-plus-function terms may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f); see MPEP 2181, stating "Structural elements may appear in both product claims and process claims; thus, all claim types should be reviewed for the presence of "means-plus-function" limitations. Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006, 2021 USPQ2d 284, (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise."). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374, 116 USPQ2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term "compliance mechanism" in a method claim was a means-plus-function term)." In an effort to promote compact prosecution, the examiner notes that if a controller (a well-understood term in the art) is intended, to amend the language from "intelligent control apparatus" to "controller". A corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
ISSUE 1: Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite a component "vehicle control apparatus", however it is not clear what the component actually is. The examiner first consulted the specification for a definition of the term, however the examiner was unable to locate an explicit definition. Paragraph [0077], as an example, describes the component in a merely exemplary manner through recitation of "In this embodiment of this application, the vehicle control apparatus, for example, the vehicle control apparatus 102, may be any device having a transceiver function and a computing function." While the aforementioned excerpt attempts to define the term, it is merely exemplary and non-limiting and further does not discuss what the component is but rather what it does (having a transceiver function and a computing function). The examiner notes that this term also does not have a well-understood meaning in the art and is unsure if a controller or vehicle electronic control unit is intended. As a person having ordinary skill in the art is not provided the requisite of knowledge to understand what may or may not read upon the claimed invention, the claims lack clarity to the point of indefiniteness. Claim 12 reasonably describes the component with sufficient structure and description to allow a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed, however parent claims, by nature of dependency, are considered broader; thus, the examiner is unsure what other components/devices/etc. may read upon the language. As all independent claims (1, 13, 14) are rejected under this rationale, claims 2-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency. Claim 12 is objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim.
ISSUE 2: Claims 1 and 13-14 utilize "travel parameter" as a term, but do not disclose what the term could possibly include. The term is broad to the point of indefiniteness as it could encompass any one of an infinite number of possibilities; a gear selection may be a travel parameter, as may be a speed, a type of vehicle, a class of vehicle, a location of vehicle, a working status of a system of a vehicle, among an infinite number of other possibilities. While paragraph [0104] describes that the parameter may be a negative number, zero, or a positive number, this does not particularly limit the language as this includes every real number (to infinity). Paragraph [0145] gives a merely exemplary embodiment stating "In embodiments of this application, the travel parameter may include at least one of the following: torque, vehicle speed, wheel speed, vehicle acceleration, motor phase angle, vehicle distance, or wheel track." The aforementioned description is open-ended, merely describing one embodiment and a non-limiting list of alternatives that do not clearly convey what may or may not be included in the definition of "travel parameter". The examiner reviewed the specification but was unable to find a reasonable definition of "travel parameter" to clearly convey the metes and bounds of the claim language to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing what may or may not be reasonably included in "travel parameter". Thus, the term renders the claims indefinite. As all independent claims (1, 13, 14) recite this language and only claim 11 (dependent upon claim 1) reasonably provides a requisite of knowledge, all other dependent claims are rejected due to dependency. Thus, claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claim 11 is at least objected to in this fashion for depending upon a rejected base claim.
ISSUE 3: Claims 1 and 13-14 utilize "intelligent driving scenario", "intelligent driving low-speed scenario", and "intelligent driving non-low-speed scenario" as terminology, but do not disclose what "intelligent" reasonably means. The relative term "intelligent" prefacing an otherwise definite parameter renders the claim language indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). Put plainly, what makes a scenario intelligent versus non-intelligent? The examiner notes that paragraph [0003] of the specification appears to attempt to provide clarification, but merely states that "The intelligent driving mode includes an autonomous driving (also referred to as unmanned driving) mode, an assisted driving mode, or the like", not particularly limiting the language. In this case, what other meanings or types of driving may read upon the claim language? Ultimately, as any number of infinite possibilities reads upon the claim language, the term "intelligent" renders the claim indefinite. The examiner recommends that if the intent is to claim autonomous and semi-autonomous driving modes, that applicant amend the language to explicitly state autonomous or semi-autonomous driving modes (as these terms are known in the art) rather than "intelligent" driving modes in the case of drive modes and an analogous well-known term regarding intelligent driving scenarios, for instance. As all independent claims (1, 13, 14) recite this language and the dependent claims do not resolve the noted issue, all dependent claims are rejected as well due to dependency.
ISSUE 4: Claims 1 and 13-14 state "low-speed" and "non-low-speed" but do not provide a requisite of understanding what may be considered low speed or not low speed. The examiner consulted the specification and noted that paragraph [0155] attempts to provide an example, where a "low-speed" scenario includes a parking scenario and paragraph [0167] attempts to provide an example that highway adaptive cruise as a non-low-speed scenario. However, neither of the aforementioned examples reasonably provide the basis for understanding what constitutes "low-speed" or otherwise. For example, many people unsafely speed through parking lots, in excess of 30 mph; is this still "low-speed" despite occurring in a parking lot? Alternatively, many country highways have stop signs and stop lights, bringing the vehicle speed to zero while on a highway, or alternatively, stop-and-go traffic could exist on the highway; in this case, would this still be "non-low-speed"? Merely providing examples of working environments does not reasonably separate a scenario based upon speed, as a speed value (a quantitative value) is not provided to separate the two. While claims 2 and 15 provide a manner to differentiate the terms (above or below a speed threshold), the parent independent claims are interpreted to be more broad than the dependent claims. As all independent claims (1, 13, 14) recite this language and the dependent claims (other than the aforementioned dependent claims) do not resolve the noted issue, all other dependent claims are rejected as well due to dependency. Thus, claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); claims 2 and 15 are merely objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim.
ISSUE 5: Claims 1 and 13-14 state "manual driving normal scenario", utilizing the term "normal" (as compared to abnormal) as a term of relative degree without providing a requisite of understanding what may be normal or abnormal, falling under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b). Paragraph [0102] mentions a "normal scenario" but does not explicitly limit or define the language. As a term of relative degree is recited without a requisite of understanding to describe what may or may not be included in the set of "normal" scenarios, the term renders the claim indefinite. As all independent claims (1, 13, 14) recite this language and the dependent claims do not resolve the noted issue, all dependent claims are rejected as well due to dependency.
ISSUE 6: Claims 1 and 13-14 state "manual driving fault scenario", utilizing the phrase "fault scenario" without reasonably describing what could be considered a "fault scenario". For example, "fault" could pertain to system performance (such as a wheel speed sensor no longer receiving/providing a signal), a mismatch between a speed limit and a travel speed of the vehicle (thus, the vehicle is not faulty, but the operating speed is), crossing over a solid line (non-passing area) in the road, among an infinite number of other possibilities. Paragraph [0013, 0166] merely states that in "the manual driving fault scenario, the vehicle control apparatus cannot work normally." but does not reasonably provide further elaboration as to what may or may not be a "fault scenario". Claims 2 and 15 provide the further clarity needed to understand the claimed term, however as the independent claims are, by nature, broader than the dependent claims, it is uncertain what else could reasonably read upon the language. Thus, claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 2 and 15 are objected to for depending upon rejected base claims.
ISSUE 7: Claims 1 and 13-14 state "…sending the travel parameter to the motor…". While the examiner notes that the "travel parameter" term is indefinite (as noted above), in the case that the travel parameter is almost any of the examples from paragraph [0145] "In embodiments of this application, the travel parameter may include at least one of the following: torque, vehicle speed, wheel speed, vehicle acceleration, motor phase angle, vehicle distance, or wheel track.", the examiner is unsure how the travel parameter itself is sent to the motor. Put simply, in the event that "vehicle speed", "wheel speed", "vehicle acceleration", "vehicle distance", or "wheel track" are the "travel parameter", how does one directly send a speed to a motor? The examiner believes that "…sending [[the travel parameter]] a control command to the motor based upon the travel parameter; or" is intended and would resolve the noted issue. As all independent claims (1, 13, 14) recite this language and the dependent claims do not resolve the noted issue, all dependent claims are rejected as well due to dependency.
ISSUE 8: Claims 2 and 15 recite "intelligent driving mode" without providing the requisite for understanding what constitutes an "intelligent driving mode". Aside from the recitation of "intelligent" (falling under analogous rejection criteria as that set out in the parent claims), the examiner notes that it is unclear what constitutes a certain "mode" over another. For example, is an intelligent driving "mode" purely pertaining to manual, semi-autonomous, or autonomous? At this time, a simple cruise control may be an "intelligent driving mode", as could merely putting a vehicle into the drive gear, as could switching from a manual driving model to a fully autonomous driving mode, among any number of infinite possibilities.
ISSUE 9: Claims 2 and 15 state "in response to handshake detection with the vehicle control apparatus being abnormal or communication with the vehicle control apparatus being interrupted, determining that the current driving scenario comprises the manual driving fault scenario" conveying that a fault scenario corresponds to a hypothetical handshake/communication interrupt, but does not disclose what the communication is with. Put simply, applicant is claiming a handshake/communication, indicating that two components are in communication (or not in communication) with one another, however only one component (the vehicle control apparatus) is described; if a handshake or communication is claimed, then the claim should clearly convey what component that the vehicle control apparatus is expected to communicate with in order to provide necessary clarity.
ISSUE 10: Claims 3 and 16 state "in response to handshake detection with the vehicle control apparatus being normal…"conveying a handshake/communication between two components, but does not disclose what the communication is with. Put simply, applicant is claiming a handshake/communication, indicating that two components are in communication (or not in communication) with one another, however only one component (the vehicle control apparatus) is described; if a handshake or communication is claimed, then the claim should clearly convey what component that the vehicle control apparatus is expected to communicate with in order to provide necessary clarity.
ISSUE 11: Claims 4 and 17 state "in response to handshake detection with the vehicle control apparatus being abnormal…"conveying a handshake/communication between two components, but does not disclose what the communication is with. Put simply, applicant is claiming a handshake/communication, indicating that two components are in communication (or not in communication) with one another, however only one component (the vehicle control apparatus) is described; if a handshake or communication is claimed, then the claim should clearly convey what component that the vehicle control apparatus is expected to communicate with in order to provide necessary clarity. As claims 5 and 18 depend upon claims 4 and 17 but do not resolve the noted issues, they are rejected due to dependency.
ISSUE 12: Claims 4-5 and 17-18 all recite a "power apparatus" without providing clarity as to what this component is or does. Specification paragraph [0175] merely provides a sole example "The power apparatus may be one or more nodes included in the power CAN node in FIG. 1C"; however as the term appears to claim any device that controls, sends, receives, or pertains to power, providing one example is not sufficient to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a representative number of examples to understand what the device may or may not be. Therefore, claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rendered indefinite.
ISSUE 13: Claims 6 and 19 are generally unclear; claim 6 recites (analogous to claim 19) "wherein before sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus, the method further comprises: sending first indication information to the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the first indication information indicates to prepare to process the travel parameter." First, the parent claims recite alternative destinations to send the travel parameter, either the motor of the vehicle control apparatus, and so the claim should state "…wherein before sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus in a case that the travel parameter is sent to the vehicle control apparatus…". Second, sending an indication that "indicates to prepare to process the travel parameter" is generally unclear and confusing to the point that the examiner is unsure of the intent of the language. The examiner will consider any data transfer to an analogous "vehicle control apparatus" to read upon the language as a mere first line of code or initial low power signal indicates that processing is prepared. As claims 7 and 20 depend upon claims 6 and 19 but do not resolve the noted indefiniteness, these claims are rejected due to dependency.
ISSUE 14: Claims 7 and 20 are generally unclear regarding which components perform certain claimed functions. Put simply, independent claims 1 and 14 state that a generic component performs the sending of the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus/motor. This indicates that the generic component is the one to receive and process the information to then send it to the vehicle control apparatus/motor. If this is the case, the examiner is unsure how the component sends check information to and receives check information from the vehicle control apparatus, as the vehicle control apparatus does not prepare the travel parameter information. The claims are generally unclear as the claimed functions appear counter to what is described in parent claims.
ISSUE 15: Claim 8 utilizes the term "intelligent control apparatus", but does not disclose what "intelligent" reasonably means. The relative term "intelligent" prefacing an otherwise definite parameter renders the claim language indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). Put plainly, what makes a the device intelligent versus non-intelligent? The examiner notes that paragraph [0076] of the specification appears to attempt to provide clarification, but merely provides examples and does not particularly limit the language. In this case, what other meanings or types of control units/controllers may read upon the claim language? Ultimately, as any number of infinite possibilities reads upon the claim language, the term "intelligent" renders the claim indefinite. As claim 9 depends upon claim 8 and does not resolve the noted issue, claim 9 is also rejected due to dependency.
ISSUE 16: Claim 8 states "…and the intelligent control apparatus has all or a part of functions of the vehicle control apparatus"; the examiner notes that inclusion of "has all or a part of functions" renders the claim indefinite. As a discrete component and not a perfect duplicate, the examiner is unsure how to provide prior art that provides "all" of the functions and is unsure how a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what may constitute "all" functions when a distinct list of functions has not been given. Claim 9 does not resolve the noted issue and depends upon rejected claim 8. Thus, claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
ISSUE 17: Claim 8 states "…and the intelligent control apparatus has all or a part of functions of the vehicle control apparatus"; the examiner notes that inclusion of "has all or a part of functions" renders the claim indefinite. As a discrete component and not a perfect duplicate, the examiner is unsure how to provide prior art that provides "all" of the functions and is unsure how a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what may constitute "all" functions when a definitive list of functions has not been given. Claim 9 does not resolve the noted issue and depends upon rejected claim 8. Thus, claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
ISSUE 18: Claim 10 states "sending second indication information to the motor, wherein the second indication information indicates to collaboratively process the travel parameter." The examiner is unsure how 1) an indication can be sent to a motor and 2) how a motor (itself, not a controller) can "collaboratively process the travel parameter". The claim is generally unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
ISSUE 19: Claim 14 states "…sending the travel parameter…"; however, a travel parameter has not been obtained or initiated in claim 14 prior to this point, leading to a lack of antecedent basis. The examiner opted against mere claim objection in this case as merely changing "the travel parameter" to "a travel parameter" in the "sending…" limitation would not remedy the noted issue, as the claim would then lack clarity as to where the "travel parameter" originated. The examiner notes that including a "obtaining a travel parameter" limitation following the preamble would remedy the noted issue.
In all of the above cases, the examiner notes that the noted terms/phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 107656519 A; published 02 February 2018, English translation provided by Espacenet and attached as a PDF to this office action, hereinafter Li)
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 14: Li discloses A method, wherein the method comprises: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0072-0073, 0088-0089] and Figure [1, 3], Li discloses a method) / A vehicle-mounted device, comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is coupled to at least one memory, the memory storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (per claim 13) (Paragraph [0133-0135] and Figure [5], Li discloses a control system comprising a processor and memory, the memory housing instructions pertaining to the method, the instructions executed by the processor) / An intelligent driving vehicle, comprising a vehicle-mounted device, wherein the vehicle-mounted device comprises at least one processor, and wherein the at least one processor is coupled to at least one memory storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0076, 0133-0135] and Figure [2, 5], Li discloses a control system comprising a processor and memory, the memory housing instructions pertaining to the method, the instructions executed by the processor, the system for an electric vehicle)
obtaining a travel parameter; (per claims 1 and 13) (Paragraph [0074, 0076-0077], Li discloses receiving operation mode switching commands, various sensor data, obtaining vehicle commands such as desired acceleration, etc., all of which may be considered a “travel parameter”)
determining a current driving scenario, wherein the current driving scenario comprises an intelligent driving scenario, an intelligent driving low-speed scenario, an intelligent driving non-low-speed scenario, a manual driving normal scenario, or a manual driving fault scenario; and (per claims 1, 13, and 14) (The examiner notes that by reciting “or”, only one is necessary. Paragraph [0074, 0077], Li discloses determining a mode of operation, such as manual driving mode or autonomous driving mode (“intelligent” driving mode))
sending the travel parameter to a motor or a vehicle control apparatus based on the current driving scenario; (per claims 1, 13, and 14) (Paragraph [0076-0078], Li discloses sending vehicle commands (as one example of a “travel parameter”) based upon the mode of operation, wherein in autonomous mode of operation, the ADU sends commands to the controllers, such as the motor controller through sending of accelerator pedal commands/controlling actuators directly. In the manual mode, commands are sent to the VCU (vehicle control apparatus) for processing)
wherein sending the travel parameter to the motor or the vehicle control apparatus based on the current driving scenario comprises: in response to the current driving scenario comprising the intelligent driving scenario, the intelligent driving low-speed scenario, or the manual driving fault scenario, sending the travel parameter to the motor; or in response to the current driving scenario comprising the intelligent driving non-low-speed scenario or the manual driving normal scenario, sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus. (per claims 1, 13, and 14) (The examiner notes that by recitation of “or” that only one is necessary, however the examiner will provide reference to disclosure of both for completeness. Paragraph [0076-0078], Li discloses sending vehicle commands (as one example of a “travel parameter”) based upon the mode of operation, wherein in autonomous mode of operation (“intelligent” driving scenario), the ADU sends commands to the controllers, such as the motor controller through sending of accelerator pedal commands/controlling actuators directly. In the manual mode (manual driving “normal” scenario), commands are sent to the VCU (vehicle control apparatus) for processing)
Regarding claims 2 and 15: Parent claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein determining the current driving scenario comprises:
in response to detecting that an intelligent driving mode is enabled, determining that the current driving scenario comprises the intelligent driving scenario; or
in response to detecting that an intelligent driving mode is enabled and a vehicle speed is less than or equal to a first threshold, determining that the current driving scenario comprises the intelligent driving low-speed scenario; or
in response to detecting that an intelligent driving mode is enabled and a vehicle speed is greater than a first threshold, determining that the current driving scenario comprises the intelligent driving non-low-speed scenario; or
in response to handshake detection with the vehicle control apparatus being abnormal or communication with the vehicle control apparatus being interrupted, determining that the current driving scenario comprises the manual driving fault scenario. (per claims 2 and 15) (The examiner notes that recitation of “or” indicates that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0074, 0091, 0116-0119, 0121], Li discloses determining a mode of operation (autonomous/manual) based on a selection. In addition, Li discloses identifying fault conditions regarding communication (handshake) failure between components such as the ADU and the VCU prompting a manual driving mode (a manual driving fault scenario))
Regarding claims 3 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus comprises: in response to handshake detection with the vehicle control apparatus being normal, sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus. (per claims 3 and 16) (Paragraph [0076-0078, 0090, 0101-0104], Li discloses sending vehicle commands to the VCU based upon a communication status, performing a self-test of the units prior to passing the command)
Regarding claims 4 and 17: Parent claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus comprises: in response to handshake detection with the vehicle control apparatus being abnormal, and handshake detection between the motor or a power apparatus and the vehicle control apparatus being normal, sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus. (per claims 4 and 17) (Paragraph [0076-0078, 0090-0091, 0099, 0101-0104, 0106-0107], Li discloses determining a communication fault between the ADU and the VCU, switching from ADU control to VCU control. The VCU can perform a self-test on each component (thus a normal check) prior to sending commands to appropriate actuators)
Regarding claims 5 and 18: Parent claims 4 and 17 are anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving a detection result from the motor or the power apparatus, wherein the detection result indicates whether the handshake detection between the motor or the power apparatus and the vehicle control apparatus is normal. (per claim 5) / wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a detection result from the motor or the power apparatus, wherein the detection result indicates whether the handshake detection between the motor or the power apparatus and the vehicle control apparatus is normal. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0079, 0106], Li discloses that the VCU can perform a self-test on each component (thus a normal check) prior to sending commands to appropriate actuators (motors and power components))
Regarding claims 6 and 19: Parent claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein before sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus, the method further comprises: sending first indication information to the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the first indication information indicates to prepare to process the travel parameter. (per claim 6) / wherein before sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus, the operations further comprise: sending first indication information to the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the first indication information indicates to prepare to process the travel parameter. (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0079, 0106], Li discloses that the VCU can perform a self-test on each component (thus a normal check) prior to sending commands to appropriate actuators (motors and power components), the “self-test” reasonably constituting an “indication” of component state)
Regarding claims 7 and 20: Parent claims 6 and 19 are anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein before sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus, the method further comprises: sending first check information to the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the first check information is used to check whether preparation is completed; and receiving response information of the first check information from the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the response information indicates that preparation is completed. (per claim 7) / wherein before sending the travel parameter to the vehicle control apparatus, the operations further comprise: sending first check information to the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the first check information is used to check whether preparation is completed; and receiving response information of the first check information from the vehicle control apparatus, wherein the response information indicates that preparation is completed. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0079, 0100-0107, 0116], Li discloses that the VCU can perform a self-test on each component (thus a normal check) prior to sending commands to appropriate actuators (motors and power components))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein the method is applied to an intelligent control apparatus, the current driving scenario comprises the manual driving fault scenario, and the intelligent control apparatus has all or a part of functions of the vehicle control apparatus. (Paragraph [0076-0078, 0090-0091, 0106], Li discloses 1) a control system architecture (reasonably an “intelligent control apparatus”), 2) determination of fault criteria to trigger a manual mode, and 3) that both the ADU and VCU can perform self-tests and send control commands)
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 8 is anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein the intelligent control apparatus is configured to receive a throttle signal and a braking signal, and the intelligent control apparatus has all the functions of the vehicle control apparatus; or
the intelligent control apparatus is not configured to receive a throttle signal and a braking signal, and the intelligent control apparatus has the part of the functions of the vehicle control apparatus. (The examiner notes that recitation of “or” indicates that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0076-0078, 0090-0092, 0094, 0096, 0106], Li discloses that both the ADU and VCU can perform self-tests and send control commands (all of the functions) and that both accelerator pedal and brake pedal signals can be received by the control system)
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein the method further comprises: detecting whether a collaborative processing function of the travel parameter is enabled; and in response to the collaborative processing function being enabled, sending second indication information to the motor, wherein the second indication information indicates to collaboratively process the travel parameter. (Paragraph [0030-0031, 0038, 0127-0128], Li discloses receiving an input to switch modes, performs a self-test on both the VCU and the ADU (at least), effectively using both components for “collaborative processing” of commands)
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein the travel parameter comprises at least one of the following: torque, vehicle speed, wheel speed, vehicle acceleration, motor phase angle, or wheel track. (The examiner notes that by recitation of “or”, only one is necessary. Paragraph [0076-0077], Li discloses commands such as desired output torque and acceleration)
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Li. Li further discloses wherein the vehicle control apparatus is a vehicle control unit, a vehicle control domain controller, a hybrid power control unit, a power chassis domain controller, a mobile data center, or a multi-domain controller. (The examiner notes that by recitation of “or”, that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0077], Liu discloses at least a vehicle control unit)
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2020/0293034 A1
VEHICLE CONTROLS FOR AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLES
Shibata et al.
Filed: 13 Mar 2019
Pub: 17 Sep 2020
Discusses control of an autonomous vehicle wherein a control device is connected to the vehicle, a diagnostic routine is performed, a handshake procedure is performed between the device and the vehicle, and health is monitored. If a fault is detected, an alert is generated and the vehicle performs a control function.
2
US 2021/0061299 A1
TECHNIQUES FOR SWITCHING BETWEEN
AUTONOMOUS AND MANUAL CONTROL
FOR A MOVABLE OBJECT
Wang
Filed: 13 Nov 2020
Pub: 04 Mar 2021
Discusses a vehicle that can transition between modes of operation such as manual and autonomous modes, performing a series of handoff steps to confirm that switching is possible and confirming that switching occurs.
3
US 2020/0225930 A1
SOFTWARE UPDATE DEVICE , SOFTWARE
UPDATE METHOD , AND SOFTWARE
UPDATE SYSTEM
Teraoka et al.
Filed: 08 Sep 2017
Pub: 16 Jul 2020
Discusses a communication hierarchy between a multitude of vehicle control components wherein commands to and from engine control components utilizers status update classifiers.
4
CN 114560009 A
Control system, method and device applied to automatic driving of vehicle
Dong et al.
Filed: 18 Feb 2022
Pub: 31 May 2022
Discloses a system for controlling an autonomous vehicle with redundant control paths dictated by status (such as abnormalities).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights