DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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.
4. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (USP 2019/0064823) in view of OH (KR-2011-0059418).
As Per Claim 1, Jiang et al. ( Jiang) teaches, a computing device associated with a select vehicle and comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the at least one processor ( via control system 20, [0014], [0016], [0019], Fig.1) configured to: retrieve data between software systems operating on vehicles ( vai control system 20), environmental conditions impacting the vehicles;( Via spatial sensor 41, “spatial environment proximal to the autonomous vehicle”, Abstract,, “Driving automation includes hardware and controllers configured to monitor the spatial environment under various driving modes to perform various driving tasks during dynamic operation. Driving automation can include, by way of non-limiting examples, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane-change warning, intervention and control, automatic parking, acceleration, braking, and the like”, [0015], [0024]); identify an adverse performance outcome associated with an interaction between at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle and at least one environmental condition impacting the select vehicle based upon the retrieved historical interaction data; cause an alert message to be displayed on a display device within the select vehicle including a remedial action; and cause the remedial action to be implemented to minimize the adverse performance outcome ([0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
However, Jiang does not explicitly teach, retrieve historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles .
Examiner interprets, “historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles” as the software malfunction of the vehicle”
In an analogous art, Ho discloses, apparatus and method for diagnosing of electronic control unit for vehicles, wherein, retrieve historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles (via an apparatus for diagnosing of electronic control unit for vehicles and detecting the malfunction of the software for the vehicle control, tracing and analyzing the reason for the malfunction of ECU, detecting malfunction of software through Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) standard, Abstract, Page 3, para 1st; Page 2, para 3rd -5th ; Page 4 2nd para –Page 6, 4th para, Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jiang and Ho before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jiang to include the teachings ( the ECU , diagnostic control unit 210 ) of HO and configure with the system of Jiang in order to
detecting software malfunction due to different spatial environmental condition, detecting trajectory error and alerting the vehicle operator of trajectory deviation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to detect malfunction of software in autonomous vehicle due to spatial environment (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safe operation of the vehicle in risky environment).
As per Claim 2, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the adverse performance outcome by comparing (a) current environmental conditions data associated with the at least one environmental condition and current software ecosystem data associated with the at least one software application to (b) the historical interaction data. (Jiang: ([0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 3, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to retrieve the current environmental conditions data and the current software ecosystem data. (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 4, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the remedial action to be implemented in response to the remedial action being identified to minimize the adverse performance outcome. (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 5, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a proposed trip for the select vehicle including a destination location and a departure time; and retrieve a set of environmental conditions data for the proposed trip based on the destination location and the departure time, the set of environmental conditions data including trip environmental conditions likely to be experienced by the select vehicle during the proposed trip. (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 6, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the select vehicle is one of an autonomous vehicle and a semi-autonomous vehicle. ( Jiang : via “Autonomous vehicle 10” [0026], [0037], [0038, Abstract, Fig.1).
As Per Claim 8, Jiang et al. (Jiang) teaches, a computer-implemented method implemented using a computing device associated with a select vehicle, the computing device including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, (via control system 20,[0032], also see [0014], [0016], [0019], Fig.1) the method comprising: retrieving data between software systems operating on vehicles (via control system 20), and environmental conditions impacting the vehicles; ( Via spatial sensor 41, “spatial environment proximal to the autonomous vehicle”, Abstract,, “Driving automation includes hardware and controllers configured to monitor the spatial environment under various driving modes to perform various driving tasks during dynamic operation. Driving automation can include, by way of non-limiting examples, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane-change warning, intervention and control, automatic parking, acceleration, braking, and the like”, [0015], [0024]); identifying an adverse performance outcome associated with an interaction between at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle and at least one environmental condition impacting the select vehicle based upon the retrieved historical interaction data; causing an alert message to be displayed on a display device within the select vehicle including a remedial action; and causing the remedial action to be implemented to minimize the adverse performance outcome. ([0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
However, Jiang does not explicitly teach, retrieve historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles .
Examiner interprets, “historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles” as the software malfunction of the vehicle”
In an analogous art, Ho discloses, apparatus and method for diagnosing of electronic control unit for vehicles, wherein, retrieve historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles (via an apparatus for diagnosing of electronic control unit for vehicles and detecting the malfunction of the software for the vehicle control, tracing and analyzing the reason for the malfunction of ECU, detecting malfunction of software through Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) standard, Abstract, Page 3, para 1st; Page 2, para 3rd -5th ; Page 4 2nd para –Page 6, 4th para, Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jiang and Ho before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jiang to include the teachings ( the ECU , diagnostic control unit 210 ) of HO and configure with the system of Jiang in order to
detecting software malfunction due to different spatial environmental condition, detecting trajectory error and alerting the vehicle operator of trajectory deviation.
Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to detect malfunction of software in autonomous vehicle due to spatial environment (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safe operation of the vehicle in risky environment).
As per Claim 9, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 8. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, identifying the adverse performance outcome by comparing (a) current environmental conditions data associated with the at least one environmental condition and current software ecosystem data associated with the at least one software application to (b) the historical interaction data (Jiang: ([0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 10, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 9.. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, retrieving the current environmental conditions data and the current software ecosystem data. (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 11, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 8. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, causing the remedial action to be implemented in response to the remedial action being identified to minimize the adverse performance outcome (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 12. Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 8. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, receiving a proposed trip for the select vehicle including a destination location and a departure time; and retrieving a set of environmental conditions data for the proposed trip based on the destination location and the departure time, the set of environmental conditions data including trip environmental conditions likely to be experienced by the select vehicle during the proposed trip (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 13, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 8. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the select vehicle is one of an autonomous vehicle and a semi-autonomous vehicle ( Jiang : “Autonomous vehicle 10” [0026], [0037], [0038, Abstract, Fig.1).
As Per Claim 15, Jiang et al. ( Jiang) teaches, at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computing device associated with a select vehicle, ( via control system 20, [0032], also see [0014], [0016], [0019], Fig.1) the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to: retrieve data between software systems operating on vehicles (via control system 20), and environmental conditions impacting the vehicles; (via spatial sensor 41, “spatial environment proximal to the autonomous vehicle”, Abstract,, “Driving automation includes hardware and controllers configured to monitor the spatial environment under various driving modes to perform various driving tasks during dynamic operation. Driving automation can include, by way of non-limiting examples, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane-change warning, intervention and control, automatic parking, acceleration, braking, and the like”, [0015], [0024]); identify an adverse performance outcome associated with an interaction between at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle and at least one environmental condition impacting the select vehicle based upon the retrieved historical interaction data; cause an alert message to be displayed on a display device within the select vehicle including a remedial action; and cause the remedial action to be implemented to minimize the adverse performance outcome. ([0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
However, Jiang does not explicitly teach, retrieve historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles .
Examiner interprets, “historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles” as the software malfunction of the vehicle”
In an analogous art, Ho discloses, apparatus and method for diagnosing of electronic control unit for vehicles, wherein, retrieve historical interaction data between software systems operating on vehicles (via an apparatus for diagnosing of electronic control unit for vehicles and detecting the malfunction of the software for the vehicle control, tracing and analyzing the reason for the malfunction of ECU, detecting malfunction of software through Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) standard, Abstract, Page 3, para 1st; Page 2, para 3rd -5th ; Page 4 2nd para –Page 6, 4th para, Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jiang and Ho before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jiang to include the teachings ( the ECU , diagnostic control unit 210 ) of HO and configure with the system of Jiang in order to detecting software malfunction due to different spatial environmental condition, detecting trajectory error and alerting the vehicle operator of trajectory deviation.
Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to detect malfunction of software in autonomous vehicle due to spatial environment (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safe operation of the vehicle in risky environment).
As per Claim 16, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to identify the adverse performance outcome by comparing (a) current environmental conditions data associated with the at least one environmental condition and current software ecosystem data associated with the at least one software application to (b) the historical interaction data (Jiang: ([0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 17, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to cause the remedial action to be implemented in response to the remedial action being identified to minimize the adverse performance outcome (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 18, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to: receive a proposed trip for the select vehicle including a destination location and a departure time; and retrieve a set of environmental conditions data for the proposed trip based on the destination location and the departure time, the set of environmental conditions data including trip environmental conditions likely to be experienced by the select vehicle during the proposed trip (Jiang :[0077], [0075]-[0076], [0031], [0016], [0036-0039], [0063], trajectory deviating [0072-0076], ref. claim 1, Figs.1,4).
As per Claim 19, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the select vehicle is one of an autonomous vehicle and a semi- autonomous vehicle (Jiang: “autonomous vehicle 10”, [0026], [0037], [0038, Abstract, Fig.1).
5. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (USP 2019/0064823) in view of OH (KR-2011-0059418) in view of Fox (USP 2019/0034193).
As per Claim 7, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches,, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to minimize the adverse performance outcome (Jiang : Via “The VHM controller 120 can also include a fault mitigation controller and a redundant VHM master controller to verify integrity of VHM information employed by the fault mitigation controller”, [0031]).
However Jiang does not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to automatically update the at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle.
In an analogous art, Fox teaches, constructing software delta updates for vehicle ECU software and abnormality detection based on toolchain, wherein, the at least one processor is further configured to automatically update the at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle.([0010], [0030], [0032], [0060]-[0061], Fig.1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jiang and Ho and Fox before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jiang to include the teachings ( the processor 800 of server 102 ) of Fox and configure with the system of Jiang in order to generating an update package for updating software on an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in a vehicle, and thus assisting the VHM controller of Jiang to execute fault mitigation process and minimizing adverse performance of the vehicle in severe environmental condition. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to mitigate faulty condition via software update and facilitate vehicle operation (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safe operation of the vehicle in risky environment).
As per Claim 14, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 8. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, to minimize the adverse performance outcome (Jiang : via “The VHM controller 120 can also include a fault mitigation controller and a redundant VHM master controller to verify integrity of VHM information employed by the fault mitigation controller”, [0031]).
However Jiang does not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one processor is further automatically updating the at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle.
In an analogous art, Fox teaches, constructing software delta updates for vehicle ECU software and abnormality detection based on toolchain, wherein the at least one processor is further automatically updating the at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle( [0010], [0030], [0032], [0060]-[0061], Fig.1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jiang and Ho and Fox before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jiang to include the teachings ( the processor 800 of server 102 ) of Fox and configure with the system of Jiang in order to generating an update package for updating software on an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in a vehicle, and thus assisting the VHM controller of Jiang to execute fault mitigation process and minimizing adverse performance of the vehicle in severe environmental condition. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to mitigate faulty condition via software update and facilitate vehicle operation (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safe operation of the vehicle in risky environment).
As per Claim 20, Jiang as modified by Ho teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Jiang in view of Ho teaches, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to minimize the adverse performance outcome ( Jiang : Via “The VHM controller 120 can also include a fault mitigation controller and a redundant VHM master controller to verify integrity of VHM information employed by the fault mitigation controller”, [0031]).
However Jiang does not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one processor is further automatically update the at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle.
In an analogous art, Fox teaches, constructing software delta updates for vehicle ECU software and abnormality detection based on toolchain, wherein, the at least one processor is further automatically update the at least one software application currently onboard the select vehicle ( [0010], [0030], [0032], [0060]-[0061], Fig.1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jiang and Ho and Fox before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jiang to include the teachings ( the processor 800 of server 102 ) of Fox and configure with the system of Jiang in order to generating an update package for updating software on an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in a vehicle, and thus assisting the VHM controller of Jiang to execute fault mitigation process and minimizing adverse performance of the vehicle in severe environmental condition. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to mitigate faulty condition via software update and facilitate vehicle operation (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safe operation of the vehicle in risky environment).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 C
Prosecution Insights