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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 07/01/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figs. 1-6). See MPEP 608.02(b) ¶6.22. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 1, recites “The method of claim 6 wherein” but should recite – The method of claim 6, wherein –; claim 8 and 12 are objected for similar reasoning.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program product comprising program code (i.e., software instructions), which is explicitly defined in the MPEP 21.06.03 as being NOT directed to one of the statutory categories (software per se).
Claims 1, 4-5, 11-12 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1, 4-5 and 11-12 are directed towards a system, i.e., machine. Claims 13-15 are directed towards a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The system in claims 1, 4-5 and 11-12 (also, the method in claims 13-15, respectively) is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1 and 13, the method/system (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) estimate State of Health, SoH, of one or more control systems of the vehicle and (b) based on the estimated SoH, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can estimate a state of health of one or more control systems and based on the state of health, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the estimating or determining is being performed by processing circuitry (i.e., a computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a “computer system comprising processing circuitry”, “vehicle” and “ADS”. The vehicle and ADS do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. This computer system comprising processing circuitry is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The recitation “wherein the ADS is configured to control the motion of the vehicle when the vehicle is configured in an autonomous mode” is an intended use of the autonomous mode and not an actual use of the autonomous mode. As an intended use of the ADS, the claim does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In other words, the claim does not positively recite that the ADS is controlling the motion of the vehicle in the autonomous mode, it just says it the ADS controls the motion when in autonomous mode. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of a “processing circuitry of a computer system”, “vehicle” and “ADS”. The vehicle and ADS do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. This processing circuitry of a computer system is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The recitation “wherein the ADS is configured to control the motion of the vehicle when the vehicle is configured in an autonomous mode” is an intended use of the autonomous mode and not an actual use of the autonomous mode. As an intended use of the ADS, the claim does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In other words, the claim does not positively recite that the ADS is controlling the motion of the vehicle in the autonomous mode, it just says the ADS controls the motion when in autonomous mode. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 13 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 13 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 4-5, 11-12 and 14-15 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 4-5, 11-12 and 14-15 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 20210191393 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Zhu teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry (¶[0005]-[0006] “processor”) configured to manage a vehicle comprising an Automated Driving System, ADS (¶[0005]-[0006] “autonomous driving system”), wherein the ADS is configured to control the motion of the vehicle when the vehicle is configured in an autonomous mode (¶[0017]-[0018] “autonomous mode”), the processing circuitry further being configured to: estimate State of Health, SoH, of one or more control systems of the vehicle (¶[0005]-[0006] “evaluating a status of the autonomous driving system based on the one or more error messages”), the one or more control systems being configured to control the use of the autonomous mode (¶[0015] “driving mode controller, which is to keep the autonomous mode or switch it to a manual mode based on the level of the status information of the autonomous driving system”), based on the estimated SoH, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode (¶[0015]-[0016] “the driving mode module can switch the ADV to a manual mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a fatal condition, and keep the autonomous mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a warning condition”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the vehicle is configured in autonomous mode, and when determined that the vehicle shall not use the autonomous mode, trigger a handover procedure of control of the motion of the vehicle to an operator of the vehicle (¶[0015]-[0016] “the driving mode module can switch the ADV to a manual mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a fatal condition, and keep the autonomous mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a warning condition”; also, see ¶[0036] “manual”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu teaches the vehicle comprising an Automated Driving System, ADS (¶[0005]-[0006] “autonomous driving system”), wherein the ADS is configured to control the motion of the vehicle when the vehicle is configured in an autonomous mode (¶[0017]-[0018] “autonomous mode”), the vehicle further comprises and/or is controlled by the computer system according to claim 1 (¶[0005]-[0006] “processor”).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the vehicle according to claim 11 wherein the vehicle comprises a primary autonomous control system and a redundant autonomous control system, wherein when the vehicle is configured in the autonomous mode, the redundant autonomous control system is arranged to be used as a redundant system if the primary autonomous control system is fails; and/or wherein the vehicle comprises a driver intervention system arranged to control a switch from the autonomous mode to an operator controlled mode (¶[0015]-[0016] “the driving mode module can switch the ADV to a manual mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a fatal condition, and keep the autonomous mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a warning condition”; also, see ¶[0036] “manual”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 13 (¶[0038] “software”).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu teaches 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 13 (¶[0005] “non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20210191393 A1) in view of Nishimine et al. (US 20180065622 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when determined that the vehicle shall not use the autonomous mode and the vehicle is configured in an operator controlled mode, in response to detecting an attempt to switch to the autonomous mode, refrain from switching to the autonomous mode. However, Nishimine discloses a control device for a vehicle and teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when determined that the vehicle shall not use the autonomous mode and the vehicle is configured in an operator controlled mode, in response to detecting an attempt to switch to the autonomous mode, refrain from switching to the autonomous mode (¶[0054] “in a condition where occurrence of an emergency is determined, during manual driving, the driving controller 94 inhibits the vehicle 10 from switching to the autonomous driving mode, and keeps the vehicle 10 in the manual driving mode”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when determined that the vehicle shall not use the autonomous mode and the vehicle is configured in an operator controlled mode, in response to detecting an attempt to switch to the autonomous mode, refrain from switching to the autonomous mode, as taught by Nishimine, to provide keeping the vehicle in the manual driving mode during an emergency situation. (Nishimine at ¶[0054])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20210191393 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210347371 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control systems comprises a primary autonomous control system and a redundant autonomous control system, the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the SoH of the one or more control systems by estimating the SoH of the primary autonomous control system and/or the redundant autonomous control system, and based on the estimated SoH of the primary autonomous control system and/or the redundant autonomous control system, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode. However, Lee discloses a method and apparatus for controlling autonomous driving and teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control systems comprises a primary autonomous control system and a redundant autonomous control system (see ¶[0020] “first autonomous driving controller and an second autonomous driving controller”), the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the SoH of the one or more control systems by estimating the SoH of the primary autonomous control system and/or the redundant autonomous control system (see ¶[0020] “monitoring a system fault using the first autonomous driving controller during the autonomous driving”), and based on the estimated SoH of the primary autonomous control system and/or the redundant autonomous control system, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode (¶[0106]-[0107] “when the system fault occurs as the determination result, the apparatus 200 may switch over the control authority over autonomous driving from the first autonomous driving controller 230 to the second autonomous driving controller 240” and “apparatus 200 may output a predetermined warning alarm message for a request for transferring the control authority over autonomous driving from the system to the driver”, i.e., may output implies that it does not have to output and it depends on the system fault).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more control systems comprises a primary autonomous control system and a redundant autonomous control system, the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the SoH of the one or more control systems by estimating the SoH of the primary autonomous control system and/or the redundant autonomous control system, and based on the estimated SoH of the primary autonomous control system and/or the redundant autonomous control system, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode, as taught by Lee, to provide an autonomous driving system which is more safe and convenient. (Lee at ¶[0120])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20210191393 A1) in view of You et al. (US 20150142244 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control systems comprises a driver intervention system arranged to control a switch from the autonomous mode to an operator controlled mode (¶[0015]-[0016] “the driving mode module can switch the ADV to a manual mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a fatal condition, and keep the autonomous mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a warning condition”; also, see ¶[0036] “manual”).
Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the SoH of the one or more control systems by estimating the SoH of the driver intervention system, and based on the estimated SoH of the driver intervention system, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode. However, You discloses an apparatus and method for managing failure in an autonomous navigation system and teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the SoH of the one or more control systems by estimating the SoH of the driver intervention system (¶[0010] “monitoring, by the controller, a driver’s condition”, i.e., the driver would be a part of the driver intervention system), and based on the estimated SoH of the driver intervention system, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode (abstract “collect the failure information in the autonomous navigation system, and determine whether to switch control from the autonomous navigation vehicle to a manual driving mode based on the driver condition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the SoH of the one or more control systems by estimating the SoH of the driver intervention system, and based on the estimated SoH of the driver intervention system, determine whether or not the vehicle shall use the autonomous mode, as taught by You, to provide adaptively managing a driver's condition when a failure occurs in an autonomous navigation system. (You at ¶[0032])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20210191393 A1) in view of You et al. (US 20150142244 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210347371 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches the computer system of claim 5, wherein the driver intervention system is arranged to control the switch from the autonomous mode to the operator controlled mode (¶[0015]-[0016] “the driving mode module can switch the ADV to a manual mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a fatal condition, and keep the autonomous mode if the status information indicates the ADV is in a warning condition”; also, see ¶[0036] “manual”).
The combination of Zhu and You does not explicitly teach switch from the autonomous mode to the operator controlled mode, by receiving one or more signals issued by one or more control interfaces of the vehicle wherein the one or more signals are issued in response to the operator interacting with said one or more control interfaces. However, Lee discloses a method and apparatus for controlling autonomous driving and teaches switch from the autonomous mode to the operator controlled mode, by receiving one or more signals issued by one or more control interfaces of the vehicle wherein the one or more signals are issued in response to the operator interacting with said one or more control interfaces (¶[0106]-[0110] “take-over event may be sensed as the driver is involved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu as modified by You to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, switching from the autonomous mode to the operator controlled mode, by receiving one or more signals issued by one or more control interfaces of the vehicle wherein the one or more signals are issued in response to the operator interacting with said one or more control interfaces, as taught by Lee, to provide deactivating the autonomous driving function, when sensing the take-over event as the driver is involved. (Lee at ¶[0113])
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20210191393 A1) in view of You et al. (US 20150142244 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210347371 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Heo (US 20230305554 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhu, You and Lee does not explicitly teach the method of claim 6 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by diagnosing an ability of the driver intervention system to receive the one or more signals. However, Heo discloses a pedal control method and system for an autonomous vehicle and teaches the method of claim 6 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by diagnosing an ability of the driver intervention system to receive the one or more signals (¶[0060]-[0061] “breakdown” “pedal system”, i.e., breakdown of pedal will affect signals between pedal and autonomous controller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu as modified by You as modified by Lee to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by diagnosing an ability of the driver intervention system to receive the one or more signals, as taught by Heo, to provide to implementing the fail-safe function by utilizing the integrated safety function. (Heo at ¶[0033])
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhu, You and Lee does not explicitly teach the method of claim 6 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by detecting that the one or more signals indicate a fault associated with the one or more control interfaces. However, Heo discloses a pedal control method and system for an autonomous vehicle and teaches the method of claim 6 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by detecting that the one or more signals indicate a fault associated with the one or more control interfaces (¶[0060]-[0061] “breakdown diagnosis indicates that any one of the foldable accelerator pedal system 40 and the foldable brake pedal system 50 is broken down”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu as modified by You as modified by Lee to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by detecting that the one or more signals indicate a fault associated with the one or more control interfaces, as taught by Heo, to provide to implementing the fail-safe function by utilizing the integrated safety function. (Heo at ¶[0033])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhu, You and Lee does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 6, wherein the one or more control interfaces comprises one or more pedals and/or a steering wheel of the vehicle, and wherein receiving the one or more signals issued by one or more control interfaces comprises receiving values of one or more pedal positions of the one or more pedals and/or receiving values of a steering wheel torque. However, Heo discloses a pedal control method and system for an autonomous vehicle and teaches the computer system of claim 6, wherein the one or more control interfaces comprises one or more pedals and/or a steering wheel of the vehicle (¶[0060]-[0061] “pedal system”), and wherein receiving the one or more signals issued by one or more control interfaces comprises receiving values of one or more pedal positions of the one or more pedals and/or receiving values of a steering wheel torque (¶[0067] “breakdown diagnosis” “mechanical defects of hardware including the pedal or pad configured to be manipulated by the driver's foot”, e.g., pedal being depressed by driver; also, see at least ¶[0080] “input value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu as modified by You as modified by Lee to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more control interfaces comprises one or more pedals and/or a steering wheel of the vehicle, and wherein receiving the one or more signals issued by one or more control interfaces comprises receiving values of one or more pedal positions of the one or more pedals and/or receiving values of a steering wheel torque, as taught by Heo, to provide to implementing the fail-safe function by utilizing the integrated safety function. (Heo at ¶[0033])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhu, You and Lee does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by being configured to detect whether or not the one or more pedal positions and/or the steering wheel torque comply with predefined heuristics. However, Heo discloses a pedal control method and system for an autonomous vehicle and teaches the computer system of claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by being configured to detect whether or not the one or more pedal positions and/or the steering wheel torque comply with predefined heuristics (¶[0080] “when the stroke of the foldable accelerator pedal currently manipulated by the driver is less than the input value of the pedal stroke corresponding to the current vehicle speed, the control logic of the present disclosure goes back to step S12 of allowing the autonomous vehicle to keep traveling continuously and constantly at the determined travelling safety speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the automatic driving safety interaction system of Zhu as modified by You as modified by Lee to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the SoH of the driver intervention system by being configured to detect whether or not the one or more pedal positions and/or the steering wheel torque comply with predefined heuristics, as taught by Heo, to provide to implementing the fail-safe function by utilizing the integrated safety function. (Heo at ¶[0033])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ko (US 20240051578 A1) is pertinent because it is a apparatus for controlling a vehicle which includes a first controller configured to perform control for safety of a vehicle and a second controller configured to mainly perform determination and control of autonomous driving of the vehicle.
McGregor et al. (US 20220363274 A1) is pertinent because it is a tertiary control system for steering, braking, and motion control systems in autonomous vehicles.
Lebarbera et al. (US 20210097786 A1) is pertinent because it is a method and product for monitoring and responding to component changes in an autonomous driving system.
Goldberg (US 10710602 B2) is pertinent because it relates to systems and methods which are directed to monitoring the status of a vehicle controller or other autonomy system during operation of an autonomous vehicle.
Miller at al. (US 20170349186 A1) is pertinent because it relates to a driver competency during autonomous handoff.
Jiang et al. (US 20190064823 A1) is pertinent because it is a method and apparatus for monitoring of an autonomous vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights